Wildfoxtee.com

The timeline behind wildfoxtee.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 Fam Wildfox, LLC v. Hieu Vuong, Alazier Case No. D2025-5148 1. The Parties The Complainant is Fam Wildfox, LLC, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Russ August & Kabat, United States. The Respondent is Hieu Vuong, Alazier, Viet Nam. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <wildfoxtee.com> is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 10, 2025. On December 11, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 12, 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 Service Provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on December 12, 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 amendment to the Complaint on December 16, 2025. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to the 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 December 17, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 6, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January 7, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed George R. F. Souter as the sole panelist in this matter on January 14, 2026. 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 a United States corporation, founded in California in 2008, and is the proprietor of the trademark WILDFOX. The Complainant’s WILDFOX brand has grown to become a fashion favorite among contemporary women, including A-list celebrities and international influencers, embodying the effortless yet edgy ethos of California. The Complainant has registered its WILDFOX trademark widely throughout the world, including United States Registration No. 4093309, registered on January 31, 2012, European Union Registration No. 15512122, registered on September 27, 2016, and International Trademark Registration No. 167435, registered on March 6, 2023. The disputed domain name was registered on October 19, 2023, and resolves to a website purportedly offering for sale “Local USA T-shirt, Apparel & Merchandise” and using the sign Wildfoxtee thereon. 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 Respondent is not generally known by the disputed domain name, and that the Complainant has never authorized the Respondent to use its WILDFOX trademark in connection with the registration of a domain name, or otherwise. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“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. The mere addition of the term “tee” in the disputed domain name does not detract from this finding. The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established. page 3 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. In addition, the Panel finds that the composition of the disputed domain name, which incorporates the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety together with the term “tee” closely related to the products sold by the Complainant, carries a risk of implied affiliation. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1. The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel considers it implausible that the disputed domain name was adopted without having the Complainant’s trademark in mind particularly noting the additional term “tee” closely related to the products sold by the Complainant, and the subsequent use of the disputed domain name for a website purportedly selling local USA T-shirt, apparel, and merchandise confirms this finding. The Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith. It is well-established in prior decisions under the Policy that the use of a disputed domain name found to be confusingly similar to the complainant’s trademark in connection with the sale of goods competing with those of the Complainant typically constitutes use of the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Panel finds that the Respondent’s bad faith in registration and use of the disputed domain name falls into paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. The Panel finds that the 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 <wildfoxtee.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /George R. F. Souter/ George R. F. Souter Sole Panelist Date: January 28, 2026

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