San Antonio Shoe, Inc. v. sgfgc ugh/ fsxzfsadf dsadasd/ Lerod Smith/ David Ruizttk/ sgvfdyu tyftg/ Mark Hjon/ sagds fdhfd/ fdg swh/ Tami Moore/ dsaf gfadsfgas/ yi dongzhen/ Thomas Williams/ Leonard Landon/ Rosemarie Guss/ Marion Stearns/ Raymond Williamson/ Lisa Hotchkis/ Frances Grant/ Edwardo McNeil/ June Lee/ Rosemarie Guss/ Hugh Bakker/ Wayne Baity/ Frances Grant/ gvdfh/ ghjgfh/ Leslie Haugan/ SAS Shoes/ Domain Administrator/ Sugarcane Internet Nigeria Limited/ Repossessed by Go Daddy/ dfasdf asadsas/ 哈哈 郑/ li shao min
Claim Number: FA2203001988967
Complainant is San Antonio Shoe, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Erin S. Hennessy of Haynes and Boone LLP, New York, USA. Respondent is sgfgc ugh/ fsxzfsadf dsadasd/ Lerod Smith/ David Ruizttk/ sgvfdyu tyftg/ Mark Hjon/ sagds fdhfd/ fdg swh/ Tami Moore/ dsaf gfadsfgas/ yi dongzhen/ Thomas Williams/ Leonard Landon/ Rosemarie Guss/ Marion Stearns/ Raymond Williamson/ Lisa Hotchkis/ Frances Grant/ Edwardo McNeil/ June Lee/ Rosemarie Guss/ Hugh Bakker/ Wayne Baity/ Frances Grant/ gvdfh/ ghjgfh/ Leslie Haugan/ SAS Shoes/ Domain Administrator/ Sugarcane Internet Nigeria Limited/ Repossessed by Go Daddy/ dfasdf asadsas/ 哈哈 郑/ li shao min (“Respondent”), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <sasshoeskkv.shop>, <sasoutletshoes.store>, <sasshoesoutlet.store>, <shopsassshoes.com>, <sanantnishoesus.store>, <sanantonioshoess.com>, <sasclosingsale.store>, <sasfactory.store>, <sasonline.store>, <sasoutlet.store>, <sasoutletshop.store>, <sasshoesus.store>, <sasshoesvip.store>, <sasus.store>, <sasusshoe.store>, <sas-factoryshoes.shop>, <sasshoesa.shop>, <sasshoesvu.shop>, <sas-factory-shoes.com>, <sas-factory-shoes.shop>, <sas-factoryshoes.store>, <sas-factory-shoes.store>, <sas-shoemakers.com>, <sasshoes.cc>, <sasshoes.shop>, <sas-shoes.shop>, <sas-shoes.top>, <sasshoes.vip>, <sasshoes1.shop>, <sasshoes2.shop>, <sasshoes3.shop>, <sasshoesbv.shop>, <sasshoesi.shop>, <sasshoesk.shop>, <sasshoeskkm.shop>, <sasshoesllo.shop>, <sasshoesn.shop>, <sasshoesnew.shop>, <sasshoeso.shop>, <sasshoess.cc>, <sasshoess.online>, <sasshoess.shop>, <sasshoestore.shop>, <sasshoesv.shop>, <sasshoesx.shop>, <sasvipshoes.shop>, <shopsasshoes.com>, <sasshoes.top>, <sasshoestore.top>, <sanantonioshoes.store>, <sas-shoes.store>, <sas-factory-shoes.online>, <sas-factory-shoe.com>, and <sasshoesus.com> (collectively “Domain Names”), registered with Namesilo, LLC; Godaddy.Com, LLC; Name.Com, Inc; Network Solutions, LLC; PDR Ltd. D/B/A Publicdomainregistry.Com; and Xin Net Technology Corporation,
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 March 18, 2022; the Forum received payment on March 18, 2022.
Between March 21, 2022 and March 31, 2022 each of Namesilo, LLC; Godaddy.Com, LLC; Name.Com, Inc; Network Solutions, LLC; PDR Ltd. D/B/A Publicdomainregistry.Com; and Xin Net Technology Corporation. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <sasshoeskkv.shop>, <sasoutletshoes.store>, <sasshoesoutlet.store>, <shopsassshoes.com>, <sanantnishoesus.store>, <sanantonioshoess.com>, <sasclosingsale.store>, <sasfactory.store>, <sasonline.store>, <sasoutlet.store>, <sasoutletshop.store>, <sasshoesus.store>, <sasshoesvip.store>, <sasus.store>, <sasusshoe.store>, <sas-factoryshoes.shop>, <sasshoesa.shop>, <sasshoesvu.shop>, <sas-factory-shoes.com>, <sas-factory-shoes.shop>, <sas-factoryshoes.store>, <sas-factory-shoes.store>, <sas-shoemakers.com>, <sasshoes.cc>, <sasshoes.shop>, <sas-shoes.shop>, <sas-shoes.top>, <sasshoes.vip>, <sasshoes1.shop>, <sasshoes2.shop>, <sasshoes3.shop>, <sasshoesbv.shop>, <sasshoesi.shop>, <sasshoesk.shop>, <sasshoeskkm.shop>, <sasshoesllo.shop>, <sasshoesn.shop>, <sasshoesnew.shop>, <sasshoeso.shop>, <sasshoess.cc>, <sasshoess.online>, <sasshoess.shop>, <sasshoestore.shop>, <sasshoesv.shop>, <sasshoesx.shop>, <sasvipshoes.shop>, <shopsasshoes.com>, <sasshoes.top>, <sasshoestore.top>, <sanantonioshoes.store>, <sas-shoes.store>, <sas-factory-shoes.online>, <sas-factory-shoe.com>, and <sasshoesus.com> domain names are registered with them and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Each of the Registrars has verified that Respondent is bound by that Registrar’s 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 April 6, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Chinese and English language Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 26, 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@sasshoeskkv.shop, postmaster@sasoutletshoes.store, postmaster@sasshoesoutlet.store, postmaster@shopsassshoes.com, postmaster@sanantnishoesus.store, postmaster@sanantonioshoess.com, postmaster@sasclosingsale.store, postmaster@sasfactory.store, postmaster@sasonline.store, postmaster@sasoutlet.store, postmaster@sasoutletshop.store, postmaster@sasshoesus.store, postmaster@sasshoesvip.store, postmaster@sasus.store, postmaster@sasusshoe.store, postmaster@sas-factoryshoes.shop, postmaster@sasshoesa.shop, postmaster@sasshoesvu.shop, postmaster@sas-factory-shoes.com, postmaster@sas-factory-shoes.shop, postmaster@sas-factoryshoes.store, postmaster@sas-factory-shoes.store, postmaster@sas-shoemakers.com, postmaster@sasshoes.cc, postmaster@sasshoes.shop, postmaster@sas-shoes.shop, postmaster@sas-shoes.top, postmaster@sasshoes.vip, postmaster@sasshoes1.shop, postmaster@sasshoes2.shop, postmaster@sasshoes3.shop, postmaster@sasshoesbv.shop, postmaster@sasshoesi.shop, postmaster@sasshoesk.shop, postmaster@sasshoeskkm.shop, postmaster@sasshoesllo.shop, postmaster@sasshoesn.shop, postmaster@sasshoesnew.shop, postmaster@sasshoeso.shop, postmaster@sasshoess.cc, postmaster@sasshoess.online, postmaster@sasshoess.shop, postmaster@sasshoestore.shop, postmaster@sasshoesv.shop, postmaster@sasshoesx.shop, postmaster@sasvipshoes.shop, postmaster@shopsasshoes.com, postmaster@sasshoes.top, postmaster@sasshoestore.top, postmaster@sanantonioshoes.store, postmaster@sas-shoes.store, postmaster@sas-factory-shoes.online, postmaster@sas-factory-shoe.com, postmaster@sasshoesus.com. Also on April 6, 2022, the Chinese and English language 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 May 3, 2022, 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 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 all of the registrants for the Domain Names are related because: 1) the Domain Names are all similar variants of Complainant’s SAS or SAN ANTONIO SHOEMAKERS marks 2) the Domain Names were registered within 5 weeks of each other 3) the Domain Names resolve or have resolved to essentially identical websites (“Respondent’s Websites”) featuring virtually identical content (including photographs) 4) the Domain Names use the same webhost and/or domain name server. 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 31 unconnected entities would register 54 very similar domain names within the same 5-week period and point them to essentially identical websites.
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.
PRELIMINARY ISSUE: LANGUAGE OF PROCEEDING
The language of the Registration Agreement for the <sas-factory-shoe.com> domain name is Chinese (the language of the Registration Agreement for the remaining domain names is English). The Complaint has been provided in English.
It is established practice to take UDRP Rules 10(b) and (c) into consideration for the purpose of determining the language of the proceeding to ensure fairness and justice to both parties. Factors which previous panels have seen as particularly compelling are: WHOIS information which establishes Respondent in a country which would demonstrate familiarity with the English language, filing of a trademark registration with an entity which shows an understanding of the English language, and any evidence (or lack thereof) exhibiting Respondent’s understanding of the language requested by Complainant. See The Argento Wine Company Limited v. Argento Beijing Trading Company, D2009-0610 (WIPO July 1, 2009) (panel exercising discretion in deciding that the language of the proceedings advance in English, contrary to the Registration Agreement, based on evidence that respondent has command of the language). Further, the Panel may weigh the relative time and expense in enforcing the Chinese language agreement, which would result in prejudice toward either party. See Finter Bank Zurich v. Shumin Peng, D2006-0432 (WIPO June 12, 2006) (deciding that the proceeding should be in English, stating, “It is important that the language finally decided by the Panel for the proceeding is not prejudicial to either one of the parties in his or her ability to articulate the arguments for the case.”) and Zappos.com, Inc. v. Zufu aka Huahaotrade, Case No. D2008-1191 (WIPO October 15, 2008) (holding that proceedings could be conducted in English even though the registration agreement was in Chinese where “the disputed domain resolves to a website [that] is exclusively in English, from which can be reasonably presumed that the Respondent has the ability to communicate in English in order to conduct his business over the website in English”)
Pursuant to UDRP Rule 11(a), the Panel finds that persuasive evidence has been adduced by Complainant to suggest the likely possibility that the Respondent is conversant and proficient in the English language. The Panel has already found that the registrant of <sas-factory-shoe.com> domain name is the same registrant as the remaining Domain Names (each of which was registered through English-language agreements). Furthermore, the Respondent’s Websites are in the English language. The Panel also notes the absence of any response by Respondent indicating a preference that the proceeding continue in Chinese. Given the alternative is to order that the proceeding continue in Chinese, notwithstanding that 53 of the 54 Domain Names are registered pursuant to an English-language agreement, after considering the circumstances of the present case, the Panel decides that the proceeding should continue in English.
A. Complainant
Complainant, San Antonio Shoe, Inc., is an American shoemaker offering footwear, clothing, and related accessories. Complainant has registered the SAN ANTONIO SHOEMAKERS and SAS marks with multiple trademark authorities including the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) e.g., Reg. No. 4,729,344, registered April 28, 20215 and Reg. No. 1,509,326, registered October 18, 1988 respectively) and the United Kingdom, European Union, Australia, China, and Brazil trademark authorities. The Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to either Complainant’s SAS or SAN ANTONIO SHOEMAKERS marks because they incorporate one of Complainant’s marks, including misspellings of that mark, either alone or adding generic terms. Each of the Domain Names also incorporate the “.com”, “.store”, “.shop”, “.cc”, “.top”, or “.online” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) to form a domain name.
Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names because Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Names nor has Respondent been authorized to use Complainant’s SAS or SAN ANTONIO SHOEMAKERS 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 uses the Domain Names to pass off as Complainant by resolving to the Respondent’s Websites which reproduce the logo, design and copyrighted material from Complainant’s official website and purport to offer Complainant’s products at unrealistically low prices. Further, Respondent has used the Domain Names on social media platforms to make libelous posts suggesting that Complainant was going out of business and liquidating inventory, which is not the case.
Respondent registered and uses the Domain Names in bad faith because Respondent disrupts Complainant’s business by passing off as Complainant and purporting to sell unauthorized versions of Complainant’s products through the Respondent’s Websites. Respondent acted with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the SAS and SAN ANTONIO SHOEMAKERS marks. Respondent also uses the Domain Names in connection with a phishing scheme to obtain personal and financial information from visitors to the Respondent’s Websites.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant holds trademark rights for the SAN ANTONIO SHOEMAKERS and SAS marks. Each of the Domain Names is confusingly similar to one of Complainant’s SAN ANTONIO SHOEMAKERS and SAS 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 SAN ANTONIO SHOEMAKERS and SAS marks under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its registration of the marks with the USPTO (e.g. Reg. No. 4,729,344, registered April 28, 20215 and Reg. No. 1,509,326, registered October 18, 1988 respectively). 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 either the SAN ANTONIO SHOEMAKERS and SAS marks as they each incorporate either the SAN ANTONIO SHOEMAKERS and SAS marks or obvious misspellings of the marks. The Domain Names then add generic terms (sometimes misspelled) (“shoe”, “factor” and “store” for example) and a gTLD to the mark or misspelling. Addition of generic or descriptive terms and a TLD to a trade mark or misspelling of a trade mark is generally insufficient to negate confusing similarity between a domain name and a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Dell Inc. v. pushpender chauhan, FA 1784548 (Forum June 11, 2018) (“Respondent merely adds the term ‘supports’ and a ‘.org’ gTLD to the DELL mark. Thus, the Panel finds Respondent’s disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s DELL mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); see also 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 Wells Fargo & Company v. VALERIE CARRINGTON, FA 1621718 (Forum July 2, 2015) (finding that the <wllsfago.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the WELLS FARGO mark as the domain name merely omits the “e” and “r” from the mark while adding the “.com” gTLD suffix.); 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 SAN ANTONIO SHOEMAKERS and SAS 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 “sgfgc ugh/ fsxzfsadf dsadasd/ Lerod Smith/ David Ruizttk/ sgvfdyu tyftg/ Mark Hjon/ sagds fdhfd/ fdg swh/ Tami Moore/ dsaf gfadsfgas/ yi dongzhen/ Thomas Williams/ Leonard Landon/ Rosemarie Guss/ Marion Stearns/ Raymond Williamson/ Lisa Hotchkis/ Frances Grant/ Edwardo McNeil/ June Lee/ Rosemarie Guss/ Hugh Bakker/ Wayne Baity/ Frances Grant/ gvdfh/ ghjgfh/ Leslie Haugan/ SAS Shoes/ Domain Administrator/ Sugarcane Internet Nigeria Limited/ Repossessed by Go Daddy/ dfasdf asadsas/ 哈哈 郑/ li shao min” 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).
The Domain Names are presently inactive but prior to the commencement of the proceeding resolved to the Respondent’s Websites. The Respondent’s Websites, through the reproduction of the SAS Mark, Complainant’s copyrighted photos and reference to Complainant’s products, each pass themself off as an official website of the Complainant for the purpose of selling counterfeit 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 counterfeit 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 Wolverine World Wide, Inc. v. Fergus Knox, FA 1627751 (Forum Aug. 19, 2015) (finding no bona fide offering of goods or legitimate noncommercial or fair use existed where Respondent used the resolving website to sell products branded with Complainant’s MERRELL mark, and were either counterfeit products or legitimate products of Complainant being resold without authorization). See also Am. Int’l Group, Inc. v. Busby, FA 156251 (Forum May 30, 2003) (finding that the respondent attempts to pass itself off as the complainant online, which is blatant unauthorized use of the complainant’s mark and is evidence that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name).
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 (February-March 2022), Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s SAN ANTONIO SHOEMAKERS and SAS marks since the Respondent’s Websites pass themselves off as official websites of the Complainant for the purpose of selling counterfeit or unauthorized goods. Furthermore, there is no obvious explanation, nor has one been provided, for an entity to register 54 domain names that contain the SAN ANTONIO SHOEMAKERS and SAS marks and use them to redirect to websites selling goods in direct competition with the Complainant under the SAS mark other than to take advantage of Complainant’s reputation in the SAS and SAN ANTONIO SHOEMAKERS 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 SAS and SAN ANTONIO SHOEMAKERS marks for commercial gain by using the confusingly similar Domain Names to resolve to websites offering counterfeit or 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 <sasshoeskkv.shop>, <sasoutletshoes.store>, <sasshoesoutlet.store>, <shopsassshoes.com>, <sanantnishoesus.store>, <sanantonioshoess.com>, <sasclosingsale.store>, <sasfactory.store>, <sasonline.store>, <sasoutlet.store>, <sasoutletshop.store>, <sasshoesus.store>, <sasshoesvip.store>, <sasus.store>, <sasusshoe.store>, <sas-factoryshoes.shop>, <sasshoesa.shop>, <sasshoesvu.shop>, <sas-factory-shoes.com>, <sas-factory-shoes.shop>, <sas-factoryshoes.store>, <sas-factory-shoes.store>, <sas-shoemakers.com>, <sasshoes.cc>, <sasshoes.shop>, <sas-shoes.shop>, <sas-shoes.top>, <sasshoes.vip>, <sasshoes1.shop>, <sasshoes2.shop>, <sasshoes3.shop>, <sasshoesbv.shop>, <sasshoesi.shop>, <sasshoesk.shop>, <sasshoeskkm.shop>, <sasshoesllo.shop>, <sasshoesn.shop>, <sasshoesnew.shop>, <sasshoeso.shop>, <sasshoess.cc>, <sasshoess.online>, <sasshoess.shop>, <sasshoestore.shop>, <sasshoesv.shop>, <sasshoesx.shop>, <sasvipshoes.shop>, <shopsasshoes.com>, <sasshoes.top>, <sasshoestore.top>, <sanantonioshoes.store>, <sas-shoes.store>, <sas-factory-shoes.online>, <sas-factory-shoe.com>, and <sasshoesus.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Nicholas J.T. Smith, Panelist
Dated: May 4, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page