Lulugeorgiadecor.com

The timeline behind lulugeorgiadecor.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 AN D MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Lulu & Georgia, Inc. v. Kate Jones Case No. D2025-2513 1. The Parties The Complainant is Lulu & Georgia, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, LLP, United States. The Respondent is Kate Jones, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The Disputed Domain Name <lulugeorgiadecor.com> is registered with Gname.com Pte. Ltd. (the “Reg istrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 25, 2025. On June 26, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request f or registrar verif ication in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On June 27, 2025, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verif ication response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Disputed Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent (Privacy service provided by Gname.com Pte. Ltd.) and contact inf ormation in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on June 30, 2025, 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 July 1, 2025. 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” or “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”). 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 July 7, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 27, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notif ied the Respondent’s def ault on July 28, 2025. page 2 The Center appointed Purvi Patel Albers as the sole panelist in this matter on August 5, 2025. 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 a California corporation based in Los Angeles that specializes in luxury interior design and home décor. The Complainant sells a variety of products including f urniture, bedding, lighting, art, pillows, throws, and home décor accessories and operates an online retail store f or its various of f erings at the domain name <luluandgeorgia.com>. The Complainant includes evidence of ownership of the United States trademark registration No. 5407349 f o r LULU & GEORGIA for “[o] n-line retail store services featuring a wide variety of consumer goods of others; [o]n-line retail store services featuring housewares,” which was registered on February 20, 2018, and claims use dating back to October 31, 2012. The Disputed Domain Name was created on December 3, 2024. The Complaint includes evidence that it resolved to website prominently featuring the LULU AND GEORGIA mark, including in a similar stylization to the mark on the Complainant’s website, and was purportedly selling LULU AND GEORGIA branded products at signif icantly discounted prices. At the time of writing this decision, the Disputed Domain Name is inactive. 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 Disputed Domain Name. Notably, the Complainant contends that it has rights in the LULU & GEORGIA mark due in part to the registration above. The Complainant further asserts that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the LULU & GEORGIA mark. The Complainant also contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. The Complainant asserts it has not authorized the Respondent to use or register the Disputed Domain Name. The Complainant further asserts that the Respondent is not using the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or in a legitimate noncommercial or f air manner because the Respondent is using the deceptively similar domain name to divert Internet traffic to a commercial website offering LULU AND GEORGIA branded counterf eit goods at highly discounted prices. Finally, the Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name was registered in bad f aith because, among other things, the Respondent attempted to trade of f the Complainant’s goodwill by conf using consumers into believing that the Disputed Domain Name and its content are somehow af f iliated with the Complainant, and the Disputed Domain Name was used in bad faith by selling unauthorized and counterf eit LULU AND GEORGIA branded products. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions page 3 6. Discussion and Findings In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, to succeed in this dispute, the Complainant must establish that: i. the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights; ii. the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name; and iii. the Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad f aith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well accepted that the f irst element f unctions 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 f or purposes of the Policy through the trademark registrations cited above. Thus, the Complainant has provided prima facie evidence of trademark rights. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 1.2.1. The Panel f inds that the Disputed Domain Name is conf usingly similar to the Complainant’s LULU & GEORGIA trademark. Where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark, the domain name will normally be considered confusingly similar to that mark for purposes of UDRP standing. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. Here, the mark is clearly recognizable within the Disputed Domain Name – differing only in that the Disputed Domain Name merely includes the descriptive term “decor” and omits the “&” symbol, which is not available f or use in a domain name. Although the addition of the other terms, namely, “decor,” may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such term does not prevent a f inding of confusing similarity between the Disputed Domain Name and the LULU & GEORGIA mark f or the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8 (“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”). The Panel f inds the f irst element of the Policy has been established. 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 of ten 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 f orward 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 f ails to come f orward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisf ied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 2.1. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima f acie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. The Disputed Domain Name was registered 6 years af ter the Complainant received its United States registration f or the page 4 LULU & GEORGIA mark and more than 12 years af ter the Complainant began using the mark. The Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to use said mark or register a domain name incorporating it, and there is no evidence showing that the Respondent is, or has been, known as “lulugeorgiadecor” or similar. There is also no evidence that the Respondent is using the Disputed Domain Name for a bona f ide of f ering of goods or services. Instead, the unrebutted evidence in the case indicates that the Disputed Domain Name prominently displayed the Complainant’s mark, including in the Complainant’s stylized font, and was off ering LULU AND GEORGIA branded products at significantly discounted prices. The Respondent has not come f orward with any evidence to support a f inding that it is acting as an unauthorized reseller of the Complainant’s products. Rather, the evidence on record tends to suggest that the Respondent has been illegitimately holding itself out as the Complainant. Further, past panels have held that goods sold well below market value can form circumstantial evidence which supports a complainant’s claim of counterf eit goods. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 2.13.2; see, e.g., Olaplex, Inc. v. 丁超 (Ding Chao), WIPO Case No . D2023-4059; Gallery Department, LLC v. Naeem Aslam, WIPO Cas e No . D2024-1808; and Frankie Shop LLC v. Jordan Cole, WIPO Case No . D2024-2160. The use of a domain name f or illegal activity, such as claimed sale of counterfeit goods or impersonation of the Complainant, can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1. 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 f inds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel notes that, f or 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 f aith. In particular, paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy provides that the intentional use of a domain name to attract users to a website for commercial gain, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website, establishes bad faith in the registration and use of the domain name. In the present case, the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name several years af ter the Complainant began using and registered the mark. Considering the Complainant’s prior use of the LULU & GEORGIA mark, the prominent adoption of the mark on the Disputed Domain Name, and the Respondent’s use of the Disputed Domain Name to offer “LULU AND GEORGIA” branded home décor products, the Panel f inds it implausible that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant’s right when registering the Disputed Domain Name. Further, the Panel notes that the Respondent is using the Disputed Domain Name and the Complainant’s mark f or its own commercial gain by creating a likelihood of conf usion as to the source or af f iliation of its web site and to trick consumers into believing the Disputed Domain Name is somehow associated with the Complainant. The Respondent also attempted to profit from the Complainant’s reputation and goodwill by selling purportedly counterfeit LULU & GEORGIA branded products. Prior panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity, such as the claimed sale of counterfeit goods, constitutes bad f aith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4. The Panel f inds the third element of the Policy has been established. page 5 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 disputed domain name <lulugeorgiadecor.com> be transf erred to the Complainant. /Purvi Patel Albers/ Purvi Patel Albers Sole Panelist Date: August 19, 2025

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