DECISION

 

ESTATE OF DOLLY PARTON v. Mark W. Larson

Claim Number: FA2609002246131

 

PARTIES

Complainant is ESTATE OF DOLLY PARTON ("Complainant"), represented by Willmore F. Holbrow of Buchalter LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Mark W. Larson ("Respondent"), California, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <dollyparton.shop>, registered with NameCheap, Inc.

 

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

 

Héctor Ariel Manoff as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on September 18, 2026; Forum received payment on September 18, 2026.

 

On September 22, 2026, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <dollyparton.shop> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, 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").

 

On September 28, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 19, 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@dollyparton.shop. Also on September 28, 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 October 20, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Héctor Ariel Manoff 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

1- Complainant represents the estate of Dolly Parton and has been using the trademark DOLLY PARTON in interstate commerce in the United States since as early as 1974, in connection with the sale of merchandise bearing her trademarks through a wide variety of retail outlets and her official website.

2- The disputed domain name includes Complainant's registered trademark DOLLY PARTON in its entirety, with the addition of the generic top-level domain ".shop".

3- The site of the disputed domain name is nearly a mirror image of the Complainant's official website and uses copyright-protected images to deceive unknowing consumers.

4- Respondent has not been authorized to sell the Complainant's products or use the DOLLY PARTON mark.

5- Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and the WHOIS information initially listed a privacy service as the registrant.

6- The disputed domain name resolves to a website that attempts to sell infringing goods, which does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods and services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.

7- The disputed domain name was registered and is used in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Dolly Parton owns trademark registration for DOLLY PARTON mark as from many years and has used it since at least 1974 and the domain name <dollyparton.com>, which are used in connection with the sale of merchandise bearing her trademarks. Respondent registered the disputed domain name in August 2026. Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith by mimicking Complainant's site.

 

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 Jurisprudential 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 has rights in the DOLLY PARTON mark through trademark registrations (Annex 3). See Red Hat, Inc. v. Muhammad Shahzad, FA 1787738 (Forum June 19, 2018) ("Registration of a mark with multiple trademark agencies is sufficient to demonstrate rights to a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)."). see also Bittrex, Inc. v. Domain Privacy Services, FA 1786849 (Forum June 15, 2018) (finding Complainant has trademark rights in the BITTREX mark through registration of the mark with the EUIPO and the USPTO).

 

Complainant also owns and advertises its goods on its website <dollyparton.com>. 

 

Since Complainant provides evidence of registration of the DOLLY PARTON mark, the Panel finds Complainant has demonstrated rights per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Complainant argues the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the DOLLY PARTON mark as it incorporates Complainant's trademark and the gTLD ".shop".

 

Panels have found that TLDs are irrelevant for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis. See Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association v. Shi Lei aka Shilei, FA 1784643 (Forum June 18, 2018) ("A TLD (whether a gTLD, sTLD or ccTLD) is disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax requires TLDs."). 

 

Given that Respondent only adds the gTLD ".shop" to the DOLLY PARTON mark, the Panel concludes the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's marks under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use the DOLLY PARTON mark. See Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) ("lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant's mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)").

 

In addition, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the <dollyparton.shop> domain name. Under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), relevant WHOIS information, among other evidence, may demonstrate that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Fred Wallace, FA 1626022 (Forum July 27, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <chevron-europe.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), as the WHOIS information named "Fred Wallace" as registrant of the disputed domain name).

 

In this case, according to the information provided, Respondent is mentioned as Mark W. Larson and Respondent has not submitted evidence on the contrary. Thus, the Panel concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

Further, Respondent has neither filed a response nor submitted evidence to prove that Respondent has any trademark rights on the disputed domain name.

 

The evidence submitted by Complainant (Annex 5) shows that Respondent's use of the disputed domain <dollyparton.shop> is not a bona fide offering of goods. Respondent's website mimics Complainant's official website and uses copyright protected images from Complainant's official website to try to sell identical goods.

 

This Panel agrees with Complainant that Respondent is not using the domain name in connection with a legitimate noncommercial use or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).

 

Therefore, the Panel agrees that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and does not have legitimate interest under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

The domain registration by Respondent was done in August 2026 and, it is more than 30 years after Complainant's registration and first use of the trademark DOLLY PARTON (Annex 3).

 

The Panel finds that the registration of the domain name was done with Complainant's marks in mind since it was registered by including the exact mark along with the gTLD ".shop".

 

In the Panel's point of view the cited facts, which were neither responded nor refuted by Respondent, are sufficient evidence to support that the registration of the domain name was registered in bad faith.

 

In addition, this Panel finds that the use of the domain name was done in bad faith too. Complainant has submitted evidence (Annex 5) to prove that the domain name is used to impersonate Complainant.

 

This Panel concludes that Respondent has registered the domain name with the intent to attract and divert Internet users to the corresponding website for its own benefit. See Carey Int'l, Inc. v. Kogan, FA 486191 (Forum July 29, 2005) ("[T]he Panel finds that Respondent is capitalizing on the confusing similarity of its domain names to benefit from the valuable goodwill that Complainant has established in its marks.").  

 

This Panel concludes that Respondent has registered the domain names with the intent to attract and divert Internet users to the corresponding websites for its own benefit.

 

The Panel determines that Respondent registered and used 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 <dollyparton.shop> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Héctor Ariel Manoff, Panelist

Dated: October 29, 2026