Eric-box.com

The timeline behind eric-box.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 EE Holding Group LLC v. Yi Shan \u5ee3 Case No. D2025-5459 1. The Parties The Complainant is EE Holding Group LLC, United States of A meric a (“Uni t ed States”), represented by The Sladkus Law Group, United States. The Respondent is Yi Shan \u5ee3, Ho ng Kong, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <eric-box.com> is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was f iled with the WIPO Arb itratio n and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 31, 2025. On January 2, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for reg istrar verif ication in connection with t he disputed domain name. On January 4, 2026, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact inf ormation for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent (Registration Priv ate, Domains by Proxy, LLC) and contact inf ormation in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on January 5, 2026, providing the registrant and contact information d isclosed by the Reg istrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant f iled an amendment to the Complaint on January 5, 2026. The Center verif ied that the Complaint together with the amendment to the Complaint satisf ied the f o rmal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Unif o rm Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Unif o rm 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 January 7, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 27, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notif ied the Respondent’s def ault on January 30, 2026. Page 2 The Center appointed Assen Alexiev as t he sole panelist in this matter on February 4, 2026. The Panel f inds that it was p ro perly 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 an independent sportswear designer. It markets its sportswear collection under the brand ERIC EMANUEL. The Complainant’s of f icial web site is located at the domain name <ericemanuel.com>, registered on August 31, 2014. The Complainant is the owner of a number of trademark registrations for ERIC EMANUEL (the “ERIC EMANUEL trad emark”), including the f ollowing representative registrations: − the United States trademark ERIC EMANUEL with registration No. 6721224, registered on May 24, 2022 for goods in International Class 25; and − the International trademark ERIC EMANUEL with reg istratio n No . 1762468, registered on October 11, 2023 for goods in International Class 25. The Complainant is also the owner of a number of trademark registrations for the sign (the “EE f igurative trad emark”), including the f ollowing representative registrations: − the European Union trademark with registration No. 018937371, registered on January 26, 2024 f or goods in International Class 25; and − the United States trademark with registration No . 7310338, registered on February 20, 2024 for goods in International Class 25, with claimed date of f irst use in commerce on February 13, 2014. The disputed domain name was registered on August 12, 2023. It resolves to an E ng lis h language web site with the title “EE shorts | Eric Emanuel Sho rts | Eric-Bo x”, which offers for sale sho rts branded with the Complainant’s EE figurative trademark (which is easily recognisable, although p artly covered by a white rectangle with the text “Eric-Box” on it), as well as other sho rts, with discounted p rices indicated in US Dollars. The web site offers wo rldwide delivery and indicates its provider as Eric-Box, without showing any contact details. 5. Parties ’Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transf er of the disputed domain name. The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is conf usingly similar to its ERIC EMANUEL trademark, because it reproduces the element “ERIC”, which is the dominant part of the trademark, together with the dictionary wo rd “box” and the “.com” generic Top-Level Domain (“g TLD”). According to the Complainant, the Complainant’s ERIC EMANUEL trademark is easily recognisable within the disputed domain name. The Complainant adds that the web site at the disputed domain name targets the Complainant’s trademark as it purports to be a retailer of authentic ERIC EMANUEL goods. The Complainant submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant s tates that it has used its ERIC EMANUEL trademark in commerce consistently since 2014 and it has accrued substantial goodwill. It submits that the Respondent is not an authorised retailer of genuine ERIC EMANUEL-branded goods, has not been authorised to use the Complainant’s E R IC EMANUEL or EE trademarks, and there is no connection between the Parties. Page 3 According to the Complainant, the Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona f ide offering of goods or services, because it resolves to a f raudulent web site designed to mimic the Complainant’s of f ic ial web site and to d eceive consumers into believing that it is an authorised retail channel for the original ERIC EMANUEL goods. The Complainant maintains t hat the website at the disputed domain name sells counterfeit versions of the Complainant’s ERIC EMANUEL-branded clothing at p rices that are disproportionately below market value and do not meet the Complainant’s quality control standards. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is b ei ng used in bad f aith. It notes that the disputed domain name improperly exploits the goodwill of the Complainant’s ERIC EMANUEL trademark to attract Internet users and to sell them counterfeit goods. The Complainant maintains that the Respondent is thus intentionally attempting to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the web site at the disputed domain name by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the source or af f iliation of the disputed domain name and of the associated website. B. Respondent The Respondent did not rep ly to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well accepted that the f irst element f unctions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (o r 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 s hown rig hts in respect of the ERIC EMANUEL trademark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1. The disputed domain name reproduces the element “ERIC” of the ERIC EMANUEL trademark, together with the dictionary wo rd “b o x”, and the trademark may be recognised within the disputed domain name. As d iscussed in sections 1.7 and 1.15 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, Panels have f ound that the overall f acts and circumstances of a case (including relevant web site content) may support a f inding of conf using similarity, particularly where it appears that the respondent registered the domain name p recisely because it believed t hat the domain name was confusingly similar to a mark held by t he complainant. Panels have also f ound that the overall facts and circumstances of a case (including relevant web site content) may support a f inding of confusing similarity, particularly where it appears that the respondent registered the domain name precisely because it believed that the domain name was conf usingly similar to a mark held by the complainant. The disputed domain name resolves to a web site with a title that includes “Eric Emanuel” and that offers for sale goods branded with the Complainant’s figurative EE trademark. It therefore appears primarily facie that the Respondent seeks to target the Complainant’s trademarks through the disputed domain name, and that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name because it believed t hat it was conf usingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks. Although the addition of other terms (here, “-box”) 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 s imilarit y bet ween the disputed domain name and the ERIC EMANUEL trademark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8. The Panel theref ore f inds the f irst element of the Policy has been established. Page 4 B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the P olic y provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rig hts or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognised 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 p rima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element s hif ts to the respondent to come f o rward 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 o rward 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 p rima f acie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s p rima facie showing and has not come f o rward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rig hts or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity (here, claimed sale of counterf eit goods) can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1. The disputed domain name resolves to a web site whose title includes the Complainant’s ERIC EMANUEL trademark and which offers for s al e clothing goods branded with the Complainant’s figurative EE trademark at what appear to be heavily-discounted prices. According to the Complainant, these goods are counterf eit. The Respondent has not submitted a Response; it has not provided any plausible explanation for the registration of the disputed domain name and for its plans how to use it and has not provided any co ntrary evidence. The Panel theref ore accepts as mo re likely than not that the goods of f ered for sale on the Respondent’s web site are indeed counterfeit. Such use of the disputed domain name cannot give rise to rig hts or legitimate interests in it. The Panel theref ore f inds that 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 reg istratio n and use of a domain name in bad f aith. Paragraph 4(b ) of the P olicy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances t hat may indicate that a domain name was registered and used in b ad faith, but other circumstances may be relevant in assessing whether a respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad f aith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity (here, claimed sale of counterf eit goods) constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4. Having reviewed the record, the Panel f inds the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad f aith under the Policy. As already discussed, the disputed domain name is conf usingly similar to the Complainant’s ERIC EMANUEL trademark and resolves to a web site with a title that includes the s ame trademark and offers for sale what appears to be counterfeit goods bearing the Complainant’s f igurative EE trademark at heavily- discounted prices. Page 5 In absence of any allegation or evidence supporting a dif f erent conclusion, the Panel accepts that by registering and using the disputed domain name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its web site by misleading them as to the origin and authorisation by the Complainant of the goods offered there for sale. This supports a finding of bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name under Paragraph 4(b )(iv) of the Policy. The Panel theref ore f inds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy. 7. Decision For the f oregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel o rd ers that the disputed domain name <eric-box.com> be transf erred to the Complainant. /Assen Alexiev/ Assen Alexiev Sole Panelist Date: February 11, 2025

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