Kidkraftoutlet.com

The timeline behind kidkraftoutlet.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 Backyard Products, LLC v. Rodrigueza Chester Case No. D2025-5220 1. The Parties Complainant is Backyard Products, LLC, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick, LLP, United Sates. Respondent is Rodrigueza Chester, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <kidkraftoutlet.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 December 15, 2025. On December 15, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 16, 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 (Redacted for Privacy) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on December 18, 2025, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on the same day. 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on December 19, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 8, 2026. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on January 23, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Georges Nahitchevansky as the sole panelist in this matter on February 3, 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 Complainant, Backyard Products, LLC, is a United States based manufacturer and installer of outdoor structures, specializing in wooden sheds, playsets, pavilions, pergolas, and accessory structures. Complainant owns multiple product lines including, of relevance to this proceeding, KIDKRAFT which specializes in toys and furniture such as dollhouses, play kitchens, trains, swing sets and indoor and outdoor furniture. Complainant owns a number of trademark registrations for KIDKRAFT in the United States in connection with its goods and services. These include, inter alia, registrations for KIDKRAFT as a word mark (Nos. 2,980,497, 4,831,199, 4,836,801, 6,455,176), the earliest of which issued to registration on August 2, 2005. Complainant also owns and uses the domain name <kidkraft.com> for a website that concerns Complainant's KIDKRAFT products and through which KIDKRAFT products can be purchased online. Respondent appears to be based in the United States. Respondent registered the disputed domain name on July 9, 2025, and at some point thereafter used such for a website that essentially copied Complainant's KIDKRAFT logo and tag line, and offered for sale a range of toys, outdoor, garden, home and kitchen playsets, and furniture under the name and mark KIDKRAFT at steeply discounted prices. That website at the disputed domain name is currently accessible. 5. Parties’ Contention A. Complainant Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name. Notably, Complainant maintains that it has strong rights in the KIDKRAFT mark by virtue of the use of such since as early as the 1970's and Complainant's several trademark registrations for that mark. Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar as it fully incorporates the KIDKRAFT mark in its entirety with the word “outlet,” which in combination suggests an official discount channel of Complainant. Complainant asserts that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as Respondent (i) is not an authorized distributor or retailer of Complainant and has never been licensed by Complainant to use the KIDKRAFT mark, (ii) is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and (iii) has used the disputed domain name for a website impersonating Complainant to sell counterfeit or otherwise unauthorized products under the KIDKRAFT mark. In that regard, Complainant notes that Respondent’s website uses a number of Complainant’s product images and marketing text, and offers for sale a number of products that have been discontinued by Complainant or which are out of stock. Lastly, Complainant argues that Respondent is acting in bad faith as the disputed domain name and associated website clearly target Complainant and are meant to suggest an official outlet or clearance channel affiliated with Complainant. Complainant maintains that the registration and use of the disputed domain name has been done to attract and redirect consumers to Respondent's website for Respondent's commercial benefit. Complainant also argues that Respondent's actions were done well after Complaint had established rights in the KIDKRAFT mark and have been done opportunistically. page 3 B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, to succeed Complainant must satisfy the Panel that: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; (ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Ownership of a trademark registration is generally sufficient evidence that a complainant has the requisite rights in a mark for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), at section 1.7. Complainant has provided evidence that it owns several trademark registrations for the KIDKRAFT mark and that such issued to registration well before Respondent registered the disputed domain name. 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. Id. Here, the KIDKRAFT mark is fully incorporated and clearly visible in the disputed domain name. Although the addition of the word “outlet” at the tail of the disputed domain name may bear on the assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such element does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the KIDKRAFT mark for purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8 The Panel finds the first 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 a 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 that 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 page 4 demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. Here, the disputed domain name is clearly based on Complainant’s KIDKRAFT mark, particularly as the KIDKRAFT mark is followed by the word “outlet,” which suggests a discount or clearance channel for Complainant's KIDKRAFT products. Indeed, the fact that Respondent’s website essentially copies Complainant’s logo, uses Complainant’s product photos and marketing text, and offers for sale the very same products associated with the KIDKRAFT brand, it is highly likely that consumers will mistakenly see the disputed domain name and associated website as an official or authorized site for KIDKRAFT products, when such is not the case. And while all of the products on Respondent’s website appear to be KIDKRAFT labeled products (whether genuine or perhaps copies of such), the website is meant to impersonate Complainant’s KIDKRAFT line of products or at the very least to suggest a close affiliation with KIDKRAFT, when such does not exist. This is particularly so given that (i) there are repeated references to the operator of Respondent's website as “KidKraft,” (ii) the website is bereft of any disclaimer, and (iii) Respondent has failed to appear to explain or justify its actions in this proceeding. To be sure, such actions by Respondent seriously undermine any notion that Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview 3.0 at section 2.5. The Panel thus finds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel notes that, for 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 view of Respondent’s actions, and failure to appear in this proceeding, it is easy to infer that Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name that fully incorporates Complainant's KIDKRAFT mark in combination with a word that suggests a clearance or discount channel for Complainant's KIDKRAFT products has been done in bad faith and opportunistically for the benefit or profit of Respondent. That this is more likely than not is confirmed by the fact that the disputed domain name has been used for a website that essentially impersonates Complainant, as noted above, and which appears to have been designed to pass itself off as an official, authorized or affiliated website of Complainant, when such is not the case. In all, Respondent’s actions, including the registration of the disputed domain name based on the KIDKRAFT mark, makes it more likely than not that Respondent was fully aware of Complainant and its KIDKRAFT mark and specifically chose to target Complainant in bad faith for Respondent’s benefit. 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 <kidkraftoutlet.com> be transferred to Complainant. /Georges Nahitchevansky/ Georges Nahitchevansky Sole Panelist Date: February 16, 2026

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