Fashionnobs.com

The timeline behind fashionnobs.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 Fashion Nova, LLC v. Kun Zhang Case No. D2025-5367 1. The Parties The Complainant is Fashion Nova, LLC, United States of America (“United States” or “U.S.”), represented by Meister Seelig & Fein PLLC, United States. The Respondent is Kun Zhang, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <fashionnobs.com> is registered with Name.com, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 19, 2025. On December 23, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 23, 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 the Complainant on December 24, 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 January 2, 2026. 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 January 5, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 25, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January 26, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Torsten Bettinger as the sole panelist in this matter on January 28, 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 California limited liability company founded in 2006, and engaged in the design, marketing, and sale of apparel and related merchandise under the trademark FASHION NOVA. The Complainant operates a global e-commerce business via its official website at “www.fashionnova.com”, which was registered on March 9, 2006. The Complainant offers a broad range of products, including women’s apparel, juniors, plus-size clothing, menswear, children’s wear, and accessories, and has expanded into additional merchandise categories such as beauty products. The Complainant maintains a strong online presence, including a high-traffic consumer website with frequent product updates and extensive use of social media platforms. As a result, the Complainant has established substantial goodwill and recognition in the mark FASHION NOVA. The Complainant owns registered trademark rights in FASHION NOVA, which predate the registration of the disputed domain name, including - U.S. trademark FASHION NOVA, No. 4,785,854, registered on August 4, 2015, for products in class 25; - U.S. trademark FASHION NOVA, No. 5,328,984, registered on November 7, 2017, for products in class 25; - US trademark FASHIONNOVA, No. 5,886,070, registered on October 15, 2019, for services in class 35. The disputed domain name was registered on August 2, 2022. At the time of filing the Complaint, the disputed domain name resolved to an active e-commerce website operating under the name “FASHIONNOB”. The website offered a range of fashion apparel, primarily women’s clothing, including but not limited to leggings, dresses, jumpsuits, tops, bodysuits, sets, and related garments, displayed with product images, pricing information, and sale indicators. The homepage featured sections such as “New Arrivals”, “Shop by Style”, and “Latest Hot Deals”, each presenting multiple clothing items for purchase. Several product listings visible on the website appeared to reference or display items identified as “Fashion Nova” products, including product names and descriptions that include the designation “Fashion Nova”. These references appear in connection with specific apparel items offered for sale on the website, alongside pricing and promotional information. 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. page 3 With regard to the requirement of “identity or confusing similarity between the trademark and the domain name” pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, the Complainant submits that the first element of the Policy serves primarily as a standing requirement and involves a straightforward comparison between the trademark and the disputed domain name. Relying on established UDRP principles, the Complainant argues that where a domain name incorporates a trademark, or a dominant feature of that trademark is recognizable within the domain name, confusing similarity will normally be found. In particular, the Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its FASHION NOVA trademark as the disputed domain name represents a deliberate typographical variation designed to divert Internet users who mistype the Complainant’s official domain name, as that the final letters of the disputed domain name were chosen to mimic a common keyboard error. On this basis, the Complainant maintains that a side-by-side comparison shows that the disputed domain name consists predominantly of the FASHION NOVA mark. With regard to the Respondent having no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, the Complainant submitted that, the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name or by any name incorporating the FASHION NOVA mark, and therefore cannot rely on any defense based on fair use. The Complainant emphasizes that the disputed domain name was registered in 2022, many years after the Complainant’s first use of the FASHION NOVA mark in commerce in 2006. The Complainant further submits that it has never authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use the FASHION NOVA mark in connection with the sale or promotion of goods or services. The Complainant argues that the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name is not legitimate and interferes with the Complainant’s ability to exploit its trademark rights. The Complainant concludes that it has made a prima facie showing that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and that the burden of production therefore shifts to the Respondent to demonstrate otherwise. In the absence of such a showing, the Complainant asserts that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy are satisfied. Finally, with regard to the disputed domain name having been registered and being used in bad faith, the Complainant argues that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. The Complainant also submits that its FASHION NOVA trademark is widely known and enjoys substantial goodwill, such that the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant and its trademark at the time of registration. According to the Complainant, the disputed domain name has value only because of its association with the Complainant’s trademark. According to the Complainant, the disputed domain name is nearly identical to the FASHION NOVA trademark and is used for a commercial website offering fashion apparel, including products identified as FASHION NOVA items. The Complainant submits that this demonstrates that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with the intention of attracting Internet users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website or the products offered thereon. page 4 The Complainant further argues that the registration of the disputed domain name prevents or hinders the Complainant, as the trademark owner, from reflecting its mark in a corresponding domain name and disrupts the Complainant’s legitimate business operations by diverting Internet traffic intended for the Complainant. On the basis of these circumstances, the Complainant maintains that the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name satisfy the requirements for a finding of bad faith under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy states that the Complainant must prove each of the three following elements: (i) the disputed 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 disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Under the UDRP, the applicable standard of proof is the balance of probabilities, meaning that a party must demonstrate that its assertions are more likely than not to be correct. 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 Panel notes that, disregarding the generic Top-Level Domain “.com”, the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s mark are visually and structurally very close. In particular the disputed domain name differs from the Complainant’s mark only in the substitution of the final two letters “va” with “bs”. The Panel also observes that the shared portion “fashionno” appears in the same order and position in both strings, giving the disputed domain name a highly similar overall appearance and impression. Although the final letters differ, such a limited alteration does not prevent the Complainant’s mark from remaining recognizable within the disputed domain name. In addition, the Panel notes that the letters “v” and “b” are adjacent on a standard QWERTY keyboard, and that the letters “a” and “s” are likewise adjacent. While the Panel does not consider it necessary, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i), to determine whether this substitution reflects a common or likely typing error, the proximity of the replaced letters on the keyboard reinforces the conclusion that the disputed domain name represents a minor variation of the Complainant’s mark rather than an entirely unrelated string. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. page 5 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 Complainant asserts that it has not authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use its FASHION NOVA trademark, or to register any domain name incorporating that mark. The Panel accepts that the Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant and has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name. The Panel further notes that the disputed domain name <fashionnobs.com> is not a dictionary term or an established or commonly used English expression. Accordingly, the wording of the disputed domain name alone does not support an inference that it was selected for descriptive or fair use purposes. Any claim of rights or legitimate interests would therefore need to be supported by evidence of bona fide use or demonstrable preparations to use the domain name in a manner consistent with paragraph 4(c) of the Policy. The Respondent has not provided evidence that it has used, or made demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services independent of the Complainant’s trademark. To the extent that the website associated with the disputed domain name offers products identified as FASHION NOVA apparel, such use does not, on the record before the Panel, establish rights or legitimate interests. Panels have consistently held that the use of a domain name confusingly similar to a complainant’s trademark to offer the complainant’s branded goods does not, without more, confer rights or legitimate interests, particularly where the domain name itself suggests affiliation or endorsement. Nor has the Respondent established that it is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert Internet users or to tarnish the Complainant’s trademark. On the contrary, the use of a domain name found to be confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark carries a significant risk of implied association. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1. In the absence of evidence demonstrating any of the circumstances set out in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, the Panel finds that the Respondent has failed to rebut the Complainant’s prima facie case. Accordingly, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. 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. page 6 (i) Bad Faith Registration The Panel is satisfied, on the record before it, that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and its FASHION NOVA trademark at the time of registration of the disputed domain name. The Complainant’s mark is widely used in connection with fashion and apparel, and the disputed domain name differs from the Complainant’s mark only by a minor alteration of the final letters, while retaining an otherwise identical structure and appearance. In these circumstances, the Panel finds it more likely than not that the Respondent selected the disputed domain name with the Complainant’s trademark in mind. The Panel further notes that the substitution of the letters “va” with “bs” results in a string that closely resembles the Complainant’s mark while avoiding exact reproduction. As previously observed, the letters “v” and “b”, as well as the letters “a” and “s”, are adjacent on a standard QWERTY keyboard. While the Panel does not rely on this factor alone, the proximity of the substituted letters reinforces the conclusion that the disputed domain name represents a deliberate variation of the Complainant’s mark rather than a coincidental choice. (ii) Bad Faith Use With respect to use, the evidence shows that the disputed domain name resolved to a website offering fashion products identified as FASHION NOVA items. The Panel finds that such use, in combination with a domain name that is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, is likely to mislead Internet users into believing that the website is operated by, affiliated with, or authorized by the Complainant. This conduct falls squarely within the circumstances described in paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, namely the intentional attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement. The Panel further observes that the Respondent has not provided any credible explanation for the selection of the disputed domain name that would dispel the inference of targeting. In the absence of evidence of independent rights or legitimate interests, the Panel considers the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to be opportunistic and abusive. Taken together, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith, with knowledge of and intent to exploit the Complainant’s trademark, and that it is being used in bad faith to divert Internet users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion. Accordingly, the Panel concludes that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(iii) 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 <fashionnobs.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Torsten Bettinger/ Torsten Bettinger Sole Panelist Date: February 11, 2026

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