Wolverine World Wide, Inc. v. Claudia Nagel/ Delores Bell/ Karolin Fried/ Giuseppina Hoflein/ Per Arild/ Jon Arvid Kirketeig/ Paul Hagl/ Henning Grund/ Dirk Brauer/ Anthony Judd/ Dominik Vogel/ Shawn Recio/ Birgit Werfel/ Phillipp Urner/ Michael Scholz/ Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot/ Sweeney Jed/ Austerlitz Frank/ Beyer Benjamin/ Domain Admin/ Whoisprotection.cc/ Lange Marcel/ Client Care/ Web Commerce Communications Limited/ Wolfowitz Louis/ Louis Wolfowitz/ karin diederich/ Katja Elliot/ Daniel Loewe
Claim Number: FA2108001958126
Complainant is Wolverine World Wide, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Malaina J Weldy of Warner Norcross + Judd LLP, Michigan, USA. Respondent is Claudia Nagel/ Delores Bell/ Karolin Fried/ Giuseppina Hoflein/ Per Arild/ Jon Arvid Kirketeig/ Paul Hagl/ Henning Grund/ Dirk Brauer/ Anthony Judd/ Dominik Vogel/ Shawn Recio/ Birgit Werfel/ Phillipp Urner/ Michael Scholz/ Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot/ Sweeney Jed/ Austerlitz Frank/ Beyer Benjamin/ Domain Admin/ Whoisprotection.cc/ Lange Marcel/ Client Care/ Web Commerce Communications Limited/ Wolfowitz Louis/ Louis Wolfowitz/ karin diederich/ Katja Elliot/ Daniel Loewe (“Respondent”).
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <hushpuppyphilippines.com>, <hushpuppiesbelgie.com>, <hushpuppiessg.com>, <hushpuppynz.com>, <hushpuppiessouthafrica.com>, <hushpuppiesindia.com>, <kedschile.com>, <kedsshoesau.com>, <kedsshoesaustralia.com>, <keds-australia.com>, <kedssingapores.com>, <kedsshoesuk.com>, <kedsuk.com>, <teniskedmexico.com>, <kedsespana.com>, <kedsshoesnz.com>, <sauconyskonorge.com>, <sauconysouthafrica.com>, <sauconymalaysia.com>, <sauconyshoessg.com>, <sauconyfactoryau.com>, <sauconyphilippines.com>, <sauconysaleus.com>, <sauconynl.com>, <saucony-nederland.com>, <saucony-malaysia.com>, <sauconyskodk.com>, <sauconycanadasale.com>, <saucony-ireland.com>, <sauconysko-tilbud.com>, <sauconymalaysiastore.com>, <sauconyshoesindia.com>, <sperryphilippines.com>, <sperryaustraliasale.com>, <sperryindia.com>, <sperryaustralia.com>, <sperryboatshoesuk.com>, <sperrysingaporeoutlet.com>, <sperrysingapores.com>, <sperryshoessingapor.com>, <sperryshoes-singapore.com>, <sperryphilippinessale.com>, <sperrycanadaoutlet.com>, <merrellphilippinessale.com>, <merrellphilippinesoutlet.com>, <merrellshoesphilippines.com>, <merrellargentinaonline.com>, <merrellaustraliau.com>, <merrellcanadasale.com>, <merrellsandalsdublin.com>, <merrellphilippinesph.com>, <merrellshoesph.com>, <merrellindiasale.com>, <merrelluksale.com>, <merrellsingaporesg.com>, <merrellskodame.com>, <merrellwandelschoenen.com>, <merrell-belgie.com>, <merrellsandalsnz.com>, and <merrelloutletsingapore.com> (collectively “Domain Names”), registered with 1API GmbH, ALIBABA.COM SINGAPORE E-COMMERCE PRIVATE LIMITED, CNOBIN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY LIMITED, Gransy, s.r.o., Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu, MAT BAO CORPORATION, NameSilo, LLC, NETIM SARL and Web Commerce Communications Limited dba WebNic.cc. respectively.
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.
Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on August 4, 2021; the Forum received payment on August 4, 2021.
Between August 7, 2021 and August 11, 2021 each of 1API GmbH, ALIBABA.COM SINGAPORE E-COMMERCE PRIVATE LIMITED, CNOBIN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY LIMITED, Gransy, s.r.o., Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu, MAT BAO CORPORATION, NameSilo, LLC, NETIM SARL and Web Commerce Communications Limited dba WebNic.cc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <hushpuppyphilippines.com>, <hushpuppiesbelgie.com>, <hushpuppiessg.com>, <hushpuppynz.com>, <hushpuppiessouthafrica.com>, <hushpuppiesindia.com>, <kedschile.com>, <kedsshoesau.com>, <kedsshoesaustralia.com>, <keds-australia.com>, <kedssingapores.com>, <kedsshoesuk.com>, <kedsuk.com>, <teniskedmexico.com>, <kedsespana.com>, <kedsshoesnz.com>, <sauconyskonorge.com>, <sauconysouthafrica.com>, <sauconymalaysia.com>, <sauconyshoessg.com>, <sauconyfactoryau.com>, <sauconyphilippines.com>, <sauconysaleus.com>, <sauconynl.com>, <saucony-nederland.com>, <saucony-malaysia.com>, <sauconyskodk.com>, <sauconycanadasale.com>, <saucony-ireland.com>, <sauconysko-tilbud.com>, <sauconymalaysiastore.com>, <sauconyshoesindia.com>, <sperryphilippines.com>, <sperryaustraliasale.com>, <sperryindia.com>, <sperryaustralia.com>, <sperryboatshoesuk.com>, <sperrysingaporeoutlet.com>, <sperrysingapores.com>, <sperryshoessingapor.com>, <sperryshoes-singapore.com>, <sperryphilippinessale.com>, <sperrycanadaoutlet.com>, <merrellphilippinessale.com>, <merrellphilippinesoutlet.com>, <merrellshoesphilippines.com>, <merrellargentinaonline.com>, <merrellaustraliau.com>, <merrellcanadasale.com>, <merrellsandalsdublin.com>, <merrellphilippinesph.com>, <merrellshoesph.com>, <merrellindiasale.com>, <merrelluksale.com>, <merrellsingaporesg.com>, <merrellskodame.com>, <merrellwandelschoenen.com>, <merrell-belgie.com>, <merrellsandalsnz.com>, and <merrelloutletsingapore.com> domain names are registered with 1API GmbH, ALIBABA.COM SINGAPORE E-COMMERCE PRIVATE LIMITED, CNOBIN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY LIMITED, Gransy, s.r.o., Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu, MAT BAO CORPORATION, NameSilo, LLC, NETIM SARL and Web Commerce Communications Limited dba WebNic.cc. respectively and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. 1API GmbH, ALIBABA.COM SINGAPORE E-COMMERCE PRIVATE LIMITED, CNOBIN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY LIMITED, Gransy, s.r.o., Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu, MAT BAO CORPORATION, NameSilo, LLC, NETIM SARL and Web Commerce Communications Limited dba WebNic.cc. have each verified that Respondent is bound by their specific registration agreements 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 August 17, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 7, 2021 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@hushpuppyphilippines.com, postmaster@hushpuppiesbelgie.com, postmaster@hushpuppiessg.com, postmaster@hushpuppynz.com, postmaster@hushpuppiessouthafrica.com, postmaster@hushpuppiesindia.com, postmaster@kedschile.com, postmaster@kedsshoesau.com, postmaster@kedsshoesaustralia.com, postmaster@keds-australia.com, postmaster@kedssingapores.com, postmaster@kedsshoesuk.com, postmaster@kedsuk.com, postmaster@teniskedmexico.com, postmaster@kedsespana.com, postmaster@kedsshoesnz.com, postmaster@sauconyskonorge.com, postmaster@sauconysouthafrica.com, postmaster@sauconymalaysia.com, postmaster@sauconyshoessg.com, postmaster@sauconyfactoryau.com, postmaster@sauconyphilippines.com, postmaster@sauconysaleus.com, postmaster@sauconynl.com, postmaster@saucony-nederland.com, postmaster@saucony-malaysia.com, postmaster@sauconyskodk.com, postmaster@sauconycanadasale.com, postmaster@saucony-ireland.com, postmaster@sauconysko-tilbud.com, postmaster@sauconymalaysiastore.com, postmaster@sauconyshoesindia.com, postmaster@sperryphilippines.com, postmaster@sperryaustraliasale.com, postmaster@sperryindia.com, postmaster@sperryaustralia.com, postmaster@sperryboatshoesuk.com, postmaster@sperrysingaporeoutlet.com, postmaster@sperrysingapores.com, postmaster@sperryshoessingapor.com, postmaster@sperryshoes-singapore.com, postmaster@sperryphilippinessale.com, postmaster@sperrycanadaoutlet.com, postmaster@merrellphilippinessale.com, postmaster@merrellphilippinesoutlet.com, postmaster@merrellshoesphilippines.com, postmaster@merrellargentinaonline.com, postmaster@merrellaustraliau.com, postmaster@merrellcanadasale.com, postmaster@merrellsandalsdublin.com, postmaster@merrellphilippinesph.com, postmaster@merrellshoesph.com, postmaster@merrellindiasale.com, postmaster@merrelluksale.com, postmaster@merrellsingaporesg.com, postmaster@merrellskodame.com, postmaster@merrellwandelschoenen.com, postmaster@merrell-belgie.com, postmaster@merrellsandalsnz.com, postmaster@merrelloutletsingapore.com. Also on August 17, 2021, 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, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On September 10, 2021, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the 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, the Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the Domain Name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE RESPONDENTS
In the instant proceedings, Complainant has alleged that the entities which are listed as the registrants of the Domain Names are effectively controlled by the same person and/or entity, which is operating under 29 aliases. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) provides that a “complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder.”
Complainant has provided detailed evidence of the connections between each of the Domain Names and in particular that: 1) the Domain Names are all similar variants of Complainant’s trade marks containing one of Complainant’s trademarks and a combination of a geographical term and in some cases a descriptive term relating to footwear or shopping 2) 53 of the 60 domain names were registered in 2021, with several being registered on the same day 3) 16 of the 60 domain names have the same IP location 4) 12 of the 60 domain names have identical contact details 5) 54 of the Domain Names (all of the Domain Names other than <hushpuppyphilippines.com>, <kedsuk.com>, <sperryaustraliasale.com>, <merrellphilippinessale.com>, <merrellphilippinesoutlet.com>, and <merrelloutletsingapore.com>) resolve or have resolved to active websites (“Respondent’s Websites”). Many of the Respondent’s Websites are very similar to each other, featuring identical designs, templates and sharing photographs taken from the Complainant’s websites and reproducing Complainant’s logos. Even to the extent the Respondent’s Websites are distinct from one another all 54 active websites share the same unique shipping and return conditions and the same privacy policies. This evidence, in the Panel’s opinion, strongly suggests that the Domain Names are owned/controlled by a single Respondent; were the named Respondents unrelated, it would be unlikely that multiple unconnected entities would register very similar domain names over the course of a year and point them to websites created with identical templates, with identical terms and conditions operating on an identical business model.
In light of these contentions, which none of the identified Respondents deny, the Panel concludes that, on the balance of probabilities, the Domain Names are commonly owned/controlled by a single Respondent who is using multiple aliases. Hereafter the single Respondent will be referred to as “Respondent” for this Decision.
A. Complainant
Complainant and its subsidiaries are one of the world’s leading sellers of footwear. Complainant has rights in the HUSH PUPPIES, KEDS, SAUCONY, SPERRY, and MERRELL marks through its registration of the marks with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (HUSH PUPPIES – Reg. No. 663,849, registered July 1, 1958; KEDS – Reg. No. 114,848, registered Jan. 2, 1917; SAUCONY – Reg. No. 1,356,744, registered Aug. 27, 1985; SPERRY – Reg. No. 732,519, registered June 5, 1962; MERRELL – Reg. No. 1,337,440, registered May 21, 1985). Respondent’s <hushpuppyphilippines.com>, <hushpuppiesbelgie.com>, <hushpuppiessg.com>, <hushpuppynz.com>, <hushpuppiessouthafrica.com>, <hushpuppiesindia.com>, <kedschile.com>, <kedsshoesau.com>, <kedsshoesaustralia.com>, <keds-australia.com>, <kedssingapores.com>, <kedsshoesuk.com>, <kedsuk.com>, <teniskedmexico.com>, <kedsespana.com>, <kedsshoesnz.com>, <sauconyskonorge.com>, <sauconysouthafrica.com>, <sauconymalaysia.com>, <sauconyshoessg.com>, <sauconyfactoryau.com>, <sauconyphilippines.com>, <sauconysaleus.com>, <sauconynl.com>, <saucony-nederland.com>, <saucony-malaysia.com>, <sauconyskodk.com>, <sauconycanadasale.com>, <saucony-ireland.com>, <sauconysko-tilbud.com>, <sauconymalaysiastore.com>, <sauconyshoesindia.com>, <sperryphilippines.com>, <sperryaustraliasale.com>, <sperryindia.com>, <sperryaustralia.com>, <sperryboatshoesuk.com>, <sperrysingaporeoutlet.com>, <sperrysingapores.com>, <sperryshoessingapor.com>, <sperryshoes-singapore.com>, <sperryphilippinessale.com>, <sperrycanadaoutlet.com>, <merrellphilippinessale.com>, <merrellphilippinesoutlet.com>, <merrellshoesphilippines.com>, <merrellargentinaonline.com>, <merrellaustraliau.com>, <merrellcanadasale.com>, <merrellsandalsdublin.com>, <merrellphilippinesph.com>, <merrellshoesph.com>, <merrellindiasale.com>, <merrelluksale.com>, <merrellsingaporesg.com>, <merrellskodame.com>, <merrellwandelschoenen.com>, <merrell-belgie.com>, <merrellsandalsnz.com>, and <merrelloutletsingapore.com> domain names are each confusingly similar to one of Complainant’s HUSH PUPPIES, KEDS, SAUCONY, SPERRY, and MERRELL marks. Respondent incorporates one of the HUSH PUPPIES, KEDS, SAUCONY, SPERRY, and MERRELL marks in each Domain Name and adds geographic terms, along with generic words and the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interest in the Domain Names because Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Names nor did Complainant authorize Respondent to use any of the HUSH PUPPIES, KEDS, SAUCONY, SPERRY, and MERRELL marks. Respondent is not using the Domain Names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services nor for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use because Respondent impersonates Complainant for the purpose of offering goods that compete with Complainant’s footwear products. With respect to the <hushpuppyphilippines.com>, <kedsuk.com>, <sperryaustraliasale.com>, <merrellphilippinessale.com>, <merrellphilippinesoutlet.com>, and <merrelloutletsingapore.com> domain names, Respondent has not made any demonstrable preparations to use them at all.
Respondent registered and uses the Domain Names in bad faith because Respondent uses the Domain Names to pass off as Complainant in an attempt to disrupt Complainant’s business for Respondent’s own commercial gain by offering footwear in competition with Complainant at the Respondent’s Websites. With respect to the <hushpuppyphilippines.com>, <kedsuk.com>, <sperryaustraliasale.com>, <merrellphilippinessale.com>, <merrellphilippinesoutlet.com>, and <merrelloutletsingapore.com> domain names, Respondent has made no use of these domain names. Respondent acted with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the HUSH PUPPIES, KEDS, SAUCONY, SPERRY, and MERRELL marks as shown by the Respondent’s Websites, which reproduce Complainant’s logos and photos and offer competing goods.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant holds trademark rights for the HUSH PUPPIES, KEDS, SAUCONY, SPERRY, and MERRELL marks. Each of the Domain Names is confusingly similar to one of Complainant’s HUSH PUPPIES, KEDS, SAUCONY, SPERRY, and MERRELL marks. Complainant has established that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names and that Respondent registered and has used the Domain Names in bad faith.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted 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 3.0 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”).
Complainant has rights in the HUSH PUPPIES, KEDS, SAUCONY, SPERRY, and MERRELL marks under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its registration of the marks with the USPTO (e.g. HUSH PUPPIES – Reg. No. 663,849, registered July 1, 1958; KEDS – Reg. No. 114,848, registered Jan. 2, 1917; SAUCONY – Reg. No. 1,356,744, registered Aug. 27, 1985; SPERRY – Reg. No. 732,519, registered June 5, 1962; MERRELL – Reg. No. 1,337,440, registered May 21, 1985). Registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to establish rights in that mark. See DIRECTV, LLC v. The Pearline Group, FA 1818749 (Forum Dec. 30, 2018) (“Complainant’s ownership of a USPTO registration for DIRECTV demonstrate its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).
The Panel finds that each of the Domain Names is confusingly similar to one of the HUSH PUPPIES, KEDS, SAUCONY, SPERRY, and MERRELL marks as they each incorporate one of the marks in its entirety while adding generic and/or geographic terms (“au”, “sale” and “shoes” for example) and the “.com” gTLD. Such changes are insufficient to distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis. See Microsoft Corporation v. Thong Tran Thanh, FA 1653187 (Forum Jan. 21, 2016) (determining that confusing similarity exists where [a disputed domain name] contains Complainant’s entire mark and differs only by the addition of a generic or descriptive phrase and top-level domain); see also General Motors LLC v. Domain Admin, Privacy Protection Service INC d/b/a PrivacyProtect.org, FA 1656166 (Forum Feb. 12, 2016) (finding respondent’s <gm-uzbekistan.com> domain name confusingly similar to complainant’s GM mark as the addition of the geographic term “uzbekistan” is inconsequential to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis); see also Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (finding top-level domains are irrelevant for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant alleges that Respondent holds no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names. In order for Complainant to succeed under this element, it must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the Domain Names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006) and AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Forum Sept. 25, 2006) (“Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names.”). The Panel holds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case.
Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names as Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Names, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the HUSH PUPPIES, KEDS, SAUCONY, SPERRY, and MERRELL marks. Respondent has no relationship, affiliation, connection, endorsement or association with Complainant. WHOIS information can help support a finding that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, especially where a privacy service has been engaged. See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Dale Anderson, FA1504001613011 (Forum May 21, 2015) (concluding that because the WHOIS record lists “Dale Anderson” as the registrant of the disputed domain name, the respondent was not commonly known by the <statefarmforum.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)); see also Kohler Co. v. Privacy Service, FA1505001621573 (Forum July 2, 2015) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) where “Privacy Service” was listed as the registrant of the disputed domain name). The WHOIS information of record lists “Claudia Nagel/ Delores Bell/ Karolin Fried/ Giuseppina Hoflein/ Per Arild/ Jon Arvid Kirketeig/ Paul Hagl/ Henning Grund/ Dirk Brauer/ Anthony Judd/ Dominik Vogel/ Shawn Recio/ Birgit Werfel/ Phillipp Urner/ Michael Scholz/ Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot/ Sweeney Jed/ Austerlitz Frank/ Beyer Benjamin/ Domain Admin/ Whoisprotection.cc/ Lange Marcel/ Client Care/ Web Commerce Communications Limited/ Wolfowitz Louis/ Louis Wolfowitz/ karin diederich/ Katja Elliot/ Daniel Loewe” as the registrants of record. Coupled with Complainant’s unrebutted assertions as to absence of any affiliation or authorization between the parties, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Names in accordance with Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Each of the Domain Names other than <hushpuppyphilippines.com>, <kedsuk.com>, <sperryaustraliasale.com>, <merrellphilippinessale.com>, <merrellphilippinesoutlet.com>, and <merrelloutletsingapore.com> (which, absent other evidence can be presumed to be inactive pending use for a similar purpose) resolves or, as is clear from the uncontradicted evidence in the Complaint, has resolved one of the Respondent’s Websites. These websites, through the reproduction of the HUSH PUPPIES, KEDS, SAUCONY, SPERRY, and MERRELL marks, Complainant’s logos and reference to Complainant’s products, each pass themself off as an official website of the Complainant for the purpose of selling unauthorized versions of Complainant’s goods, in direct competition with Complainant’s merchandise. The use of a confusingly similar domain name to resolve to a webpage that directly offers unauthorized versions of a complainant’s goods or goods or services that directly compete with a complainant does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use; indeed it provides a false impression that the Respondent is affiliated with or authorized by Complainant. See BALENCIAGA SA v. ling lin, FA 1768542 (Forum Feb. 16, 2018) (“The disputed domain names incorporate Complainant's registered mark, and are being used for websites that prominently display Complainant's mark and logo, along with apparent images of Complainant's products, offering them for sale at discounted prices. The sites do not disclaim any connection with Complainant, and in fact seem to be designed to create an appearance of such a connection. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests.”). By the same measure the similar domain name to commit fraud does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See also General Motors LLC v. MIKE LEE, FA 1659965 (Forum Mar. 10, 2016) (“use of a domain to sell products and/or services that compete directly with a complainant’s business does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”)
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
The Panel finds on the balance of probabilities that, at the time of registration of the Domain Names, (between November 2020 and July 2021 other than for <sauconycanadasale.com> which was registered in August 2021), Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s HUSH PUPPIES, KEDS, SAUCONY, SPERRY, and MERRELL marks since each of the Respondent’s Websites pass themself off as an official website of the Complainant and as such reproduce material from Complainant and make repeated references to Complainant and its products. Furthermore, there is no obvious explanation, nor has one been provided, for an entity to register 60 domain names that contain one of the HUSH PUPPIES, KEDS, SAUCONY, SPERRY, and MERRELL marks and use 54 of them to redirect visitors to similar websites selling goods in direct competition with the Complainant under the Complainant’s marks other than to take advantage of Complainant’s reputation in the HUSH PUPPIES, KEDS, SAUCONY, SPERRY, and MERRELL marks. In the absence of rights or legitimate interests of its own this demonstrates registration in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
The Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the Domain Names in bad faith to create confusion with Complainant’s HUSH PUPPIES, KEDS, SAUCONY, SPERRY, and MERRELL marks for commercial gain by using (or in the case of <hushpuppyphilippines.com>, <kedsuk.com>, <sperryaustraliasale.com>, <merrellphilippinessale.com>, <merrellphilippinesoutlet.com>, and <merrelloutletsingapore.com> holding the domain name pending use) the confusingly similar Domain Names to resolve to websites mimicking Complainant’s websites and offering unauthorized versions of Complainant’s products in direct competition with the Complainant’s products. Using a confusingly similar domain name to trade upon the goodwill of a complainant can evince bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Xylem Inc. and Xylem IP Holdings LLC v. YinSi BaoHu YiKaiQi, FA1504001612750 (Forum May 13, 2015) (“The Panel agrees that Respondent’s use of the website to display products similar to Complainant’s, imputes intent to attract Internet users for commercial gain, and finds bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”). See also See Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum Dec. 27, 2017) (finding bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where “Respondent registered and uses the <lbittrex.com> domain name in bad faith by directing Internet users to a website that mimics Complainant’s own website in order to confuse users into believing that Respondent is Complainant or is otherwise affiliated or associated with Complainant.”).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <hushpuppyphilippines.com>, <hushpuppiesbelgie.com>, <hushpuppiessg.com>, <hushpuppynz.com>, <hushpuppiessouthafrica.com>, <hushpuppiesindia.com>, <kedschile.com>, <kedsshoesau.com>, <kedsshoesaustralia.com>, <keds-australia.com>, <kedssingapores.com>, <kedsshoesuk.com>, <kedsuk.com>, <teniskedmexico.com>, <kedsespana.com>, <kedsshoesnz.com>, <sauconyskonorge.com>, <sauconysouthafrica.com>, <sauconymalaysia.com>, <sauconyshoessg.com>, <sauconyfactoryau.com>, <sauconyphilippines.com>, <sauconysaleus.com>, <sauconynl.com>, <saucony-nederland.com>, <saucony-malaysia.com>, <sauconyskodk.com>, <sauconycanadasale.com>, <saucony-ireland.com>, <sauconysko-tilbud.com>, <sauconymalaysiastore.com>, <sauconyshoesindia.com>, <sperryphilippines.com>, <sperryaustraliasale.com>, <sperryindia.com>, <sperryaustralia.com>, <sperryboatshoesuk.com>, <sperrysingaporeoutlet.com>, <sperrysingapores.com>, <sperryshoessingapor.com>, <sperryshoes-singapore.com>, <sperryphilippinessale.com>, <sperrycanadaoutlet.com>, <merrellphilippinessale.com>, <merrellphilippinesoutlet.com>, <merrellshoesphilippines.com>, <merrellargentinaonline.com>, <merrellaustraliau.com>, <merrellcanadasale.com>, <merrellsandalsdublin.com>, <merrellphilippinesph.com>, <merrellshoesph.com>, <merrellindiasale.com>, <merrelluksale.com>, <merrellsingaporesg.com>, <merrellskodame.com>, <merrellwandelschoenen.com>, <merrell-belgie.com>, <merrellsandalsnz.com>, and <merrelloutletsingapore.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Nicholas J.T. Smith, Panelist
Dated: September 10, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page