Chaussuresdegolfgfore.com + 26 more domains

The timeline behind chaussuresdegolfgfore.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

How each disputed name was decided in this proceeding.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

ARBITRATION AN D MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Peter Millar, LLC v. Client Care, Web Commerce Communications Limited Case No. D2023-4319 1. The Parties The Complainant is Peter Millar, LLC, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Corsearch, United States. The Respondent is Client Care, Web Commerce Communications Limited, Malaysia. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar The disputed domain names <chaussuresdegolfgfore.com>, <gffranceshop.com>, <gf ore-argentina.com>, <gf oregolf australia.com>, <gf oregolf-canada.com>, <gforegolf-chile.com>, <gf oregolf espana.com>, <gforegolfireland.com>, <gforegolfjapan.com>, <gforegolfmexico.com>, <gforegolfnorge.com>, <gforegolfosterreich.com>, <gforegolfoutletireland.com>, <gforegolfoutletitalia.com>, <gforegolfoutletusa.com>, <gforegolfphilippines.com>, <gforegolfschuhe.com>, <gforegolfshoesaustralia.com>, <gforegolfshoesnz.com>, <gforegolfshoessaleuk.com>, <gf oregolfsingapore.com>, <gforegolfsouthafrica.com>, <gforemexico-mx.com>, <gforeoutletmexico.com>, <gf oreoutletschweiz.com>, <gf sverige.com>, and <scarpedagolf gf ore.com> (the “Domain Names”) are registered with Alibaba.com Singapore E-Commerce Private Limited (the “Reg istrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 18, 2023. On October 18, 2023, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request f or registrar verif ication in connection with the Domain Names. On October 20, 2023, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verif ication response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Names which dif f ered f rom the named Respondent (N/A) and contact inf ormation in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on October 23, 2023, providing the registrant and contact inf ormation disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant f iled an amended Complaint on October 28, 2023. The Center verif ied that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisf ied the f ormal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” o r “UDRP”), the Rules f or Unif orm Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules f or Unif orm Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”). page 2 In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center f ormally notif ied the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on November 1, 2023. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date f or Response was November 21, 2023. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notif ied the Respondent’s def ault on November 23, 2023. The Center appointed Piotr Nowaczyk as the sole panelist in this matter on December 4, 2023. The Panel f inds 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 the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background The Complainant is an American clothing brand f ounded in 2001. In January 2018, the Complainant acquired G/Fore – a golf sportswear and accessories brand. The Complainant is the owner of numerous G FORE and G/FORE trademark registrations (the “Trad emarks”), including: - the United States Trademark Registration f or G FORE (wo rd ), No. 4035425 registered on October 4, 2011; - the International Trademark Registration for G/FORE (wo rd), No. 1526743 registered on March 9, 2020; and - the European Union Trade Mark Registratio n f o r G FORE (wo rd ), No . 011699618 registered on August 9, 2013. The Complainant also operates the domain name <gf ore.com> incorporating its G FORE trademark. The disputed domain name <chaussuresdegolf gf ore.com> was registered on August 29, 2023. The disputed domain name <gf f ranceshop.com> was registered on October 8, 2022. The disputed domain name <gf ore-argentina.com> was registered on August 22, 2023. The disputed domain name <gf oregolf australia.com> was registered on August 10, 2023. The disputed domain name <gforegolf-canada.com> was registered on August 28, 2023. The disputed domain name <gforegolf-chile.com> was registered on August 28, 2023. The disputed domain name <gf oregolf espana.com> was registered on August 28, 2023. The disputed domain name <gf oregolf ireland.com> was registered on August 22, 2023. The disputed domain name <gf oregolf japan.com> was registered on August 10, 2023. The disputed domain name <gf oregolf mexico.com> was registered on August 22, 2023. The disputed domain name <gf oregolf norge.com> was registered on August 22, 2023. The disputed domain name <gf oregolf osterreich.com> was registered on August 29, 2023. The disputed domain name <gf oregolf outletireland.com> was registered on August 28, 2023. The disputed domain name <gf oregolf outletitalia.com> was registered on August 22, 2023. The disputed domain name <gf oregolf outletusa.com> was registered on August 28, 2023. The disputed domain name <gf oregolf philippines.com> was registered on August 10, 2023. The disputed domain name <gf oregolf schuhe.com> was registered on August 29, 2023. The disputed domain name <gf oregolf shoesaustralia.com> was registered on August 28, 2023. The disputed domain name <gf oregolf shoesnz.com> was registered on August 28, 2023. The disputed domain name <gf oregolf shoessaleuk.com> was registered on August 28, 2023. The disputed domain name <gf oregolf singapore.com> was registered on August 28, 2023. The disputed domain name <gf oregolf southaf rica.com> was registered on August 22, 2023. The disputed domain name <gf oremexico-mx.com> was registered on August 26, 2023. The disputed domain name <gf oreoutletmexico.com> was registered on August 28, 2023. The disputed domain name <gf oreoutletschweiz.com> was registered on August 29, 2023. The disputed domain name <gf sverige.com> was registered on October 8, 2022. The disputed domain name <scarpedagolf gf ore.com> was registered on August 29, 2023. page 3 At the time of submitting the Complaint, the Domain Names (except f or the disputed domain name <g f ore-argentina.com>) resolved to online shops allegedly offering golf apparel and accessories for sale and displaying the Complainant’s Trademarks together with the Complainant’s of f icial marketing materials (the “Websites”). The disputed domain name <gf ore-argentina.com> resolved to the online shop allegedly of f ering athletic apparel f or sale branded with a third-p arty brand. As of the date of this decision, the Domain Names have resolved either to the Websites or to inactive websites. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy f or a transf er of the Domain Names. First, the Complainant submits that the Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to the Trademarks in which the Complainant has rights. Second, the Complainant argues that the Respondent has neither rights nor legitimate interests in the Domain Names. Third, the Complainant contends that the Domain Names were registered and are being used in bad f aith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy places a burden on the Complainant to prove the presence of three separate elements, which can be summarized as f ollows: (i) the Domain Names are identical or conf usingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names; and (iii) the Domain Names have been registered and are being used in bad f aith. The requested remedy may only be granted if the above criteria are met. At the outset, the Panel notes that the applicable standard of proof in UDRP cases is the “balance of probabilities” or “preponderance of the evidence”. See section 4.2 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0 ”). A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Under the f irst requirement, the Complainant must establish that the Domain Names are identical or conf usingly similar to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights. The Complainant holds valid Trademarks. The Domain Names (except f or the disputed domain names <gf f ranceshop.com> and <gf sverige.com>) incorporate the Trademarks in their entirety. As numerous UDRP panels have held, incorporating a trademark in its entirety is sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or conf usingly similar to that trademark (WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 1.7). page 4 The absence of a slash in the Domain Names which appears in the G/FORE trademark is irrelevant, as the presence or absence of punctuation marks cannot on their own avoid a f inding of conf using similarity (see Six Continents Hotels, Inc. v. Helen Siew, WIPO Case No . D2004-0656 ). In the case of the disputed domain names <gffranceshop.com> and <gf sverige.com>, the Trademarks are not present in their entirety. They contain only the letters “g” and “f ” instead of the whole Trademarks. However, the content of the Websites to which these disputed domain names resolve serves to af f irm a f inding of confusing similarity. Additionally, the registration of multiple Domain Names with similar content and targeting the Complainant’s Trademarks reinforce this conclusion (see Bayerische Motoren Werke AG (“BMW”) v. Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC / Armands Piebalgs, WIPO Case No . D2017-0156 ). The addition of other terms such as “chaussuresdegolf ”, “-argentina”, “golf australia”, “golf-canada”, “golf-chile”, “golfespana”, “golfireland”, “golfjapan”, “golfmexico”, “golfnorge”, “golfosterreich”, “golfoutletireland”, “golfoutletitalia”, “golf outletusa”, “golf philippines”, “golf schuhe”, “golf shoesaustralia”, “golf shoesnz”, “golf shoessaleuk”, “golf singapore”, “golf southaf rica”, “mexico-mx”, “outletmexico”, “outletschweiz”, and “scarpedagolf” in the Domain Names does not prevent a finding of conf using similarity between the Domain Names and the Complainant’s Trademarks. As numerous UDRP panels have held, where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) would not prevent a f inding of conf using similarity under the f irst element. See section 1.8, WIPO Overview 3.0 . The To p-Level domain (“TLD”) “.com” in the Domain Names is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such are disregarded under the f irst element conf using similarity test. See section 1.11.1, WIPO Overview 3.0 . Given the above, the Panel finds that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Trademarks in which the Complainant has rights. Thus, the Complainant has proved the requirements under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Under the second requirement, the Complainant must prove that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names. The respondent may establish a right or legitimate interest in the domain name by demonstrating in accordance with paragraph 4(c) of the Policy any of the f ollowing: (i) that it has used or made preparations to use the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services prior to the dispute; or (ii) that it is commonly known by the domain name, even if it has not acquired any trademark rights; or (iii) that it is making a legitimate, noncommercial or f air use of the domain name without intent f or commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark. Although given the opportunity, the Respondent has not submitted any evidence indicating that any of the circumstances f oreseen in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy are present in this case. On the contrary, it results from the evidence on record that the registration of the Complainant’s Trademarks predates the Respondent’s registration of the Domain Names. There is no evidence in the case record that the Complainant has licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use the Trademarks or to register the Domain Names incorporating the Trademarks. There is also no evidence to suggest that the Respondent has been commonly known by the Domain Names. Moreover, it results from the evidence on record that the Respondent does not make use of the Domain Names in connection with a bona fide of f ering of goods or services, nor does it make a legitimate noncommercial or f air use of the Domain Names. On the contrary, the Domain Names resolved to the page 5 Websites which feature the online shop offering the products bearing the Complainant’s Trademarks and displaying these Trademarks together with the Complainant’s off icial marketing materials such as product images. The disputed domain name <gfore-argentina.com> resolved to the online shop allegedly of f ering athletic apparel of the Complainant’s competitor. The Respondent could make a bona fide offering of goods and services as a reseller or distributor of the Complainant’s products, and thus have a legitimate interest in the Domain Names, if this use meets certain requirements as set out in Oki Data Americas, Inc. v ASD, Inc., WIPO Case No . D2001-0903 . These requirements are that: (1) the Respondent must actually be offering the goods or services at issue; (2) the Respondent must use the Websites to sell only the trademarked goods, otherwise, it could be using the trademark to bait Internet users and then switch them to other goods; (3) the Websites must accurately disclose the Respondents’ relationship with the trademark owner; and (4) the Respondent must not try to corner the market in all domain names, thus depriving the trademark owner of reflecting its own mark in the Domain Names. In the present case, the above ref erred requirements are not met. The Domain Names and the Websites suggest at least an af f iliation with the Complainant and its Trademarks. The Panel believes that the use of the Complainant’s Trademarks in the Domain Name and at the Websites misleads consumers regarding the relationship between the Domain Names and the Complainant, as Internet users may f alsely believe that the Domain Names are an of f icial/endorsed distributor of the Complainant’s products. At the same time, the relationship between the Domain Names and the Complainant (or a lack thereof) is not disclosed at the Websites. This f urther perpetuates the f alse impression of a relationship between the Respondent and the Complainant. Moreover, the disputed domain name <gfore-argentina.com> resolved to the online shop allegedly of f ering athletic apparel for sale branded with the name of the Complainant’s competitor. Thus, the Respondent is using the Complainant’s Trademarks to bait Internet users and then switch them to the goods of the third p arty. In sum, the Respondent has f ailed to invoke any circumstances, which could demonstrate, pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Names. Thus, there is no evidence in the case file that refutes the Complainant’s prima facie case. The Panel concludes that the Complainant has also proved the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(ii) o f the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Under the third element, the Complainant must prove that the Domain Names were registered and are being used in bad f aith. Bad f aith under the UDRP is broadly understood to occur where a respondent takes unf air advantage of or otherwise abuses a complainant’s mark. See section 3.1, WIPO Overview 3.0 . Under paragraph 4(b) of the Policy, evidence of bad f aith registration and use includes without limitation: (i) circumstances indicating the domain name was registered or acquired primarily f or the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the owner of a trademark or to a competitor of the trademark owner, f or valuable consideration in excess of the documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or (ii) circumstances indicating that the domain name was registered in order to prevent the owner of a trademark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided it is a pattern of such conduct; or page 6 (iii) circumstances indicating that the domain name was registered primarily f or the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) circumstances indicating that the domain name has intentionally been used in an attempt to attract, f or commercial gain, Internet users to a website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of conf usion with a trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website or location or of a product or service on a website or location. As indicated above, the Complainant’s rights in the Trademarks predate the registration of the Domain Names. This Panel f inds that the Respondent was or should have been aware of the Complainant’s Trademarks at the time of registration. This f inding is supported by the content of the Websites of f ering the Complainant’s products and displaying the Complainant’s Trademarks together with the Complainant’s marketing materials (with the exception of the disputed domain name <gfore-argentina.com>, whose content being related to a competitor of the Complainant, still reinf orces the Respondent’s awareness of the Complainant). Moreover, it has been proven to the Panel’s satisfaction that the Complainant’s Trademarks are well known and unique to the Complainant. Thus, the Respondent could not likely reasonably ignore the reputation of these Trademarks. In sum, the Respondent in all likelihood registered the Domain Names with the expectation of taking advantage of the reputation of the Complainant’s Trademarks. Furthermore, the Domain Names were being used in bad f aith by the Respondent to of f er f or sale the Complainant’s products or the products of the Complainant’s competitor. There is, thus, little doubt that the Respondent intended to earn profit f rom the conf usion created with Internet users. In consequence, the Panel f inds that the Respondent registered and used the Domain Names deliberately in order to take advantage of the Complainant’s reputation and to g ive credibility to its operations through the incorporation of the Complainant’s Trademarks. Finally, the Complainant has proved that the Respondent has engaged in the pattern of bad f aith conduct. UDRP Panel has found the abusive domain name registrations on the part of the Respondent in such cases as Peter Millar, LLC v. Client Care, Web Commerce Communications Limited, ZhouRunFa, ZhouRunFa, Birgit, Fuchs, WIPO Case No . D2023-2147 , and Peter Millar LLC v. Client Care, Web Commerce Communications Limited, WIPO Case No . D2022-2473. For the reasons discussed above, the Panel finds that the Complainant has proved the requirements under p arag rap h 4(a)(iii) o f the Policy. 7. Decision For the f oregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the Domain Names <chaussuresdegolfgfore.com>, <gffranceshop.com>, <gfore-argentina.com>, <gf oregolf australia.com>, <gf oregolf-canada.com>, <gforegolf-chile.com>, <gf oregolf espana.com>, <gforegolfireland.com>, <gforegolfjapan.com>, <gforegolfmexico.com>, <gforegolfnorge.com>, <gforegolfosterreich.com>, <gforegolfoutletireland.com>, <gforegolfoutletitalia.com>, <gforegolfoutletusa.com>, <gforegolfphilippines.com>, <gforegolfschuhe.com>, <gforegolfshoesaustralia.com>, <gforegolfshoesnz.com>, <gforegolfshoessaleuk.com>, <gf oregolfsingapore.com>, <gforegolfsouthafrica.com>, <gforemexico-mx.com>, <gforeoutletmexico.com>, <gf oreoutletschweiz.com>, <gf sverige.com>, and <scarpedagolf gf ore.com> be transf erred to the Complainant. /Piotr Nowaczyk/ Piotr Nowaczyk Sole Panelist Date: December 14, 2023

Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.