Calvinkleinbrands.store + 6 more domains

The timeline behind calvinkleinbrands.store

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

How each disputed name was decided in this proceeding.

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 Calvin Klein Trademark Trust, Calvin Klein Inc. v. Name Redacted, Calvin klein, sisa kamali, ck Case No. D2025-5461 1. The Parties Complainants are Calvin Klein Trademark Trust, United States of America (“United States”), and Calvin Klein Inc., United States, represented by Lipkus Law LLP, Canada. Respondents are Name Redacted 1 , Calvin klein, United States, and sisa kamali, ck, United States. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar[s] The disputed domain names <calvinkleinbrands.store>, <calvinkleinclothings.store>, <calvinkleinhireus.store>, <calvinklein-in.store>, <calvin-kleinus.store>, <calvinklein-us.store>, and <calvinkleinus.store> are registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 31, 2025. On January 2, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On January 3, 2026, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain names which differed from the named Respondent (Redacted for Privacy Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf) and contact information in the Complaint. 1 The Respondent appears to have used the name of a Complainant’s former employee when registering the disputed domain name. In light of the potential identity theft, the Panel has redacted the Respondent’s name from this decision. However, the Panel has attached as Annex 1 to this decision an instruction to the Registrar regarding transfer of the disputed domain names, which includes the name of the Respondent. The Panel has authorized the Center to transmit Annex 1 to the Registrar as part of the order in this proceeding and has indicated Annex 1 to this Decision shall not be published due to the exceptional circumstances of this case. See Banco Bradesco S.A. v. FAST-12785241 Attn. Bradescourgente.net / Name Redacted, WIPO Case No. D2009-1788. page 2 The Center sent an email communication to Complainants on January 5, 2026 with the registrant and contact information of nominally multiple underlying registrants revealed by the Registrar, requesting the Complainants to either file separate complaint(s) for the disputed domain names associated with different underlying registrants or alternatively, demonstrate that the underlying registrants are in fact the same entity and/or that all domain names are under common control. Complainants filed an amended Complaint on January 7, 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 Respondents of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on January 16, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 5, 2026. Respondents did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondents’ default on February 6, 2026. The Center appointed Colin T. O’Brien as the sole panelist in this matter on February 12, 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 Complainants have been engaged in the production, sale and licensing of men’s and women’s apparel, fragrances, accessories, and footwear. In the United States, Complainants have used their CALVIN KLEIN trademark since as early as 1968. The first Complainant Calvin Klein Trademark Trust is the registered owner of the CALVIN KLEIN trademarks. The second Complainant, Calvin Klein Inc. is the beneficial owner of the trademarks owned by the first Complainant, and servicer for the first Complainant for a variety of merchandise. Complainants will be hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Complainant”. The first Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations in many jurisdictions including the following: CALVIN KLEIN (stylized) United States Reg. No. 1,633,261, registered on January 29, 1991. CALVIN KLEIN United States Reg. No. 1,086,041, registered on February 21, 1978. Complainant also owns a number of domain name registrations which wholly incorporate Complainant’s CALVIN KLEIN marks, including: (1) <calvinklein.com>, (2) <calvinkleinbags.com>, (3) <calvinkleinunderwear.com>, and (4) <calvinkleinfashion.com>. Complainant’s website at “www.calvinklein.com” first launched in 1997, and it has received hundreds of millions of visitors seeking information about Complainant’s CALVIN KLEIN products. Complainant’s CALVIN KLEIN products are sold exclusively through Complainant’s own retail stores, outlet stores and web sites including “www.calvinklein.com” and, through Authorized Dealers. Authorized Dealers include national specialty stores, such as Macys, Neiman Marcus, Saks Fifth Avenue, and Bergdorf Goodman. The disputed domain names, <calvin-kleinus.store> was registered on May 22, 2025; <calvinklein-in.store> and <calvinklein-us.store> were registered on May 27, 2025; <calvinkleinbrands.store> was registered on May 21, 2025; <calvinkleinclothings.store> and <calvinkleinus.store> were registered on May 19, 2025; and <calvinkleinhireus.store> was registered May 20, 2025 (“Disputed Domain Names”). page 3 The Disputed Domain Name <calvinkleinhireus.store> is registered by Respondent sisa kamali, ck; and the Disputed Domain Names <calvinkleinbrands.store>, <calvinkleinclothings.store>, <calvinklein-in.store>, <calvin-kleinus.store>, <calvinklein-us.store>, and <calvinkleinus.store> are registered by Respondent Name Redacted, Calvin Klein. The Disputed Domain Names are inactive. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the Disputed Domain Names. Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Names incorporate Complainants’ CALVIN KLEIN trademark in its entirety, with the addition of geographic indicators “us” (country code for United States), and “in ” (country code for India), and/or terms “brands”, “clothings” (a variation of the word “clothing” with an “s”), and “hire”, respectively. The addition of geographical indicators to the Disputed Domain Names further adds to confusion given that Complainant has a physical and online presence with stores globally. Additionally, Complainant has registered trademarks globally. The addition of the terms “brands”, “clothing”, and “hire” in the Disputed Domain Names <calvinkleinbrands.store>, <calvinkleinclothings.store>, and <calvinkleinhireus.store>, intensifies the confusion that a consumer would experience because Complainant, being a prominent fashion brand, is engaged in the sale of clothing and in hiring individuals to work in its stores and across its business operations. Complainant’s first use and first registration of its CALVIN KLEIN mark predates any use Respondents may have made of the Disputed Domain Names as a trade name, domain name, mark, or common name. The Disputed Domain Names were registered in May, 2025, more than fifty years after Complainant first used its marks. Respondents were aware of Complainant’s domain names and websites associated with the same before they registered the Disputed Domain Names because Complainant’s sites were operational, and thus easily accessible to Respondents, at the time Respondents registered the Disputed Domain Names. Furthermore, the Respondents are not affiliated with Complainant in any way. Complainant has not authorized Respondents to use and register its trademarks and service marks, or to seek the registration of any domain name incorporating said mark. Because Complainant’s federal registrations and use predate the Disputed Domain Name registrations, and because Respondents are charged with constructive knowledge of Complainant’s CALVIN KLEIN trademark registrations, Respondents have no proprietary rights, or legitimate interests, in the Disputed Domain Names. Respondents also have no proprietary rights or legitimate interest in “Calvin Klein” because the Respondent is not using the Disputed Domain Names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Respondents registered and are using the Disputed Domain Names in bad faith based on the following facts: Respondents are diverting Complainant’s customers or potential customers seeking information about Complainant to the inactive websites. Complainant has no control over the use of the Disputed Domain Names using its primary intellectual property, CALVIN KLEIN. Many Internet users rely on the web browser’s URL to seek information about authorized sources of information and merchandise. The Disputed Domain Names will divert customers to unauthorized websites bearing Complainant’s intellectual properties directly in the Disputed Domain Names that the Respondents activate in the future without the Complainant’s authorization. page 4 Complainant respectfully submits that there is no plausible, actual or contemplated active use of the Disputed Domain Names that would not be illegitimate and constitute an infringement of the Complainant’s rights. There is no evidence of its use, or demonstrable preparations to use the Disputed Domain Names or a name corresponding to the Disputed Domain Names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Previous UDRP panels with similar factual circumstances have held this passive use amounts to bad faith. B. Respondents Respondents did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1 Preliminary Issue: Consolidation of Respondents Complaint was filed in relation to nominally different domain name registrants. Complainant alleges that the Disputed Domain Name registrants are the same entity or under common control. Complainant requests the consolidation of the Complaint against the multiple Disputed Domain Name registrants pursuant to paragraph 10(e) of the Rules. The Disputed Domain Name registrants did not comment on Complainant’s request. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules states that a complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder. In addressing Complainant’s request, the Panel will consider whether (i) the disputed domain names or corresponding websites are subject to common control; and (ii) the consolidation would be fair and equitable to all Parties. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 4.11.2. As regards common control, the Panel notes that Disputed Domain Names were all registered in the same month, all contain Complainant’s trademark, have a similar composition, and all use the Top-Level Domain (“TLD”) “.store”, all the information related to the owners contains incorrect geographical information, and all Disputed Domain Names resolved to inactive page. Given the totality of the evidence the Panel concludes that Disputed Domain Names are under common control and this case should be consolidated. As regards fairness and equity, the Panel sees no reason why consolidation of the disputes would be unfair or inequitable to any Party. Accordingly, the Panel decides to consolidate the disputes regarding the nominally different Disputed Domain Name registrants in a single proceeding. Respondents will be herein referred to as the “Respondent”. 6.2 Substantive Issues A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Complainant has demonstrated it owns long-standing registered trademark rights in the famous CALVIN KLEIN mark. The TLD “.store” is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such may be disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test. See WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.11. Accordingly, the Disputed Domain Names reproduce the CALVIN KLEIN mark in its entirety. Although the addition of other terms here “us”, “in”, “brands”, “clothing”, and “hire”, may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such terms does not prevent a finding of confusing page 5 similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.8. Accordingly, the Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to the mark in which Complainant has rights and the first element of the Policy is established. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant has presented a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Names and has not been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Names. The fact that Respondent registered Disputed Domain Names which incorporate Complainant’s registered and famous CALVIN KLEIN trademark and merely adds additional terms indicates that Respondent likely sought to impersonate Complainant and piggyback on the mark for illegitimate reasons. After a complainant has made a prima facie case, the burden of production shifts to a respondent to present evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. See, e.g., Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2003-0455. Here, Respondent has provided no evidence of any rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Names. Respondent’s use of “Calvin Klein” when registering the Disputed Domain Names does not confer rights or legitimate interests on Respondent under the circumstances of this case. Moreover, the Panel finds that the nature of the Disputed Domain Names carries a risk of an implied affiliation as they effectively impersonate or suggest sponsorship or endorsement by the Complainant. Section 2.5.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.1. In the absence of any evidence rebutting the Complainant’s prima facie case indicating the Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Names, the Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Disputed Domain Names were registered decades after Complainant first used its CALVIN KLEIN marks. The evidence provided by Complainant makes it clear that Respondent knew or should have known of the Complainant’s CALVIN KLEIN marks and likely knew that it had no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Names when it registered them. Moreover, UDRP panels have consistently found that the mere registration of a domain name that is confusingly similar (particularly domain names comprising typos or incorporating the mark plus a descriptive term) to a famous or widely-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith. See section 3.1.4 of the WIPO Overview 3.1. The Panel finds that the only plausible basis for registering and using the Disputed Domain Names is for illegitimate and bad faith purposes. In addition, in view of section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.1, the current inactive state of the Disputed Domain Names does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding particularly noting the reputation of the CALVIN KLEIN mark, composition of the Disputed Domain Names clearly targeting the CALVIN KLEIN mark, and lack of response from Respondent. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. page 6 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 Names <calvinkleinbrands.store>, <calvinkleinclothings.store>, <calvinkleinhireus.store>, <calvinklein-in.store>, <calvin-kleinus.store>, <calvinklein-us.store>, and <calvinkleinus.store> be transferred to Complainant. /Colin T. O'Brien/ Colin T. O'Brien Sole Panelist Date: February 27, 2026

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