Westmore · UDRP DecisionAllsaintssale.org
The Panel ordered transfer of <allsaintssale.org>. It found the Domain Name confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ALLSAINTS and ALL SAINTS marks, that the Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests, and that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith to attract users for commercial gain through a misleading website purporting to offer the Complainant’s products at heavily reduced prices. The Respondent’s name was redacted because the registration appeared to involve misuse of another person’s identity.
The timeline behind allsaintssale.org
Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.
Westmore reconstructs the full history behind allsaintssale.org — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
The case illustrates a straightforward mark-plus-retail-term domain used for a purported discount storefront. The decision is also notable for separating the actual registrant from a person whose identity appeared to have been misused, while still permitting transfer through a confidential annex to the Registrar.
Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION All Saints Retail Limited v. Name Redacted Case No. D2018-2547 1. The Parties The Complainant is All Saints Retail Limited of London, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (“UK”), represented by Stobbs IP Limited, UK. The Respondent is Name Redacted. 1 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <allsaintssale.org> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 7, 2018, naming the Respondent as GoDaddy.com, LLC. The Center transmitted its request for registrar verification to the Registrar the same day. The Registrar replied on November 8, 2018, confirming that the Domain Name is registered with it but that GoDaddy.com, LLC is not the registrant. The Registrar provided the full contact details held on its WhoIs database in respect of the Domain Name. The Registrar also confirmed that the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”) applies to the Domain Name, that the Domain Name expires on March 20, 2019, that it will remain locked during this proceeding subject to expiry, and that the language of the registration agreement is English. The Center invited the Complainant by email of November 14, 2018 to amend the Complaint to reflect the registrant information provided by the Registrar. The Complainant submitted an amended Complaint accordingly on November 16, 2018. The Center verified that the amended Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the UDRP, the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”). In accordance with paragraphs 2 and 4 of the Rules, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on November 19, 2018. On November 26, 2018, the Center received an email from a person indicating that the Domain Name had been registered using that person’s contact details without authorization. The Center replied on November 27, 2018, acknowledging receipt of this communication and stating that the matter raised would be addressed by the Panel. The Center also informed the Parties on the same date that a person had contacted it regarding that person’s identity in relation to this proceeding. In accordance with paragraph 5 of the Rules, the due date for Response was December 9, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. The Center notified the parties on December 10, 2018, that it would proceed to Panel Appointment. The Center appointed Jonathan Turner as the sole panelist in this matter on December 19, 2018. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with paragraph 7 of the Rules. 4. Factual Background The Complainant is a fashion retailer. The business was founded in 1994 and has operated under the brand name “AllSaints” since then. It started as a wholesaler supplier of fashionwear to high-end retailers such as Harvey Nichols and Harrods. It now sells clothing, footwear and accessories in 232 stores in 27 countries including the UK, France, the United States of America, Canada, the Russian Federation, the Republic of Korea and Taiwan. It has about 3200 employees and a turnover in 2017 of over GBP 303 million. The Complainant has operated a website at “www.allsaints.com” since 2009. Visits to this website totaled nearly 28 million in 2017. The Complainant also has hundreds of thousands of followers on major social media platforms. The Complainant is the registered proprietor of the marks ALLSAINTS and ALL SAINTS as well as various other marks containing these in the UK, the European Union and many other countries. These registrations include UK registration no. 00002307473 for ALL SAINTS registered on March 21, 2003 pursuant to an application on August 7, 2002, and UK registration no. 00003008651 for ALLSAINTS registered on July 3, 2015 pursuant to an application on June 5, 2013. The Domain Name was registered on March 20, 2018, and is directed to a website that purports to sell products of the Complainant under the marks ALLSAINTS and ALL SAINTS at heavily reduced prices. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that it has registered and unregistered rights in the marks ALLSAINTS and ALL SAINTS. It submits that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to these marks, since the addition of the descriptive word “sale” merely serves to reinforce a false connection with the Complainant. The Complainant maintains that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. The Complainant states that it has not authorized the Respondent to use its marks and that the Respondent is not known by these marks. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not using the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, since the products advertised on the website at the Domain Name under the Complainant’s marks do not originate with the Complainant, and the Complainant has reason to suspect that they are not actually available for sale. The Complainant adds that the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant’s rights in the marks ALLSAINTS and ALL SAINTS in view of its extensive Internet presence. The Complainant alleges that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant maintains that the Respondent’s website has been set up with the intention of creating a connection with the Complainant and to lure consumers to it with the promise of price reductions. The Complainant states that the goods purportedly offered on the Respondent’s website do not originate with the Complainant and suspects that the Respondent is using the Domain Name to obtain personal and financial information from those who seek to purchase goods on its website. The Complainant requests a decision that the Domain Name be transferred to it. B. Respondent As stated above, the Respondent did not submit a formal response to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings The Panel regards the Respondent as being the real registrant of the Domain Name rather than the person whose identity appears to have been misused by that registrant, and the Panel uses the term “Respondent” to refer to that registrant. In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove: (i) that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which it has rights; (ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and (iii) that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. It is convenient to consider each of these requirements in turn. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences as it considers appropriate from the Respondent’s failure to file a response. This includes the acceptance of plausible evidence of the Complainant which has not been disputed. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel finds on the evidence that the Complainant has registered and unregistered rights in the marks ALLSAINTS and ALL SAINTS. The Panel further finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to these marks. The addition of the descriptive and frequently used term “sale” and of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) suffix does not provide any effective distinction between the Domain Name and the Complainant’s marks. The first requirement of the UDRP is satisfied B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Panel finds that the Respondent has not used the Domain Name for a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Panel accepts the Complainant’s undisputed evidence that the goods purportedly offered on the Respondent’s website did not originate with the Complainant, if they exist at all. It is also clear that the Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name or a corresponding name and that it is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name. The Respondent has not been authorized by the Complainant to register or use the Domain Name. On the evidence, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. The second requirement of the UDRP is satisfied. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel finds on the evidence that by using the Domain Name the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to its website for some form of commercial gain, whether through the sale of counterfeit goods or the collection of personal and financial data, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s marks as to the source of the website and the products offered on it. In accordance with paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the UDRP, this constitutes evidence of registration and use of the Domain Name in bad faith. There is no evidence displacing this presumption. The Panel therefore concludes that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The third requirement of the UDRP is satisfied and it is appropriate to order that the Domain Name be transferred to the Complainant. 7. Decision For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the Domain Name <allsaintssale.org> be transferred to the Complainant. For the purpose of properly executing this order, the Panel directs the Registrar’s attention to Annex 1 hereto that identifies the individual listed as registrant of the Domain Name in the formal record of registration, and orders that the Domain Name be transferred from that individual to the Complainant. The Panel directs that Annex 1 shall not be published along with this decision. Jonathan Turner Sole Panelist Date: January 2, 2019 1 In light of the potential identity theft revealed by the correspondence, the Panel has redacted the Respondent’s name from this decision. However, the Panel has attached as Annex 1 to this decision an instruction to the Registrar regarding transfer of the disputed domain name, which includes the name of the registrant according to the Registrar’s WhoIs database. The Panel has authorized the Center to transmit Annex 1 to the Registrar as part of the order in this proceeding, and has indicated that Annex 1 to this decision shall not be published due to the exceptional circumstances of this case. See Banco Bradesco S.A. v. FAST-12785241 Attn. Bradescourgente.net / Name Redacted , WIPO Case No. D2009-1788 .
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around allsaintssale.org
The decision is only the record. Westmore connects it to the cases, authorities, panelists, parties and domain evidence surrounding it.
A short, grounded explanation drawn only from this decision's record — not legal advice or a prediction.
Grounded in the Westmore record for this decision. Research/informational only — not legal advice or a prediction of any outcome.
The decision is only the beginning.
You've seen what happened. Now discover the deeper intelligence behind the case, the panelist, the parties and the authorities that matter.
Go beyond the public record: see how this case has been cited, find comparable decisions, analyze the panelist and apply the relevant authorities to your Matter.
Westmore Professional · $395/month
Research with UDRP IntelligenceWestmore AI drafts an attorney-review-ready UDRP response from your facts, grounded in the exact panel and closest precedent.
$895 one-time per matter · no subscription required. Self-help drafting aid — not legal advice.
Build your responseWestmore UDRP records draw on WIPO-indexed decisions and are provided for research and informational purposes only. Not legal advice, a clearance opinion, or a prediction of any outcome.