Coldwaterccreek.com, Coldwatercrreek.com, Cooldwatercreek.com

The timeline behind coldwaterccreek.com

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 CW Brands LLC v. Quan Zhongjun, Juanita Co. Case No. D2026-0052 1. The Parties The Complainant is CW Brands LLC, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Kaufman & Kahn, LLP, United States. The Respondent is Quan Zhongjun, Juanita Co., China. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar The disputed domain names <coldwaterccreek.com>, <coldwatercrreek.com>, and <cooldwatercreek.com> are registered with Cosmotown, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 7, 2026. On January 8, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On January 11, 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 (The RDAP server redacted the value) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on January 13, 2026, 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 13, 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 14, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 3, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 5, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Alistair Payne as the sole panelist in this matter on February 13, 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, based in the United States, operates an on-line retail business selling casual clothing and accessories under the COLDWATER CREEK mark and through its website at the domain name <coldwatercreek.com>. It owns numerous trade mark registrations in the United States and elsewhere for its COLDWATER CREEK mark, including United States federal trade mark registration No. 1861320 registered on November 1, 1994. The disputed domain names were all registered by the Respondent through the same registrar on December 22, 2025. The disputed domain names <coldwaterccreek.com>, and <cooldwatercreek.com> redirect to the Complainant’s website at the domain name <coldwatercreek.com>. The disputed domain name <coldwatercrreek.com> re-directs to a completely blank website. 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 names. The Complainant contends that it owns registered trade mark rights for its COLDWATER CREEK mark as set out above. It submits that each of the disputed domain names features a misspelling of the Complainant’s mark as follows: there is an additional letter “c” in <coldwaterccreek.com>, an additional “r” in <coldwatercrreek.com>, and an additional “o” in <cooldwatercreek.com>. It says that none of these additions change the overall meaning and impression of the disputed domain names and only serve to confuse consumers who are misled into thinking that the Respondent is using the Complainant’s trade mark with its authorisation or consent. Accordingly, says the Complainant each of the disputed domain names is confusingly similar to its registered trade mark rights. The Complainant submits that there is no evidence of the Respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, any of the disputed domain names, or a name corresponding to any of the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. It notes that the disputed domain names are each based upon the Complainant’s registered trade mark and two of them resolve to the Complainant’s website and purport to sell the same goods and services. The Complainant says that the Respondent has not been commonly known by any of the disputed domain names and that he does not appear to have acquired any trade mark rights in the COLDWATER CREEK mark. It also says that the Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names and instead has the intent for commercial gain misleadingly to divert consumers or to tarnish the Complainant’s trade mark. The Complainant submits that each of the disputed domain names has therefore been registered and used in bad faith by the Respondent in terms of Paragraph 4(b)(i) and 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. page 3 6. Discussion and Findings 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. The Panel notes that the registrar verification process confirmed that all of the disputed domain names were registered by the Respondent on the same day and through the same registrar. Accordingly, the Panel finds that this single complaint is properly made in relation to all of the disputed domain names. 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 (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 1.7. The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trade mark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. The Panel finds the mark is recognisable within each of the disputed domain names. Accordingly, the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. Each of the disputed domain names features a misspelt version of the Complainant’s COLDWATER CREEK trade mark which amounts to typosquatting. See WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.9. 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 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 3.1, section 2.1. The Complainant has submitted that there is no evidence of the Respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, any of the disputed domain names or any name corresponding to any of the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. It has noted that the disputed domain names are each based upon the Complainant’s registered trade mark and that two of them redirect to the Complainant’s website. The Complainant has submitted that the Respondent has not been commonly known by any of the disputed domain names and that he does not appear to have acquired any trade mark rights in the COLDWATER CREEK mark. It has also asserted that the Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names and instead has the intent for commercial gain of misleadingly diverting consumers or to tarnish the Complainant’s trade mark. 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 names. 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 names such as those enumerated in the page 4 Policy or otherwise. The Panel notes further that this is prima facie a case of typosquatting in which there is no evidence that the Respondent has made a bona fide offering of goods and services in relation to any of the disputed domain names. Accordingly, the Panel finds 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 registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. In the present case, the Respondent registered each of the disputed domain names in December 2025, many decades after the registration of the Complainant’s trade mark. Each of the disputed domain names is a misspelling or typosquatted version of the COLDWATER CREEK mark which trade mark has a high level of distinctiveness in relation to items of apparel and fashion accessories. These circumstances together with the fact that two of the disputed domain names redirect to the Complainant’s website at the domain name <coldwatercreek.com> suggests very strongly that the Complainant, even though based in China, was well aware of the Complainant’s mark and business when he registered each of the disputed domain names. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances may be relevant in assessing whether a respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.2.1. The use of a domain name incorporating a trade mark by an unauthorised third party to redirect Internet users to a complainant’s (or a competitor’s) website is evidence of bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. See WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.1.4. Re-directing a domain name to a complainant’s website amounts to bad faith use insofar as the respondent retains control over the redirection thus creating a real or implied ongoing threat to the complainant. See Ann Summers Limited v. Domains By Proxy, LLC / Mingchun Chen, WIPO Case No. D2018-0625 and Myspace, Inc. v. Mari Gomez, WIPO Case No. D2007-1231. In this case the Respondent has re-directed the disputed domain names <coldwaterccreek.com> and <cooldwatercreek.com>, which are both typosquatted versions of the Complainant’s mark, to the Complainant’s own website. At any time, the Respondent could re-direct the disputed domain names to another website, which for example might seek to offer competing goods or services, or which could be used illicitly to obtain information from Internet users who are confused and who incorrectly think that they are dealing with the Complainant. The Panel finds that the circumstances of this case therefore amount to conduct fulfilling the requirements of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy which is evidence of registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Panel finds that these circumstances therefore fulfill the requirements of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy which is evidence of registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith. Panels have found that the non-use of a domain name (including a blank page) would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.3. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel notes the distinctiveness of the Complainant’s trade mark and the composition of the disputed domain name <coldwatercrreek.com> as discussed above and finds that in the circumstances of this case the passive holding of the disputed domain name <coldwatercrreek.com> does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the Policy. Overall, by registering and using obviously typosquatted versions of the Complainant’s COLDWATER CREEK mark, each of which has the potential to confuse Internet users seeking the Complainant’s website at the domain name <coldwatercreek.com>, the Respondent has sought to target the Complainant’s mark and business reputation for its own purposes. There is no plausible reason for the Respondent’s conduct, and the Panel finds that this amounts to a targeting of the Complainant in bad faith. page 5 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 names <coldwaterccreek.com>, <coldwatercrreek.com>, and <cooldwatercreek.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Alistair Payne/ Alistair Payne Sole Panelist Date: February 26, 2026

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