Greenmadestorage.shop

The timeline behind greenmadestorage.shop

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 U.S. Merchants Financial Group, Inc. v. tyu dfds Case No. D2025-4823 1. The Parties Complainant is U.S. Merchants Financial Group, Inc., United States of America (“United States” or “U.S.”), represented by Thompson Hine LLP, United States. Respondent is tyu dfds, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The Disputed Domain Name <greenmadestorage.shop> is registered with NameSilo, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 20, 2025. On November 20, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On November 20, 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 (Privacy User #28503d5c (PrivacyGuardian.org), PrivacyGuardian.org) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on November 26, 2025, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on December 2, 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on December 4, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 24, 2025. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on December 26, 2025. page 2 The Center appointed Richard W. Page as the sole panelist in this matter on December 31, 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 Complainant is a California, United States corporation in the business of vertically integrated packaging, injection-molded storage, contract manufacturing, and global logistics. Among its product lines are several manufactured under the brand “GreenMade.” Complaint’s has longstanding use in commerce for a variety of products distributed through major U.S. retailers using the GREENMADE Mark. In addition, Complainant has at least three United States federal trademark registrations for the GREENMADE Mark: United States Registration No. 5,167,072 registered March 21, 2017 for the word mark GREENMADE in Classes 20 and 21, with a date of first use at lease as early as September 1, 2016; United States Registration No. 5,637,749 registered December 25, 2018 for the word mark GREENMADE in Class 16, with a date of first use at least as early as April 15, 2018; United States Registration No. 6,964,850 registered January 24, 2023 for the word mark GREENMADE in Cla ss 11, with a date of first use at least as earl as November 1, 2021. The Disputed Domain Name was registered on August 9, 2024 and resolves to a website which contains prominent use of the GREENMADE Mark, and purportedly offering storage products for sale. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the GREENMADE Mark because the entirety of the GREENMADE Mark is contained in the Disputed Domain Name with only the addition of the descriptive phrase “storage”. Complainant submits that it has not licensed or in any other way authorized Respondent to use the GREENMADE Mark. Complainant further submits that Respondent repeatedly uses the GREENMADE Mark in distinctive text on Respondent’s website to advertise and promote a variety of products that are not associated with Complainant and are not genuine products lawfully sold under the GREENMADE Mark. The text includes a purported copyright notice by “GreenMade Storage Solutions”. This copyright notice is not authorized by Complainant and no entity by the name “GreenMade Storage Solutions” has been found to exist. Complainant further submits that Respondent, on its website, is attempting to pass off the Disputed Domain Name as being associated or authorized by Complainant. Complainant further submits that Respondent’s impersonation and misrepresentation foreclose any claim to rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name and does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate use of the Disputed Domain Name. page 3 Complainant submits that Respondent’s marketing and selling third-party goods as genuine products lawfully sold under the GREENMADE Mark, misleading consumers, and free-riding on Complainant’s well-earned reputation for quality constitute bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. Complainant further submits that these activities are, also, the hallmarks of counterfeit/passing-off schemes. Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the Disputed Domain Name. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs the Panel as to the principles the Panel is to use in determining the dispute: “A Panel shall 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.” Even though Respondent has failed to file a Response or to contest Complainant’s assertions, the Panel will review the evidence proffered by Complainant to verify that the three essential elements of the claims are met. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.3. Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements: i) that the Disputed Domain Name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to the mark in which Complainant has rights; and, ii) that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name; and, iii) that the Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar According to the WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1, the registration of the GREENMADE Mark is prima facie evidence of Complainant having enforceable rights in the GREENMADE Mark. Complainant has shown rights in respect of the GREENMADE Mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1. 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 mark and the Disputed Domain Name. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. The entirety of the mark is reproduced within the Disputed Domain Name. Accordingly, the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the GREENMADE Mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. Although the addition of other terms, here “storage”, may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, t he Panel finds the addition of such term does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the Disputed Domain Name and the GREENMADE Mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8. 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 three nonexclusive circumstances in which Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a Disputed Domain Name: (i) before any notice to you [Respondent] of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Disputed Domain Name or a name corresponding to the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or (ii) you [Respondent] (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) you [Respondent] are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the mark. Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on Complainant, panels have recognized that proving Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name may result in the difficult task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of Respondent. As such, where Complainant makes out a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to Respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name (although the burden of proof always remains on Complainant). If Respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, Complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1. The Panel finds that there is no evidence in the record that Respondent has ever been known by the Disputed Domain Name. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds Complainant has established a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. Respondent has not rebutted 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. Panels have held that the use of the Disputed Domain Name for illegitimate activity, here claimed as impersonation/passing off, can never confer rights or legitimate interests on Respondent. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1. 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 the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets forth four nonexclusive criteria for Complainant to show bad faith registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name: (i) circumstances indicating that you [Respondent] have registered or you have acquired the Disputed Domain Name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the Disputed Domain Name registration to Complainant who is the owner of the mark or to a competitor of Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the Disputed Domain Name; or page 5 (ii) you [Respondent] have registered the Disputed Domain Name in order to prevent the owner of the mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) you [Respondent] have registered the Disputed Domain Name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) by using the Disputed Domain Name, you [Respondent] have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your website or location or of a product on your website or location. In the present case, the Panel finds that Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the GREENMADE Mark. Hence Respondent has met paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy and acted in bad faith. Panels have held that the use of the Disputed Domain Name for illegitimate activity, here claimed as impersonation/passing off, constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds Respondent’s registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name constitutes bad faith under the Policy. The Panel finds that Complainant has established the third element of the Policy. 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 <greenmadestorage.shop> be transferred to Complainant. /Richard W. Page/ Richard W. Page Sole Panelist Date: January 9, 2026

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