Wolverine World Wide, Inc. v. Sophie Furst/Martina Sankt/Benjamin Baier/Martin Neustadt/Sophia Lowe/Uwe Lang/Manuela Finkel/Schroth Hannelore/Leonie Schmid/Monika Beike/Annett Bach/Vanessa EICHEL/Elma ANITA/Christian THALBERG/Claudia GLOCKNER/Niklas SCHREIBER/Katharina GLOCKNER/Patrick BOSCH/Viljae Gustavsson/Claudia Kuster/Anja Schweizer/Lisa Frey/Anna Ackerman/Max Eggers/Mandy Kohler/Phillipp Wurfel/Franziska Kirsch/Schwarz Ralf/Neudorf Bernd/Julius Bergman/Himmel Vanessa/Rhodes Nicki/Dennis Rothschil/Jan Ackerman/Client Care/Web Commerce Communications Limited/Domain Admin/Whoisprotection.cc
Claim Number: FA2111001973515
Complainant is Wolverine World Wide, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Malaina J Weldy of Warner Norcross + Judd LLP, Michigan, USA. Respondent is Sophie Furst et. al. (“Respondent”), Germany.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <merrelltrainersuk.com>, <sperrybootschoenen.com>, <sauconyuk.com>, <merrelindiastore.com>, <merrellausydney.com>, <kedsperu.com>, <kedstenismexico.com>, <merrellshoesuksale.com>, <merrelluruguay.com>, <merrellindiastore.com>, <merrelloutletdanmark.com>, <merrelloutletnorge.com>, <kedsshoessale.com>, <kedssneakerscanada.com>, <sperryoutletshoes.com>, <merrellukclearance.com>, <chaussuresaucony.com>, <sauconyfactorystore.com>, <merrelldanmarksko.com>, <sauconyca.com>, <sperrysalecanada.com>, <sauconynz.com>, <merrell-shoes-nz.com>, <merrell-shoes-australia.com>, <merrellkopen.com>, <sperryshoesireland.com>, <zapatillasmerrelles.com>, <merrellindiain.com>, <merrellaustraliaau.com>, <merrellnzshoessale.com>, <merrellshoesus.com>, <merrellirelandie.com>, <merrellcanadaca.com>, <sperrymexico.com>, <shopmerrellcanada.com>, <merrellshoesnewyork.com>, <merrellsingaporestore.com>, <merrellschoenenbelgie.com>, <merrellhydromoccanada.com>, <sauconyshopmy.com>, <merrellschoenennederland.com>, <merrellshoeireland.com>, <saucony-nl.com>, <merrellshoesaustraliastockists.com>, <merrellshoesuk.com>, <merrellsandalertilbud.com>, <zapatillasmerrelloutletes.com>, <tiendamerrellcolombia.com>, <merrell-ie.com>, <saucony-norge.com>, <merrellshoesmen.com>, <merrellscarpe.com>, <merrellgermany.com>, <merrellcanadaboots.com>, <merrellsouthafricaza.com>, <kedsnz-sale.com>, <sauconyindiashop.com>, <merrellsouthafrica.com>, <merrellsouthafricasale.com>, <merrellsandalsindia.com>, <merrellnzsandals.com>, <merrelloutlet-canada.com>, <merrellfrance.com>, <sauconysingaporeoutlet.com>, <uksauconyoutletsale.com>, <merrellargentinamujer.com>, <saucony-mexico.com>, <merrellenargentina.com>, <sperryduckboot.com>, <sauconyshoessaleuk.com>, <merrellbe.com>, <zapatillasmerrellargentina.com>, <merrell-schoenen.com>, <tiendamerrellonline.com>, <merrell-ca.com>, <merrell-be.com>, and <saucony-gr.com>, registered with Alibaba.Com Singapore E-Commerce Private Limited; Mat Bao Corporation; Namesilo, Llc; Gransy, S.R.O.; 1Api Gmbh; Netim Sarl; Hongkong Domain Name Information Management Co., Limited; and Dynadot, Llc.
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.
The Honourable Neil Anthony Brown QC as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on November 16, 2021; the Forum received payment on November 16, 2021.
On November 17, 18 & 19, 2021, Alibaba.Com Singapore E-Commerce Private Limited; Mat Bao Corporation; Namesilo, Llc; Gransy, S.R.O.; 1Api Gmbh; Netim Sarl; Hongkong Domain Name Information Management Co., Limited; and Dynadot, Llc confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <merrelltrainersuk.com>, <sperrybootschoenen.com>, <sauconyuk.com>, <merrelindiastore.com>, <merrellausydney.com>, <kedsperu.com>, <kedstenismexico.com>, <merrellshoesuksale.com>, <merrelluruguay.com>, <merrellindiastore.com>, <merrelloutletdanmark.com>, <merrelloutletnorge.com>, <kedsshoessale.com>, <kedssneakerscanada.com>, <sperryoutletshoes.com>, <merrellukclearance.com>, <chaussuresaucony.com>, <sauconyfactorystore.com>, <merrelldanmarksko.com>, <sauconyca.com>, <sperrysalecanada.com>, <sauconynz.com>, <merrell-shoes-nz.com>, <merrell-shoes-australia.com>, <merrellkopen.com>, <sperryshoesireland.com>, <zapatillasmerrelles.com>, <merrellindiain.com>, <merrellaustraliaau.com>, <merrellnzshoessale.com>, <merrellshoesus.com>, <merrellirelandie.com>, <merrellcanadaca.com>, <sperrymexico.com>, <shopmerrellcanada.com>, <merrellshoesnewyork.com>, <merrellsingaporestore.com>, <merrellschoenenbelgie.com>, <merrellhydromoccanada.com>, <sauconyshopmy.com>, <merrellschoenennederland.com>, <merrellshoeireland.com>, <saucony-nl.com>, <merrellshoesaustraliastockists.com>, <merrellshoesuk.com>, <merrellsandalertilbud.com>, <zapatillasmerrelloutletes.com>, <tiendamerrellcolombia.com>, <merrell-ie.com>, <saucony-norge.com>, <merrellshoesmen.com>, <merrellscarpe.com>, <merrellgermany.com>, <merrellcanadaboots.com>, <merrellsouthafricaza.com>, <kedsnz-sale.com>, <sauconyindiashop.com>, <merrellsouthafrica.com>, <merrellsouthafricasale.com>, <merrellsandalsindia.com>, <merrellnzsandals.com>, <merrelloutlet-canada.com>, <merrellfrance.com>, <sauconysingaporeoutlet.com>, <uksauconyoutletsale.com>, <merrellargentinamujer.com>, <saucony-mexico.com>, <merrellenargentina.com>, <sperryduckboot.com>, <sauconyshoessaleuk.com>, <merrellbe.com>, <zapatillasmerrellargentina.com>, <merrell-schoenen.com>, <tiendamerrellonline.com>, <merrell-ca.com>, <merrell-be.com>, and <saucony-gr.com> domain names are registered with Alibaba.Com Singapore E-Commerce Private Limited; Mat Bao Corporation; Namesilo, Llc; Gransy, S.R.O.; 1Api Gmbh; Netim Sarl; Hongkong Domain Name Information Management Co., Limited; and Dynadot, Llc and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Alibaba.Com Singapore E-Commerce Private Limited; Mat Bao Corporation; Namesilo, Llc; Gransy, S.R.O.; 1Api Gmbh; Netim Sarl; Hongkong Domain Name Information Management Co., Limited; and Dynadot, Llc have verified that Respondent is bound by the Alibaba.Com Singapore E-Commerce Private Limited; Mat Bao Corporation; Namesilo, Llc; Gransy, S.R.O.; 1Api Gmbh; Netim Sarl; Hongkong Domain Name Information Management Co., Limited; and Dynadot, Llc 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 December 13, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 3, 2022 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@merrelltrainersuk.com, postmaster@sperrybootschoenen.com, postmaster@sauconyuk.com, postmaster@merrelindiastore.com, postmaster@merrellausydney.com, postmaster@kedsperu.com, postmaster@kedstenismexico.com, postmaster@merrellshoesuksale.com, postmaster@merrelluruguay.com, postmaster@merrellindiastore.com, postmaster@merrelloutletdanmark.com, postmaster@merrelloutletnorge.com, postmaster@kedsshoessale.com, postmaster@kedssneakerscanada.com, postmaster@sperryoutletshoes.com, postmaster@merrellukclearance.com, postmaster@chaussuresaucony.com, postmaster@sauconyfactorystore.com, postmaster@merrelldanmarksko.com, postmaster@sauconyca.com, postmaster@sperrysalecanada.com, postmaster@sauconynz.com, postmaster@merrell-shoes-nz.com, postmaster@merrell-shoes-australia.com, postmaster@merrellkopen.com, postmaster@sperryshoesireland.com, postmaster@zapatillasmerrelles.com, postmaster@merrellindiain.com, postmaster@merrellaustraliaau.com, postmaster@merrellnzshoessale.com, postmaster@merrellshoesus.com, postmaster@merrellirelandie.com, postmaster@merrellcanadaca.com, postmaster@sperrymexico.com, postmaster@shopmerrellcanada.com, postmaster@merrellshoesnewyork.com, postmaster@merrellsingaporestore.com, postmaster@merrellschoenenbelgie.com, postmaster@merrellhydromoccanada.com, postmaster@sauconyshopmy.com, postmaster@merrellschoenennederland.com, postmaster@merrellshoeireland.com, postmaster@saucony-nl.com, postmaster@merrellshoesaustraliastockists.com, postmaster@merrellshoesuk.com, postmaster@merrellsandalertilbud.com, postmaster@zapatillasmerrelloutletes.com, postmaster@tiendamerrellcolombia.com, postmaster@merrell-ie.com, postmaster@saucony-norge.com, postmaster@merrellshoesmen.com, postmaster@merrellscarpe.com, postmaster@merrellgermany.com, postmaster@merrellcanadaboots.com, postmaster@merrellsouthafricaza.com, postmaster@kedsnz-sale.com, postmaster@sauconyindiashop.com, postmaster@merrellsouthafrica.com, postmaster@merrellsouthafricasale.com, postmaster@merrellsandalsindia.com, postmaster@merrellnzsandals.com, postmaster@merrelloutlet-canada.com, postmaster@merrellfrance.com, postmaster@sauconysingaporeoutlet.com, postmaster@uksauconyoutletsale.com, postmaster@merrellargentinamujer.com, postmaster@saucony-mexico.com, postmaster@merrellenargentina.com, postmaster@sperryduckboot.com, postmaster@sauconyshoessaleuk.com, postmaster@merrellbe.com, postmaster@zapatillasmerrellargentina.com, postmaster@merrell-schoenen.com, postmaster@tiendamerrellonline.com, postmaster@merrell-ca.com, postmaster@merrell-be.com, postmaster@saucony-gr.com. Also on December 13, 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 January 10, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed The Honourable Neil Anthony Brown QC 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE RESPONDENTS
In the instant proceedings, Complainant has alleged that the entities which control the domain names at issue are effectively controlled by the same person and/or entity, which is operating under several 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 contends that the disputed domain names are controlled by the same entity since 72 of the 77 domains were registered in 2021, with several on the same day, numerous domain names share the same IP locations of San Francisco, San Jose, Delaware, and Valencia, numerous domains share the same first five or six digits in their IP addresses, 31 of the 77 domains have a German address, 43 of the 77 domains have a Malaysian address, numerous domains have similar contact email addresses, and 35 of the 77 domains have identical contact information. See Amend. Compl. Ex. B. Additionally, many domains have identical website homepages. See Amend. Compl. Ex. C. The disputed domain names also all follow a similar pattern of using one of Complainant’s marks followed by a geographic term or generic word associated with shopping.
Having regard to the evidence and all the circumstances, the Panel finds that the domain names are commonly owned/controlled by a single Respondent who is using multiple aliases. Accordingly, it can be said that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder within the meaning of Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules. The proceeding has therefore been initiated correctly and may go forward on that basis. For reasons of convenience for the reader and all others involved in the proceeding, the relevant Respondent or Respondents will be referred to in this decision as “Respondent”.
A. Complainant
Complainant made the following contentions.
Complainant, Wolverine World Wide, Inc., is one of the leading sellers of high quality footwear brands. Complainant has rights in the KEDS, SAUCONY, SPERRY, and MERRELL marks based on registration of the marks with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., 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). See Amend. Compl. Ex. A.
Respondent’s <merrelltrainersuk.com>, <sperrybootschoenen.com>, <sauconyuk.com>, <merrelindiastore.com>, <merrellausydney.com>, <kedsperu.com>, <kedstenismexico.com>, <merrellshoesuksale.com>, <merrelluruguay.com>, <merrellindiastore.com>, <merrelloutletdanmark.com>, <merrelloutletnorge.com>, <kedsshoessale.com>, <kedssneakerscanada.com>, <sperryoutletshoes.com>, <merrellukclearance.com>, <chaussuresaucony.com>, <sauconyfactorystore.com>, <merrelldanmarksko.com>, <sauconyca.com>, <sperrysalecanada.com>, <sauconynz.com>, <merrell-shoes-nz.com>, <merrell-shoes-australia.com>, <merrellkopen.com>, <sperryshoesireland.com>, <zapatillasmerrelles.com>, <merrellindiain.com>, <merrellaustraliaau.com>, <merrellnzshoessale.com>, <merrellshoesus.com>, <merrellirelandie.com>, <merrellcanadaca.com>, <sperrymexico.com>, <shopmerrellcanada.com>, <merrellshoesnewyork.com>, <merrellsingaporestore.com>, <merrellschoenenbelgie.com>, <merrellhydromoccanada.com>, <sauconyshopmy.com>, <merrellschoenennederland.com>, <merrellshoeireland.com>, <saucony-nl.com>, <merrellshoesaustraliastockists.com>, <merrellshoesuk.com>, <merrellsandalertilbud.com>, <zapatillasmerrelloutletes.com>, <tiendamerrellcolombia.com>, <merrell-ie.com>, <saucony-norge.com>, <merrellshoesmen.com>, <merrellscarpe.com>, <merrellgermany.com>, <merrellcanadaboots.com>, <merrellsouthafricaza.com>, <kedsnz-sale.com>, <sauconyindiashop.com>, <merrellsouthafrica.com>, <merrellsouthafricasale.com>, <merrellsandalsindia.com>, <merrellnzsandals.com>, <merrelloutlet-canada.com>, <merrellfrance.com>, <sauconysingaporeoutlet.com>, <uksauconyoutletsale.com>, <merrellargentinamujer.com>, <saucony-mexico.com>, <merrellenargentina.com>, <sperryduckboot.com>, <sauconyshoessaleuk.com>, <merrellbe.com>, <zapatillasmerrellargentina.com>, <merrell-schoenen.com>, <tiendamerrellonline.com>, <merrell-ca.com>, <merrell-be.com>, and <saucony-gr.com> domain names (hereinafter “the disputed domain names”) are confusingly similar to Complainant’s KEDS, SAUCONY, SPERRY, or MERRELL marks since each domain name incorporates one of Complainant’s marks and adds a geographic and/or generic term and a generic top-level domain (“gTLD”). Additionally, some domains add a hyphen and/or misspell Complainant’s mark.
Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names and Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use the KEDS, SAUCONY, SPERRY, or MERRELL marks. Additionally, Respondent does not use the disputed domain for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use as Respondent uses most of the disputed domain names to pass off as Complainant or an authorized distributor and sell competing goods. Furthermore, nine of the disputed domain names are inactive.
Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith. Respondent uses most of the disputed domain names to pass off as Complainant or an authorized distributor to sell competing goods. Additionally, Respondent fails to make active use of nine of the disputed domain names.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
1. Complainant is a United States company that is one of the leading sellers of high quality footwear brands
2. Complainant has established its trademark rights in the KEDS, SAUCONY, SPERRY, and MERRELL marks based on registration of the marks with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., 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). See Amend. Compl. Ex. A.
3. Respondent registered the disputed domain names on the following dates:
September 4, 2020: <chaussuresaucony.com>
September 10, 2020: <merrellshoesuksale.com>
November 23, 2020: <sperrymexico.com>
December 2, 2020: <sperryduckboot.com>
December 18, 2020: <kedssneakerscanada.com>
February 24, 2021: <merrelltrainersuk.com>
February 25, 2021: <tiendamerrellonline.com>
February 26, 2021: <merrellsouthafrica.com>
February 27, 2021: <merrellbe.com>
March 4, 2021: <merrellfrance.com>
March 18, 2021: <merrelluruguay.com>
April 1, 2021: <merrelldanmarksko.com>
April 2, 2021: <merrellsouthafricasale.com>
April 14, 2021: <kedsperu.com>, <kedstenismexico.com>
April 19, 2021: <merrellausydney.com>
May 8, 2021: <merrellukclearance.com>
June 17, 2021: <sperryoutletshoes.com>
June 19, 2021: <sauconynz.com>
June 25, 2021: <zapatillasmerrellargentina.com>
July 8, 2021: <sauconyindiashop.com>
July 13, 2021: <merrellsandalsindia.com>
July 21, 2021: <merrellnzsandals.com>
July 22, 2021: <sauconyuk.com>
July 26, 2021: <saucony-gr.com>
July 29, 2021: <sperrybootschoenen.com>
July 31, 2021: <sperrysalecanada.com>
August 9, 2021: <kedsshoessale.com>
August 11, 2021: <sauconyshoessaleuk.com>
August 16, 2021: <merrellenargentina.com>
August 26, 2021: <saucony-mexico.com>
August 28, 2021: <sauconyfactorystore.com>
September 1, 2021: <kedsnz-sale.com>
September 3, 2021: <merrelindiastore.com>, <merrellindiastore.com>, <merrell-shoes-australia.com>
September 8, 2021: <merrell-shoes-nz.com>
September 18, 2021: <saucony-norge.com>
September 20, 2021: <sauconysingaporeoutlet.com>, <uksauconyoutletsale.com>
September 22, 2021: <merrelloutlet-canada.com>
September 23, 2021: <merrellargentinamujer.com>
September 24, 2021: <merrellhydromoccanada.com>
September 25, 2021: <merrellkopen.com>
September 26, 2021: <merrelloutletdanmark.com>, <merrelloutletnorge.com>
September 28, 2021: <sperryshoesireland.com>
September 29, 2021: <merrellaustraliaau.com>, <merrellshoesus.com>
September 30, 2021: <zapatillasmerrelles.com>, <merrellindiain.com>, <merrellnzshoessale.com>, <merrellirelandie.com>, <merrellcanadaca.com>
October 3, 2021: <sauconyshopmy.com>, <merrellschoenennederland.com>, <merrellshoeireland.com>, <saucony-nl.com>, <merrellshoesaustraliastockists.com>, <merrellshoesuk.com>, <merrellsandalertilbud.com>, <zapatillasmerrelloutletes.com>, <tiendamerrellcolombia.com>
October 5, 2021: <merrellsingaporestore.com>, <merrell-ie.com>, <merrellshoesmen.com>
October 8, 2021: <merrellshoesnewyork.com>, <merrellschoenenbelgie.com>, <merrellscarpe.com>, <merrellgermany.com>, <merrellcanadaboots.com>, <merrellsouthafricaza.com>
October 9, 2021: <shopmerrellcanada.com>
October 12, 2021: <merrell-schoenen.com>, <merrell-ca.com>, <merrell-be.com>
October 16, 2021: <sauconyca.com>.
4. Respondent has caused most of the disputed domain names to pass Respondent off as Complainant or as an authorized distributor of Complainant and to sell goods competing with those of Complainant. Furthermore, nine of the disputed domain names are inactive.
5. The evidence shows that Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interest in any of the disputed domain names.
6. The evidence shows that Respondent registered and has used each of the disputed 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”).
The first question that arises is whether Complainant has rights in a trademark or service mark on which it may rely. Complainant submits that it has rights in the KEDS, SAUCONY, SPERRY, and MERRELL marks based on registration of the marks with the USPTO (e.g., 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). See Amend. Compl. Ex. A. Registration of a mark with the USPTO is generally considered a valid showing of rights in a mark. See Brooks Sports, Inc. v. Joyce Cheadle, FA 1819065 (Forum Dec. 28, 2018) (finding that Complainant’s registration of the BROOKS mark with the USPTO sufficiently conferred its rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”). Since Complainant provides evidence of registration of the KEDS, SAUCONY, SPERRY, and MERRELL marks with the USPTO, the Panel finds that Complainant has rights in each of the marks under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The next question that arises is whether the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s KEDS, SAUCONY, SPERRY, and MERRELL marks. Complainant argues that the disputed domain names are confusing similar to Complainant’s KEDS, SAUCONY, SPERRY, and MERRELL marks since each domain name incorporates one of Complainant’s marks and adds a geographic and/or generic term and a gTLD. Additionally, some domain names add a hyphen and/or misspell Complainant’s mark. Adding terms, hyphens, and a gTLD to a mark does not negate any confusing similarity between the disputed domain names and the marks under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) (“Where a relevant trademark is recognisable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element.”); see also Wiluna Holdings, LLC v. Edna Sherman, FA 1652781 (Forum Jan. 22, 2016) (Finding the addition of a generic term and gTLD is insufficient in distinguishing a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).); see additionally Health Devices Corp. v. Aspen S T C, FA 158254 (Forum July 1, 2003) (“[T]he addition of punctuation marks such as hyphens is irrelevant in the determination of confusing similarity pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”). Furthermore, misspelling a complainant’s mark in a disputed domain name does not sufficiently distinguish the disputed domain name in question from the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Vanguard Trademark Holdings USA LLC v. Shuai Wei Xu / Xu Shuai Wei, FA 1784238 (Forum June 1, 2018) (“Respondent arrives at each of the disputed domain names by merely misspelling each of the disputed domain names and adding the gTLD ‘.com.’ This is insufficient to distinguish the disputed domain names from Complainant’s trademark.”). Thus, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the KEDS, SAUCONY, SPERRY, and MERRELL marks under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant has thus made out the first of the three elements that it must establish.
It is now well established that Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) (“Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests”).
The Panel finds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case that arises from the following considerations:
(a) Respondent has chosen respectively to take Complainant’s aforesaid trademarks and to use them in one or more of Respondent’s disputed domain names, add variously a geographic and/or a generic term and a gTLD and in the case of some domain names add a hyphen and/or misspell Complainant’s mark. None of these additions or variations negate the confusing similarity between the relevant domain name and trademark;
(b) Respondent registered each of the disputed domain names on the corresponding date as set out in the Findings section of this decision;
(c) Respondent has caused most of the disputed domain names to pass Respondent off as Complainant or as an authorized distributor of Complainant and to sell goods competing with those of Complainant. Furthermore, nine of the disputed domain names are inactive.
(d) Respondent has engaged in these activities without the consent or approval of Complainant;
(e) Complainant argues that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names because Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names and Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use the KEDS, SAUCONY, SPERRY, or MERRELL marks in the domain names or in any other manner. When no response is submitted, WHOIS information can be used to show that a respondent is not commonly known by a disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Timothy Mays aka Linda Haley aka Edith Barberdi, FA1504001617061 (Forum June 9, 2015) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <amazondevice.org>, <amazondevices.org> and <buyamazondevices.com> domain names under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), as the pertinent WHOIS information identified “Timothy Mays,” “Linda Haley,” and “Edith Barberdi” as registrants of the disputed domain names). Additionally, lack of authorization to use a mark constitutes a further showing that a respondent is not commonly known by a disputed domain name. See Indeed, Inc. v. Ankit Bhardwaj / Recruiter, FA 1739470 (Forum Aug. 3, 2017) (”Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of the at-issue domain name.”). Here, the WHOIS information of record identifies “Sophie Furst/Martina Sankt/Benjamin Baier/Martin Neustadt/Sophia Lowe/Uwe Lang/Manuela Finkel/Schroth Hannelore/Leonie Schmid/Monika Beike/Annett Bach/Vanessa EICHEL/Elma ANITA/Christian THALBERG/Claudia GLOCKNER/Niklas SCHREIBER/Katharina GLOCKNER/Patrick BOSCH/Viljae Gustavsson/Claudia Kuster/Anja Schweizer/Lisa Frey/Anna Ackerman/Max Eggers/Mandy Kohler/Phillipp Wurfel/Franziska Kirsch/Schwarz Ralf/Neudorf Bernd/Julius Bergman/Himmel Vanessa/Rhodes Nicki/Dennis Rothschil/Jan Ackerman/Client Care/Web Commerce Communications Limited/Domain Admin/Whoisprotection.cc” as a registrant of the disputed domain names. See Amend. Compl. Ex. B; see also Registrar Verification Emails. Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain names under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii);
(f) Complainant argues that Respondent does not use the disputed domain names for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use as Respondent uses most of the disputed domain names to pass itself off as Complainant or an authorized distributor and to sell competing goods. Furthermore, nine of the disputed domain names are inactive. Using a disputed domain name to pass off as a complainant in order to sell competing and unauthorized goods does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Dell Inc. v. Devesh Tyagi, FA 1785301 (Forum June 2, 2018) (“Respondent replicates Complainant’s website and displays Complainant’s products. The Panel finds that this use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) & (iii).”); see also Alcon, Inc. v. ARanked, FA 1306493 (Forum Mar. 18, 2010) (“The Panel finds that capitalizing on the well-known marks of Complainant by attracting internet users to its disputed domain names where Respondent sells competing products of Complainant is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”); see additionally Fadal Engineering, LLC v. DANIEL STRIZICH,INDEPENDENT TECHNOLOGY SERVICE INC, FA 1581942 (Forum Nov. 13, 2014) (finding that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain to sell products related to Complainant without authorization “does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services under policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”). Here, Complainant provides screenshots of the resolving webpages of most of the domain names which show Respondent offers competing footwear for sale. See Amend. Compl. Ex. C. Likewise, failure to make active use of a disputed domain name does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See CrossFirst Bankshares, Inc. v. Yu-Hsien Huang, FA 1785415 (Forum June 6, 2018) (“Complainant demonstrates that Respondent fails to actively use the disputed domain name as it resolves to an inactive website. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name actively for a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).”). Here, Complainant provides screenshots showing the
<merrellhydromoccanada.com>, <merrell-ca.com>, <merrell-be.com>, <saucony-gr.com>, <sauconyca.com>, <sauconyuk.com>, <saucony-norge.com>, <tiendamerrellonline.com>, and <merrellukclearance.com> domain names resolve to error messages. See Amend. Compl. Ex. C. Thus, the Panel agrees with Complainant and finds that Respondent is not using the domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).
Complainant has thus made out the second of the three elements that it must establish.
It is clear that to establish bad faith for the purposes of the Policy, Complainant must show that the disputed domain names were registered in bad faith and have been used in bad faith. It is also clear that the criteria set out in Policy ¶ 4(b) for establishing bad faith are not exclusive, but that Complainants in UDRP proceedings may also rely on conduct that is bad faith within the generally accepted meaning of that expression.
Having regard to those principles, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names were registered and used in bad faith. That is so for the following reasons.
First, Complainant argues that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith because Respondent uses most of the disputed domain names to itself pass off as Complainant or an authorized distributor to sell competing goods. Use of a disputed domain name to pass off as a complainant and offer competing, unauthorized goods for sale can be evidence of bad faith disruption of a complainant’s business under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and an attempt to attract users for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Russell & Bromley Limited v. Li Wei, FA 1752021 (Forum Nov. 17, 2017) (finding the respondent registered and used the at-issue domain name in bad faith because it used the name to pass off as the complainant and offer for sale competitive, counterfeit goods); see also Fossil, Inc. v. NAS, FA 92525 (Forum Feb. 23, 2000) (transferring the <fossilwatch.com> domain name from the respondent, a watch dealer not otherwise authorized to sell the complainant’s goods, to the complainant); see additionally Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Ali, FA 353151 (Forum Dec. 13, 2004) (“Respondent [used “HP” in its domain name] to benefit from the goodwill associated with Complainant’s HP marks and us[ed] the <hpdubai.com> domain name, in part, to provide products similar to those of Complainant. Respondent’s practice of diversion, motivated by commercial gain, constitutes bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”). The Panel recalls that Complainant provides screenshots showing Respondent uses most of the disputed domain names to sell competing footwear. See Amend. Compl. Ex. C. Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv).
Secondly, Complainant contends that Respondent registered and uses nine of the disputed domain names in bad faith since they are inactive. Failure to resolve a disputed domain name to an active website can indicate bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Dr. Keenan Cofield, FA 1799574 (Forum Sept. 10, 2018) (finding bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) where “the domain name initially resolved to a web page with a “website coming soon” message, and now resolves to an error page with no content.”). The Panel recalls that Complainant provides screenshots showing the <merrellhydromoccanada.com>, <merrell-ca.com>, <merrell-be.com>, <saucony-gr.com>, <sauconyca.com>, <sauconyuk.com>, <saucony-norge.com>, <tiendamerrellonline.com>, and <merrellukclearance.com> domain names resolve to error messages. See Amend. Compl. Ex. C. Therefore, the Panel finds bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Finally, in addition and having regard to the totality of the evidence, the Panel finds that, in view of Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain names using the mark and in view of the conduct that Respondent has engaged in when using the disputed domain names, Respondent registered and used them in bad faith within the generally accepted meaning of that expression.
Complainant has thus made out the third of the three elements that it must establish.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <merrelltrainersuk.com>, <sperrybootschoenen.com>, <sauconyuk.com>, <merrelindiastore.com>, <merrellausydney.com>, <kedsperu.com>, <kedstenismexico.com>, <merrellshoesuksale.com>, <merrelluruguay.com>, <merrellindiastore.com>, <merrelloutletdanmark.com>, <merrelloutletnorge.com>, <kedsshoessale.com>, <kedssneakerscanada.com>, <sperryoutletshoes.com>, <merrellukclearance.com>, <chaussuresaucony.com>, <sauconyfactorystore.com>, <merrelldanmarksko.com>, <sauconyca.com>, <sperrysalecanada.com>, <sauconynz.com>, <merrell-shoes-nz.com>, <merrell-shoes-australia.com>, <merrellkopen.com>, <sperryshoesireland.com>, <zapatillasmerrelles.com>, <merrellindiain.com>, <merrellaustraliaau.com>, <merrellnzshoessale.com>, <merrellshoesus.com>, <merrellirelandie.com>, <merrellcanadaca.com>, <sperrymexico.com>, <shopmerrellcanada.com>, <merrellshoesnewyork.com>, <merrellsingaporestore.com>, <merrellschoenenbelgie.com>, <merrellhydromoccanada.com>, <sauconyshopmy.com>, <merrellschoenennederland.com>, <merrellshoeireland.com>, <saucony-nl.com>, <merrellshoesaustraliastockists.com>, <merrellshoesuk.com>, <merrellsandalertilbud.com>, <zapatillasmerrelloutletes.com>, <tiendamerrellcolombia.com>, <merrell-ie.com>, <saucony-norge.com>, <merrellshoesmen.com>, <merrellscarpe.com>, <merrellgermany.com>, <merrellcanadaboots.com>, <merrellsouthafricaza.com>, <kedsnz-sale.com>, <sauconyindiashop.com>, <merrellsouthafrica.com>, <merrellsouthafricasale.com>, <merrellsandalsindia.com>, <merrellnzsandals.com>, <merrelloutlet-canada.com>, <merrellfrance.com>, <sauconysingaporeoutlet.com>, <uksauconyoutletsale.com>, <merrellargentinamujer.com>, <saucony-mexico.com>, <merrellenargentina.com>, <sperryduckboot.com>, <sauconyshoessaleuk.com>, <merrellbe.com>, <zapatillasmerrellargentina.com>, <merrell-schoenen.com>, <tiendamerrellonline.com>, <merrell-ca.com>, <merrell-be.com>, and <saucony-gr.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
The Honourable Neil Anthony Brown QC
Panelist
Dated: January 11, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page