Danskostepsales.com

The timeline behind danskostepsales.com

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

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

ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Dansko, LLC v. Tony C Dunham Case No. D2025-2037 1. The Parties The Complainant is Dansko, LLC, United States of America, (“United States”) represented by Cozen O'Connor, United States. The Respondent is Tony C Dunham, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <danskostepsales.com> is registered with Gname.com Pte. Ltd. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 22, 2025. On May 23, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On May 26, 2025, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent (Unknown Registrant) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on May 26, 2025, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on May 28, 2025. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “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 the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on May 30, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 19, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on June 21, 2025. page 2 The Center appointed Nels T. Lippert as the sole panelist in this matter on June 30, 2025. 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 the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background The Complainant is an established footwear manufacturer. Since 1990, the Complainant has provided footwear to customers around the world. The Complainant has obtained numerous trademark registrations in the United States for its DANSKO and DANSKO formative marks (the “DANSKO Marks”) including: - United States Registration No. 3,854,991, registered September 28, 2010; - United States Registration No. 4,229,847, registered October 23, 2012; and - United States Registration No. 3,265,194, registered July 17, 2007. In addition, the Complainant owns and operates a website at “www.dansko.com” where it offers its lines of footwear. The disputed domain name was registered on April 29, 2025, and resolves to a website offering what are purported to be Dansko shoes at discounted prices. This website prominently displays the DANSKO Marks and registered logo. The Respondent is an individual located in United States. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name. Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s federally registered trademarks because it incorporates the DANSKO trademark with the additionally non-distinctive, descriptive terms “step” and “sales”. The Complainant further contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name because the Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant, and the Complainant has not authorized, licensed, or endorsed the Respondent’s use of the DANSKO Marks in the disputed domain name. The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith because the Respondent had constructive notice of the DANSKO Marks and the disputed domain name resolves to a website purporting to sell the Complainant’s goods. Specifically, the Complainant urges that the disputed domain name resolves to a website that mimics the Complainant’s website, prominently features the Complainant’s trademarks, and purports to sell footwear. Thus, the Complainant alleges that the Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name for commercial gain and to profit from the resulting consumer confusion. Moreover, the Complainant contends that bad faith is further evidenced by the Respondent concealing its true identity by registering the disputed domain name through a privacy service. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. page 3 6. Discussion and Findings As noted above, the Respondent did not respond to the Complainant’s allegations. Under the Rules, paragraphs 5(f) and 14(a), the effect of a default by the Respondent is that, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, the Panel shall proceed to a decision on the basis of the Complaint. The Panel does not find any exceptional circumstance in this case. Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that in order to divest a respondent of a domain name, a complainant must demonstrate each of the following: (i) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and (ii) the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (iii) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 15(a) of the Rules, “[a] Panel shall decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable”. In this case, the Panel finds that as a result of the default, the Respondent has failed to rebut any of the reasonable factual assertions that are made and supported by evidence submitted by the Complainant. By defaulting and failing to respond, the Respondent has failed to offer the Panel any of the types of evidence set forth in Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy or otherwise, from which the Panel might conclude that the Respondent has any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Moreover, the Respondent failed to provide any information or reasoning that might rebut the Complainant’s arguments that the Respondent has acted in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0 ”), section 1.7. The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 1.2.1. The entirety of the mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 1.7. Although the addition of other terms, here, “step” and “sales”, may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such terms does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 1.8. Furthermore, it is well established that the applicable Top-Level Domain in a domain name is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 1.11. The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established. page 4 B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 2.1. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel notes that, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. In the present case, the Panel notes that the Respondent appears to be offering for sale and selling shoes at discounted prices and thus is using the disputed domain name to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s DANSKO Marks. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances may be relevant in assessing whether a respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 3.2.1. While the Complainant has made allegations that the disputed domain name may be used for illegal activity such as acquiring the personally identifiable information of users and for fraudulently purporting to offer the Complainant’s footwear, the Complainant has not offered any evidence of such activities. Nevertheless, the Panel notes that the nature of the disputed domain name which incorporates the Complainant’s registered trademark in its entirety, the impersonating content of the website to which the disputed domain name resolves, the lack of the Respondent’s legitimate rights or interests in the disputed domain name, and the use of a privacy shield to hide the Respondent’s identity all support a finding of bad faith registration and use. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy. page 5 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 disputed domain name <danskostepsales.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Nels T. Lippert/ Nels T. Lippert Sole Panelist Date: July 13, 2025

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