DECISION

 

Edgewell Personal Care Brands, LLC v. thebr eezies

Claim Number: FA2608002240756

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Edgewell Personal Care Brands, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Griffin Barnett of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is thebr eezies ("Respondent"), China.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <skintimateshop.com> (the "Disputed Domain Name"), registered with Spaceship, Inc.

 

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

 

David L. Kreider, Chartered Arbitrator (UK), as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum on August 20, 2026; Forum received payment on August 20, 2026.

 

On August 21, 2026, Spaceship, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <skintimateshop.com> domain name is registered with Spaceship, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Spaceship, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Spaceship, Inc. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").

 

Complainant submitted an Amended Complaint on August 26, 2026, following the Registrar's disclosure of the underlying registrant information.

 

On August 27, 2026, Forum served the Amended Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 16, 2026, by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@skintimateshop.com. Also on August 27, 2026, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.

 

Having received no response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On September 17, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed David L. Kreider as Panelist.

 

Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant alleges:

 

That it provides shave, grooming, sun care, and skin care products, and that its predecessors-in-interest launched the SKINTIMATE brand of shave and grooming products in 1994. Complainant operates its genuine SKINTIMATE web presence at <schick.com> and holds strong and well-known rights in the SKINTIMATE mark through decades of continuous use. Complainant owns United States and Chinese registrations for SKINTIMATE and SKINTIMATE-formative marks, including U.S. Reg. No. 1,906,256, filed December 15, 1993, with priority dating back to its first use of the mark in March 1994, decades before the Disputed Domain Name was registered.

 

That the Disputed Domain Name <skintimateshop.com>, registered on June 8, 2026, is confusingly similar to the SKINTIMATE mark because it incorporates the mark in its entirety, adding only the descriptive term "shop" and the ".com" gTLD, and because it directs to a website that uses the SKINTIMATE name and mark to promote SKINTIMATE brand products sold on Amazon and displays Complainant's genuine contact information.

 

That Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. Complainant has made prior use of the mark, the parties have never had a business relationship, Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use the SKINTIMATE mark, and the WHOIS records do not suggest that Respondent is known as "Skintimate." The website resolving from the Disputed Domain Name impersonates a genuine website of Complainant, purporting to offer SKINTIMATE products and directing consumers to purchase them on Amazon, and its terms and conditions page contains an "Affiliate Disclosure and Commission" section from which Complainant infers that Respondent collects fees through an Amazon affiliate program. Such use confers no rights or legitimate interests, and Respondent was on notice of Complainant's rights when it registered the Disputed Domain Name.

 

That Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith. The notoriety and distinctiveness of the SKINTIMATE mark and Respondent's use of the Disputed Domain Name for that website demonstrate actual knowledge of Complainant's rights and an intent to attract Internet users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the mark. Respondent has also failed to provide complete or accurate contact information: its name, "thebr eezies," does not appear to identify an actual individual, and its address, "jiagnxiaqu231hao, wuhan, hubie, 430000, CN," identifies no street or mailing address. Respondent's use of a proxy service to hide its registration information is further evidence of bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The Panel finds the following:

 

Complainant owns United States trademark registrations for the SKINTIMATE mark and for SKINTIMATE-formative marks, and two registrations for SKINTIMATE in China. The registration records in evidence include U.S. Reg. No. 1,906,256 for SKINTIMATE, filed December 15, 1993, and registered July 18, 1995, for shave gel, reciting first use in commerce on March 8, 1994; three later U.S. registrations issued in 1997, 2011, and 2020; and China Reg. Nos. 7607229 (2010) and 9529248 (2012), covering shaving preparations and razors. Each is shown as live and standing in Complainant's name, and each predates the Disputed Domain Name. Screenshots in the record show a SKINTIMATE brand page at <schick.com>. On this evidence the Panel accepts that SKINTIMATE, a coined term registered and used in the United States for more than three decades on women's shaving products, is a distinctive mark with an established reputation in that field; the record contains no sales or advertising figures, and the Panel makes no broader finding of fame.

 

The WHOIS record shows that the Disputed Domain Name was created on June 8, 2026, behind a privacy service. The Registrar's verification disclosed the registrant as "thebr eezies," at the address "jiagnxiaqu231hao, wuhan, hubie, 430000, CN," and confirmed that the language of the Registration Agreement is English. A Google Maps search of that address in the record resolves only to the 430000 postal-code area of Wuhan, and a Google web search of it returns no result; the province is misspelled, and the address names no street. The Panel finds that the registrant name does not identify a person or business and that the contact address is incomplete. Nothing in the record suggests that Respondent is commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name or by the name SKINTIMATE, and Complainant's statement that it has never authorized Respondent to use the mark stands uncontested.

 

Screenshots in the record, captured on August 19, 2026, show that the Disputed Domain Name resolves to a website (the "Respondent's Website") presented as a SKINTIMATE brand site. The masthead reads "Skintimate" over a menu of Complainant's product categories; a section headed "The Skintimate Shave Kit Everyone Keeps Buying" lists SKINTIMATE razors and shave gels by name, with photographs of the goods, each with a "Buy on Amazon" button; and a section headed "About Skintimate®" describes the brand as "a well-known American body-care and shaving brand" and states that "Today, Skintimate is part of Edgewell Personal Care, a global consumer products company that also owns brands such as Schick, Hydro Silk, and Banana Boat." None of the pages captured identifies the operator of the site or disclaims a connection with Complainant. Its footer, repeated on every page captured, gives under "Customer service" an e-mail address at the Disputed Domain Name, a street address at 290 W Mt Pleasant Ave, Livingston, NJ 07039, and the telephone number 1-800-742-8377. Complainant identifies that address and telephone number as those of its own consumer-care office, and the Panel accepts that identification on the uncontested record, noting only that the site gives Suite 3350 where the Complaint gives Suite 350.

 

The terms and conditions page of the Respondent's Website contains a section headed "Affiliate Disclosure and Commission," which states that "Skintimate participates in various affiliate marketing programs" and that "we may earn a commission when you click on certain links on our website and make a purchase from third-party merchants." The record shows that a "Buy on Amazon" button resolves to an <amazon.com> search results page for a SKINTIMATE shave gel, listing Complainant's products alongside shaving products sold under other brands. The Respondent's Website sells nothing itself. On the uncontested record the Panel infers that Respondent earns a commission on purchases made through those links, and that the site exists for that purpose.

 

DISCUSSION

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."

 

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:

 

1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and

2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Overview 3.1 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) ("Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint").

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Complainant's rights in the SKINTIMATE mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) rest on the United States and Chinese registrations described in the FINDINGS, the earliest of which issued in 1995. A nationally registered trademark prima facie satisfies the threshold requirement of trademark rights under the first element. See WIPO Overview 3.1, ¶ 1.2.1.

 

The Disputed Domain Name <skintimateshop.com> reproduces the SKINTIMATE mark in full as its first and dominant element and appends the word "shop." The addition does not distinguish the Disputed Domain Name from the mark: SKINTIMATE remains recognizable within the string, and "shop" describes a place where the goods sold under the mark may be bought. See WIPO Overview 3.1, ¶ 1.8; Tommy John, Inc. v. huapusjmn huapusjmn, FA 2218574 (Forum May 24, 2026) (addition of the term "shop" to the complainant's mark did not prevent a finding of confusing similarity, the mark remaining recognizable within the domain name).

 

The ".com" gTLD is a technical requirement of registration and is disregarded in the confusing similarity analysis. See WIPO Overview 3.1, ¶ 1.11.1.

 

The Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's SKINTIMATE mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name, whereupon the burden of production shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of such rights or interests. See WIPO Overview 3.1, ¶ 2.1.

 

As found above, the disclosed registrant name, "thebr eezies," bears no relation to the Disputed Domain Name, and Complainant has never authorized Respondent to use the SKINTIMATE mark. Respondent is therefore not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Novo Nordisk A/S v. aditi sharma, FA 2227366 (Forum July 9, 2026) (a registrant whose WHOIS name was an unrelated personal name, and who held no license to use the mark, was not commonly known by <ozempicplus.com>).

 

Nor does Respondent's use of the Disputed Domain Name confer rights or legitimate interests. The Respondent's Website is commercial: its terms page discloses that the site may earn commissions on purchases made through its links, and every product it presents is offered through a "Buy on Amazon" button. It is also composed to be taken for Complainant's own site, carrying Complainant's brand as its only name, speaking of the brand in the voice of its owner, and giving Complainant's consumer-care address and telephone number as its own. A domain name composed of a complainant's mark and a term describing a retail outlet for its goods carries a high risk of implied affiliation, and its use to pass the site off as the mark owner's and to draw the resulting traffic through commission-bearing links is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). That the goods promoted are, so far as the record shows, Complainant's genuine products sold by a third-party marketplace makes no difference, since the value Respondent extracts lies in the false impression that the site is Complainant's. See WIPO Overview 3.1, ¶ 2.5.1; Home Depot Product Authority, LLC v. Guo Xing, FA 2175678 (Forum Oct. 6, 2025) (no rights or legitimate interests where the respondent passed itself off as the complainant on a website featuring the complainant's marks and product images and carrying third-party advertisements from which it presumably received a commission).

 

Complainant has made out its prima facie case, and Respondent, having filed no Response, has come forward with nothing to rebut it. The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name on June 8, 2026, more than three decades after Complainant's earliest SKINTIMATE registration issued. The content of the Respondent's Website, described in the FINDINGS, shows what Respondent knew of Complainant and its brand. The Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when it registered the Disputed Domain Name and chose the name for the association it would carry. See Farallon Capital Management, L.L.C. v. Farallon Capital Asia (Hong Kong) International, FA 1579916 (Forum Oct. 21, 2014) (the respondent's efforts to pass itself off as the complainant, website included, supported a finding that it had actual knowledge of the complainant's mark).

 

On the findings above, Respondent's use is an intentional attempt to attract Internet users to the Respondent's Website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the SKINTIMATE mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website and the products promoted on it, within Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), the commercial gain being the commission earned on purchases that follow from that confusion. See A. O. Smith Corporation v. jin li / lijin, FA 2213242 (Forum Apr. 22, 2026) (use of a domain name incorporating the complainant's mark for a commercial website that trades off the goodwill of the mark for commercial gain is bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)).

 

The registration data corroborates that conclusion. As found above, Respondent registered under a name that identifies no person or business and an address that names no street; contact details of that kind, supplied for a domain name that impersonates a trademark owner, are consistent with an intent not to be reached, and the Panel treats them as a supporting indicator of bad faith. See CCL Label, Inc. v. tu he, FA 2221416 (Forum June 12, 2026) (registration with at least partially fictitious underlying registration information, together with use of the domain name for a website passing off as the complainant, indicative of bad faith registration and use). Complainant's further contention that Respondent's use of a privacy service is itself evidence of bad faith is not adopted: such services are in common lawful use, and the Panel gives the point no independent weight.

 

The Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <skintimateshop.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

                

 

David L. Kreider, Panelist

Dated: September 17, 2026