Rufflandperformancekennels.com

The timeline behind rufflandperformancekennels.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 RuffLand Performance, LLC v. Ruffland Kennel Case No. D2026-0602 1. The Parties Complainant is RuffLand Performance, LLC, United States of America (“U.S.”), represented by Woods, Fuller, Shultz & Smith P.C., U.S. Respondent is Ruffland Kennel, U.S. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <rufflandperformancekennels.com> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Hostinger Operations, UAB (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 12, 2026. On February 13, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On February 16, 2026, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. The Center verified that the 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on February 24, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 16, 2026. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on March 17, 2026. The Center appointed Harrie R. Samaras as the sole panelist in this matter on March 20, 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. page 2 4. Factual Background Since 2001, Complainant has manufactured and sold durable dog kennels. It also sells related kennel accessories, as well as dog dishes and bowls. Complainant sells goods to its customers directly from its website and through a network of authorized dealers. Complainant owns U.S. Trademark Registrations for the RUFFLAND Mark (U.S. Registration No. 5,786,880, registered June 25, 2019) and for the RUFFLAND PERFORMANCE KENNELS Mark (U.S. Registration No. 5,804,430, registered July 16, 2019) (collectively the “Marks”). Respondent registered the Domain Name on July 22, 2025. The Domain Name resolves to a website (the “Website”) resembling Complainant’s website because the Website: (1) uses the RUFFLAND Mark with the registration “®” symbol repeated times as well as the RUFFLAND PERFORMANCE KENNELS Mark; (2) advertises allegedly for sale what purports to be Complainant’s dog kennel products (i.e., same colorful looking kennels, same photos) and uses Complainant’s nomenclature (e.g., Small, Mid Size, Intermediate, Medium, Large, X-Large, Backseat Rider, Titan); (3) uses prices to allegedly sell the kennels that are the same or close to what Complainant is charging for the same size kennel; and (4) advertises allegedly for sale what purports to be the same pictured accessories as Complainant sells on its website (e.g., “Chow Box”, “Divider”, “Top Tray”). According to Complainant, and undisputed by Respondent, Respondent does not sell any products on the Website, rather Respondent makes it look like consumers can purchase products. Indeed, Complainant has received numerous customer complaints regarding the Website which, in many instances, involve consumer reports that they placed orders on the Website and paid using Zelle, Apple Pay, or Chime only to be later contacted by Respondent (e.g., by email or Facebook messenger) and asked to pay additional fees. The consumers never received the product. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the Domain Name. In this regard, Complainant contends that the Domain Name is nearly identical to Marks and confusingly similar because the Domain Name incorporates the entirety of the Marks or, at least, a dominant feature of the Marks is recognizable in the Domain Name. Respondent is not known by the Domain Name. Furthermore, there is no evidence Respondent used the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods of services before notice of this dispute. Respondent has copied the Marks, images, product descriptions, and other language from Complainant’s website in an attempt to impersonate Complainant and trick consumers into providing personal and/or payment information. Respondent is not an authorized dealer or seller of Complainant’s products. By using the Domain Name as described above, Respondent has registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith. Additional factors include actual confusion (which is occurring here), the intent to cause confusion (which is shown here by Respondent’s intent to scam consumers), the lack of Respondent’s legitimate rights in the Domain Name as outlined above, and the absence of any conceivable good faith use. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. page 3 6. Discussion and Findings 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 Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 1.7. Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. The entirety of the RUFFLAND PERFORMANCE KENNELS Mark is reproduced within the Domain Name. Accordingly, the Domain Name is identical to the RUFFLAND PERFORMANCE KENNELS Mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. 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 that 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. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds Complainant has established a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. Respondent has not rebutted Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the 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 phishing and use of a copycat site (as described above), can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.13.1. The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Since 2001, Complainant has manufactured and sold durable dog kennels. The Marks have been registered since 2019. Respondent registered the Domain Name on July 22, 2025, many years after Complainant launched its business and registered the Marks, both of which are incorporated in their entirety in the Domain Name. Furthermore, Respondent is using the Marks on the Website that impersonates Complainant’s website (as described above) to compete with Complainant, cause confusion (alleged actual confusion), and/or for nefarious purposes. From this conducting the Panel concludes not only did Respondent register the Domain Name in bad faith, but it is also using it in bad faith. page 4 Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity, here, claimed phishing and use of a copycat site (as described above), constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.4. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds Respondent’s registration and use of the Domain Name constitutes bad faith under the Policy. The Panel finds that 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 Domain Name <rufflandperformancekennels.com> be transferred to Complainant. /Harrie R. Samaras/ Harrie R. Samaras Sole Panelist Date: March 24, 2026

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