Backcountry.com, LLC v. Ygtyo Hdeyh
Claim Number: FA2210002015586
Complainant is Backcountry.com, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Craig A. Beaker of Holland & Hart LLP, Colorado, USA. Respondent is Ygtyo Hdeyh (“Respondent”), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <outdoorstoic.com>, registered with Name.com, Inc..
The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on October 11, 2022; Forum received payment on October 11, 2022.
On Oct 12, 2022, Name.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <outdoorstoic.com> domain name is registered with Name.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. 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 October 17, 2022, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 7, 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@outdoorstoic.com. Also on October 17, 2022, 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 November 11, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin 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
1. Respondent’s <outdoorstoic.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s STOIC mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <outdoorstoic.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and uses the <outdoorstoic.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent did not file a Response.
Complainant uses the STOIC mark in association with selling apparel, outdoor recreation products. Complainant holds a registration for the STOIC mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 4303136, registered March 19, 2013), and with other trademark authorities around the world.
Respondent registered the <outdoorstoic.com> domain name on April 7, 2022, and uses it to sell STOIC-branded 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 Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the STOIC mark through its numerous registrations, including with the USPTO. See Red Hat, Inc. v. Muhammad Shahzad, FA 1787738 (Forum June 19, 2018) (“Registration of a mark with multiple trademark agencies is sufficient to demonstrate rights to a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”)
Respondent’s <outdoorstoic.com> domain name incorporates the STOIC mark and adds the term “outdoor,” which is directly related to Complainant’s products, along with the “.com” gTLD. These changes do not distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶4(a)(i). See YETI Coolers, LLC v. Randall Bearden, FA 16060016880755 (Forum Aug. 10, 2016) (finding that the words “powder coating” in the <yetipowdercoating.com> domain name are “merely explicative and directly refer to some of the services rendered by the Complainant” and, therefore, create an “irrefutable confusing similarity” to complainant’s YETI mark); see also Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association v. Shi Lei aka Shilei, FA 1784643 (Forum June 18, 2018) (“A TLD (whether a gTLD, sTLD or ccTLD) is disregarded under a Policy ¶4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax requires TLDs.”). The Panel therefore finds that Respondent’s <outdoorstoic.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s STOIC mark.
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Once Complainant makes a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), 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”).
Complainant asserts that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and has no permission to use Complainant’s mark. The WHOIS information for <outdoorstoic.com> lists the registrant as “Ygtyo Hdeyh.” Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and thus has no rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Navistar International Corporation v. N Rahmany, FA1505001620789 (Forum June 8, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name where the complainant had never authorized the respondent to incorporate its NAVISTAR mark in any domain name registration).
Complainant also argues that Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, because Respondent uses it to purport to sell Complainant’s goods. Using a disputed domain name to pass off as a complainant is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Nokia Corp. v. Eagle, FA 1125685 (Forum Feb. 7, 2008) (finding the respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to pass itself off as the complainant in order to advertise and sell unauthorized products of the complainant was not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)); see also 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).”) Complainant demonstrates that the disputed domain name resolves to a website mimicking its own website and purporting to offer Complainant’s goods. The Panel finds that this is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, and thus Respondent has no rights under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant claims that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith by passing itself off as Complainant. Using a disputed domain name to deceive consumers, especially using a lookalike website, for Respondent’s gain constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum December 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 therefore finds bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Complainant argues Respondent registered the <outdoorstoic.com> domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the STOIC mark, as shown through the use of Complainant’s materials on the resolving site. The Panel agrees and finds further bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Am. Online, Inc. v. Miles, FA 105890 (Forum May 31, 2002) (“Respondent is using the domain name at issue to resolve to a website at which Complainant’s trademarks and logos are prominently displayed. Respondent has done this with full knowledge of Complainant’s business and trademarks.”); see also Pfizer, Inc. v. Suger, D2002-0187 (WIPO Apr. 24, 2002) (finding that because the link between the complainant’s mark and the content advertised on the respondent’s website was obvious, the respondent “must have known about the Complainant’s mark when it registered the subject domain name”).
The Panel finds that 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 <outdoorstoic.com> domain name be TRANFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist
Dated: November 14, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page