LJC Apparel, LLC v. Hudeu Tudewu
Claim Number: FA2302002032304
Complainant is LJC Apparel, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Sarah J. Schneider of Sheridan Ross P.C., Colorado. Respondent is Hudeu Tudewu (“Respondent”), CN.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <shopkimes.com>, registered with Name.com, Inc.
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.
Richard Hill as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 16, 2023; Forum received payment on February 16, 2023.
On February 23, 2023, Name.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <shopkimes.com> domain name is registered with Name.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Name.com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Name.com, Inc. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On February 27, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 20, 2023 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@shopkimes.com. Also on February 27, 2023, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.
Having received no response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On March 28, 2023, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Richard Hill as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant states that it is a western wear company that specializes in creating fashionable jeans with a classic fit. Complainant claims rights in the KIMES RANCH mark through its registration in the United States in 2014.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its KIMES RANCH mark as it incorporates the dominant part of the mark, omitting the term “ranch”, and adding the generic/descriptive term “shop” and the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”). Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
According to Complainant, Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant’s KIMES RANCH mark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to purport to offer unauthorized or counterfeit versions of Complainant’s goods with a false impression of association with complainant: the layout and content of the resolving website is confusingly similar to the layout and content displayed at Complainant’s genuine <shopkimes.com> website; the resolving website displays Complainant’s mark and distinctive logo, and photographs (copied from Complainant’s legitimate website) of Complainant’s products. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent uses the disputed domain name in order to pass off as Complainant and offer unauthorized or counterfeit goods. Respondent has engaged in a pattern of bad faith registration and use. Respondent had actual notice of Complainant’s rights in the KIMES RANCH mark. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has registered trademarks for the mark KIMES RANCH and uses it to market western wear. The mark was registered in 2014.
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.
The disputed domain name was registered in 2022.
The resolving website mimics Complainant’s legitimate website (displaying Complainant’s mark and distinctive logo, and photographs of Complainant’s products) and offers for sale unauthorized or counterfeit versions of Complainant’s products.
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 disputed domain name incorporates the dominant part of Complainant’s KIMES RANCH mark, omitting the term “ranch”, and adding the generic/descriptive term “shop” and the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”). Past panels have found that disputed domain names that incorporate the dominant portion of a mark, and add a generic/descriptive term, as well as a gTLD, are confusingly similar to the mark pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(i). See Huron Consulting Group Inc. v. David White, FA 1701395 (Forum Dec. 6, 2016) (finding that Respondent’s <huroninc.net> domain name is confusingly similar to the HURON CONSULTING GROUP and HURON HEALTHCARE marks under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) because in creating the domain name, the respondent contains the dominant portion of the marks and appends the term “inc” and a gTLD); see also ADP, LLC. v. Ella Magal, FA 1773958 (Forum August 2, 2017) (“Respondent’s <workforce-now.com> domain name appropriates the dominant portion of Complainant’s ADP WORKFORCE NOW mark and adds a hyphen and the gTLD “.com.” These changes do not sufficiently distinguish the disputed domain name from the ADP WORKFORCE NOW mark.”). The Panel therefore finds that the <shopkimes.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s KIMES RANCH mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its KIMES RANCH mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), WHOIS information can support a finding that the respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. 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)).Here, the WHOIS information of record shows that the registrant of the disputed domain name is “Hudeu Tudewu”. The Panel therefore finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
The content of the resolving website falsely suggests that it is associated with Complainant. That is not a fair or legitimate use of the disputed domain name. Indeed, according to paragraph 2.5 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0): “Fundamentally, a respondent’s use of a domain name will not be considered ‘fair’ if it falsely suggests affiliation with the trademark owner …”. See 201 Folsom Option JV, L.P. and 201 Folsom Acquisition, L.P. v. John Kirkpatrick, D2014-1359 (WIPO, Oct. 28, 2014); see also Qualcomm Incorporated v. Qualcomm Tech, FA 2004546 (Forum Aug. 17, 2022) (finding that a resolving website that “mimics Complainant’s website, display[s] Complainant’s mark, logo, and tagline; and it displays links to Complainant’s own social media platforms” is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain name). Consequently the Panel finds that Respondent has failed to use the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).
Further, the resolving website offers for sale unauthorized or counterfeit versions of Complainant’s goods. This is not a bona fide offering of goods and services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use under the Policy. See Watts Water Technologies Inc. v. wo ci fa men zhi zao (kun shan) you xian gong si, FA 1740269 (Forum Aug. 11, 2017) (“Respondent has used the domain name to resolve to a website that mimics the color scheme associated with Complainant’s WATTS brand and displays counterfeit versions of Complainant’s products for purchase in an attempt to pass itself off as Complainant… [therefore], the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.”); see also 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). Thus the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods and services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).
For all the above reasons, the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Complainant alleges that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of bad faith registration and use of domain names. However, in support, it cites only one case where Respondent has been found to have registered and used a domain name in bad faith. The Panel finds that that is not sufficient to support the allegation, thus it will not further discuss this allegation.
Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant’s contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant’s mark. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent’s failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain name.
Indeed, as already noted, the resolving website mimics Complainant’s legitimate website and offers for sale unauthorized or counterfeit versions of Complainant’s products. This can evince bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). 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.”); see also Affliction, Inc. v. Chinasupply, FA 1223521 (Forum Oct. 23, 2008) (finding that the respondent attempts to commercially gain and thus demonstrating bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) by creating confusion as to the complainant’s connection with the website by selling counterfeit products); see also Crocs, Inc. v. jing dian, Case No. FA1410001587214 (NAF Dec. 12, 2014) (finding bad faith where the respondent used the disputed domain name to display the complainant’s marks to sell unauthorized goods); see also Swarovski Aktiengesellschaft v. ailong c ailong xiong, Case No. FA1407001571172 (Forum Sept. 5, 2014) (finding bad faith where respondent used the disputed domain name in connection with a website purportedly offering unauthorized goods of Complainant and stating that the respondent’s bad faith was “apparent in that [r]espondent is profiting from the likelihood Internet users will mistakenly believe the goods sold through the domain name’s website are legitimate…”); see also Hunter Fan Co. v. MSS, FA 98067 (Forum Aug. 23, 2001) (finding bad faith where the respondent used the disputed domain name to sell the complainant’s products without permission and mislead Internet users by implying that the respondent was affiliated with the complainant); see also Hunter Fan Co. v. MSS, FA 98067 (Forum Aug. 23, 2001) (finding bad faith where the respondent used the disputed domain name to sell the complainant’s products without permission and mislead Internet users by implying that the respondent was affiliated with the complainant); see also H-D Michigan, LLC v. Ross, FA 1250712 (Forum Apr. 23, 2009) (determining that the respondent’s selling of counterfeit products creates the likelihood of confusion as to the complainant’s affiliation with the disputed domain name and allows the respondent to profit from that confusion and thus demonstrates bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)); see also Affliction, Inc. v. Chinasupply, FA 1223521 (Forum Oct. 23, 2008) (finding that the respondent attempts to commercially gain and thus demonstrating bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) by creating confusion as to the complainant’s connection with the website by selling counterfeit products). The Panel therefore finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Further, Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark: the resolving website displays Complainant’s mark and distinctive logo, and photographs of Complainant’s products. While constructive notice is insufficient to demonstrate bad faith, actual knowledge of a complainant’s rights in a mark prior to registration may be evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Custom Modular Direct LLC v. Custom Modular Homes Inc., FA 1140580 (Forum Apr. 8, 2008) (“There is no place for constructive notice under the Policy.”); see also Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014) (“The Panel notes that although the UDRP does not recognize ‘constructive notice’ as sufficient grounds for finding Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith, the Panel here finds actual knowledge through the name used for the domain and the use made of it.”); see also Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name). The Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the mark prior to Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name and that this constitutes bad faith under 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 <shopkimes.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: March 29, 2023
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page