Tottenhamhotspurfcshirts.com + 5 more domains

The timeline behind tottenhamhotspurfcshirts.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 AN D MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Tottenham Hotspur Limited v. Gideon Estes, Thomas Lathrop Case No. D2026-0327 1. The Parties The Complainant is Tottenham Hotspur Limited, United Kingdom (“UK”), represented by Wiggin LLP, UK. The Respondent is Gideon Estes, United States of America (“US”); Thomas Lathrop, US. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar The disputed domain names <tottenhamhotspurf cshirts.com>, <tottenhamhotspurf cshop.com>, <tottenhamhotspurjersey.com>, <tottenhamhotspurkit.com>, <tottenhamhotspurshirt.com>, and <tottenhamhotspurshirts.com> are registered with Dynadot, Inc. (the “Reg istrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was f iled with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 27, 2026. On January 27, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for reg istrar verif ication in connection with the disputed domain names. On January 28, 2026, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verif ication response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain names which differed from t he named Respondent (Persons Unknown) and contact inf ormation in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on February 6, 2026, with the registrant and contact information of nominally multiple underlying registrants revealed by the Reg istrar, requesting the Complainant to either f ile separate complaint(s) for the disputed domain names associated with dif f erent underlying registrants or alternatively, demonstrate that the underlying registrants are in f ac t the same entity and/or that all domain names are under common control. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on February 11, 2026. The Center verif ied that the Complaint together with the amended 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 February 12, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 4, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notif ied the Respondent’s def ault on March 5, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Kiyoshi Ts uru as the sole panelist in t his m att er on March 13, 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 Tottenham Hotspur Limited, a private limited company incorporated in the UK on March 14, 1983. The Complainant operates a well-known professional football club, which was f ounded in 1882. The Complainant also operates an official online store through which it offers branded merchandise including football kits, clothing, and related goods. The Complainant o wns mult iple registered TOTTE NHA M HOTSPUR trademarks worldwide, including UK, European Union (“EU”), and US registrations for clothing (Class 25). These trademarks include the well- kno wn co ckerel on the ball logo. A m ong other trademark registrations around the world, the Complainant o wns the f ollowing: Territory Reg. No. Trademark Registration Date Class(es) EU 001899749 TOTTE NHA M HOTSPUR March 31, 2004 25 (among others) EU 011681459 TOTTE NHA M HOTSPUR No vember 20, 2013 25, 35 (among others) UK UK00001199577 TOTTE NHA M HOTSPUR July 13,1983 25 (among others) UK UK00911681459 TOTTE NHA M HOTSPUR No vember 20, 2013 25, 35 (among others) US 2980045 TOTTE NHA M HOTSPUR July 26, 2005 25 (among others) International 1211256 TOTTE NHA M HOTSPUR March 28, 2013 25, 35 (among others) EU 004835229 May 22,2007 25, 35 (among others) EU 011701811 No vember 20, 2013 25, 35 (among others) UK UK00904835229 May 22, 2007 25, 35 (among others) UK UK00911701811 No vember 20, 2013 25, 35 (among others) International 1211009 April 2, 2013 25, 35 (among others) The Complainant s ells a range of of f icial merchandise goods f eaturing TOTTE NHA M HOTSPUR and its cockerel on ball logo on its web site “www.shop.tottenhamhotspur.com”, including clothing. page 3 The disputed domain names have been registered in a relatively short period from June 9, 2024 in relation to <tottenhamhotspurshirt.com>, <tottenhamhotspurshirts.com>, <tottenhamhotspurjersey.com> and <tottenhamhotspurkit.com> to July 22, 2025 in relation to <tottenhamhotspurf cshop.com> and <tottenhamhotspurf cshirts.com>. The disputed domain names resolved to websites purporting to sell merchandise bearing the Complainant’s TOTTENHAM HOTSPUR trademark, which seems to be counterf eit merchandise. Such websites reproduced the Complainant’s trademark and branding elements, suggested that the products of f ered were of ficial merchandise, and offered football shirts and related goods, including customized items, at p rices substantially lower than those available on the Complainant’s official online store. In addition, such websites included statements, such as: “100% Official Merchandise Buy With Conf idence”. The disputed domain names are currently inactive. 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 names. Notably, the Complainant contends the f ollowing: I. Identical or conf usingly similar That the disputed domain names are highly similar to the Complainant’s reg istered trademarks, which are entirely incorporated in the said disputed domain names. That said disputed domain names also incorporate the entirety of the protected and distinctive “Tottenham Hotspur” term. Th at the additional s uf fi x “shirt” (or “shirts”), “fcshop”, “fcshirts”, “jersey” and/or “kit” are each descriptive for sports clothing, a football club and/or sto ref ro nt. That the incorporation of a trad emark in its entirety may be suf f icient to establish that a domain name is identical or conf usingly similar to a complainant’s trademark rig hts. That the To p-Level Domain, “.com” is disregarded when evaluating whether a domain name is identical or conf usingly similar to a trademark. II. Rig hts or legitimate interests That the Complainant has no relationship with the Respondent and that the disputed domain names were registered without its consent. That the Respondent is using the disputed domain names to resolve to websites that make available to users an online counterf eit sto re. That the Respondent’s activity to imitate the Complainant’s of f icial Club Shop for selling counterf eit merchandise clearly indicates a lack of rig hts and/or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. That the Respondent registered the disputed domain names in bad f aith to sell counterf eit goods, d ivert customers f ro m the Complainant’s of f icial website, and improperly obtain users’ payment details by impersonating the Complainant’s trademarks and of f icial online sto ref ro nt. page 4 III. Registered and used in bad f aith That the Complainant sells official Tottenham Hotspur merchandise through its authorized online store, while the Respondent uses the disputed domain names without consent to sell counterf eit goods or f raudulently solicit payment details. That the websites to which the disputed domain names resolve entirely reproduce the Complainant’s registered trademarks and logos, f als ely claim of f ic ial affiliation, offer heavily discounted p rices indicative of counterf eit products, and replicate the look and f eel of the Complainant’s of f icial storefront. That the disputed domain names resolve to websites that include unauthorized “customization” services, and, of f ered third-party branded f ootwear, which is inconsistent with the Complainant’s authorized merchandise, and further evidences deceptive conduct, demonstrating deliberate deception and bad-f aith use of the disputed domain names. B. Respondent The Respondent did not rep ly to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy sets out the three requirements that the complainants must prove in order to successf ully request remedies: (i) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark to which the complainant has rights; (ii) that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in connection with the disputed domain name; and (iii) that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad f aith. Given the Respondent’s default and therefore, failure to specifically address the case merits as they relate to the three UDRP elements, the Panel may decide this proceeding based on the Complainants’ undisputed f actual allegations under paragraphs 5(f), 14(a), and 15(a) of the Rules (see Joseph Phelps Vineyards LLC v. NOLDC, Inc., Alternative Identity, Inc., and Kentech, WIPO Case No . D2006-0292; Groupe Auchan v. Roberto La Palombara, WIPO Case No . D2014-0660; see also WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 4.3). Consolidation: Multiple Respondents The amended Complaint was f iled in relation to nominally dif f erent domain name registrants. The Complainant alleges that t he domain name registrants are the same entity or mere alter egos of each other, or under c o mmon control. The 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 the 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 the Complainant’s request, the Panel will consider whether (i) the disputed domain names or corresponding websites are subject to c ommon control; and (ii) the consolidation wo uld be f air and equitable to all Parties. See WIPO Overview 3.1, section 4.11.2. page 5 As reg ard s common control, the Panel notes that all disputed domain names use the same privacy service and are registered with the s ame reg istrar (Dynadot, Inc.). Each of them resolves to an identical web site impersonating the Complainant’s official Club Shop, reproducing the Complainant’s trademarks and i ncl uding the sale of counterfeit goods and third-party branded unauthorized “footwear” and “customization” options. The disputed domain names were registered within a short, continuous period (June 2024–July 2025), follow a consistent naming pattern incorporating the Complainant’s TOTTENHAM HOTSPUR trademark, and collectively demonstrate a clear pattern of registrations. Collectively, these circumstances strongly support the f inding of shared operational control and justif y consolidation. See Veja Fair Trade, SARL v. Domain Admin, Whoisprotection.cc, Client Care, Web Commerce Communications Limited, WIPO Case No . D2023-3209; and Speedo Holdings B.V. v. Programmer, Miss Kathy Beckerson, John Smitt, Matthew Simmons, WIPO Case No . D2010-0281. As reg ard s fairness and equity, the Panel sees no reason why consolidation of t he disputes wo uld be unf air or inequitable to any Party. Accordingly, the Panel decides to consolidate the disputes regarding the nominally different disputed domain name registrants (ref erred to herein as “the Respondent”) in a single proceeding. 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 names. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. The Complainant has s hown rig hts in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. The Panel f inds the mark is recognizable within the disputed domain names. Accordingly, the disputed domain names are conf usingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. The Panel f inds that the Complainant’s TOTTENHAM HOTSPUR trademark is recognizable within each of the disputed domain names. Eac h disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety, followed by terms relating to football merchandise or retail activity, namely “f cshirts”, “f csho p ”, “jersey”, “kit”, “shirt”, and “shirts”. The addition of the Top Level Domain “. c om” to the disputed domain names is immaterial for purposes of assessing conf using similarity because it is a technical requirement of the Domain Name System (see CARACOLITO S SAS v. Nelson Brown, OXM.CO, WIPO Case No . D2020-0268; and Bentley Motors Limited v. Domain Admin / Kyle Rocheleau, Privacy Hero Inc., WIPO Case No . D2014-1919). The Panel f inds the f irst element of the Policy has been established. 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 recognized that proving that a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the dif f icult task of “pro ving a negative”, requiring information that is often 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 page 6 evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisf ied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.1, 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 names. 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 names such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise (see Accor v. Eren Atesmen, WIPO Case No . D2009-0701). Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity, including sale of counterf eit goods, phishing, copycat sites, p assing off, or other types of fraud, can never confer rig hts or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.13.1. The Panel notes that the Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to use its TOTTE NHA M HOTSPUR trademark, that the Respondent is not af f iliated with the Complainant, and that there is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain names. The record shows that the disputed domain names resolved to websites reproducing the Complainant’s trademark and branding while purporting to sell Tottenham Hotspur merchandise, falsely suggesting that the websites to which the disputed domain names resolve are affiliated with the Complainant. Such use does not constitute a bona f ide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names (see Prada S.A. v. Domains For Life, WIPO Case No . D2004-1019). The Panel f inds 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 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 f aith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.2.1. In the present case, the Panel notes that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain names to attract Internet users to websites that offer Tottenham Hotspur-branded merchandise while reproducing the Complainant’s TOTTENHAM HOTSPUR trademark and related branding elements. The disputed domain names incorporate the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety together with terms directly referring to football merchandise and retail activity, such as “shirt”, “shirts”, “jersey”, “kit”, “f cshop”, and “fcshirts”. The composition of the disputed domain names therefore suggests an association with the Complainant and its of f icial merchandise store. The Panel considers that such use falls within the circumstance described in paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, namely using a domain name to intentionally attempt to attract, f or commercial gain, Internet users to a website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, af f iliation, or endorsement of the website or of the products of f ered on it. The Panel f urther notes that the inclusion of third-party branded products on the websites to which the disputed domain names resolved, presented as part of a purported “of f ic ial” Tottenham Hotspur online shop, reinf orces the misleading character of the Respondent’s websites, and supports a finding of likely conf usion as to source or af f iliation. In addition, the Panel notes that the disputed domain names were registered well after the Complainant had established trademark rights in Tottenham Hotspur, and that the Respondent registered multiple disputed domain names incorporating the Complainant’s trad emarks together with terms specif ically ref erring to f ootball merchandise. These circumstances support the inf erence that the Respondent was aware of the page 7 Complainant and its trademark rights at the time of registration and deliberately targeted the Complainant’s trademark. Panels have held that the use of a domain name f or illegal or illegitimate activity including the sale of counterfeit goods, copycat websites, passing of f , or other types of f raud constitutes bad f aith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.4. Having reviewed the record, the Panel f inds that the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names falls within this category, as evidenced by the offer of purported counterfeit goods at discounted prices compared to the Complainant’s official store. The evidence submitted by the Complainant indicates that the disputed domain names were used in connection with websites that reproduced the Complainant’s trademark and purported to offer Tottenham Hotspur merchandise for sale suggesting that the websites were affiliated with or authorized by the Complainant. Such use creates a likelihood of conf usion and indicates an intent to capitalize on the reputation of the Complainant’s trademark f or commercial gain. See Mattel, Inc. v. Magic 8 ball factory, WIPO Cas e No . D2013-0058; and Skorpio Limited v Jianhua Xing, WIPO Case No . D2022-0555. The Panel 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 names <tottenhamhotspurfcshirts.com>, <tottenhamhotspurf cshop.com>, <tottenhamhotspurjersey.com>, <tottenhamhotspurkit.com>, <tottenhamhotspurshirt.com>, and <tottenhamhotspurshirts.com> be transf erred to the Complainant. /Kiyoshi Tsuru/ Kiyoshi Tsuru Sole Panelist Date: March 27, 2026

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