Msrcampinggear.com

The timeline behind msrcampinggear.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 Cascade Designs, Inc. v. Olsonan Robert Case No. D2026-0645 1. The Parties Complainant is Cascade Designs, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Baker & Hostetler, LLP, United States. Respondent is Olsonan Robert, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <msrcampinggear.com> is registered with Gname.com Pte. Ltd. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 14, 2026. On February 16, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 17, 2026, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent (Currently Unknown) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on February 18, 2026, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on February 18, 2026. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to 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 23, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 15, 2026. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on March 17, 2026. The Center appointed Lorelei Ritchie as the sole panelist in this matter on March 27, 2026. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted page 2 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 Complainant is a multinational corporation based in the United States. For decades prior to the registration of the disputed domain name, Complainant has offered camping and related outdoor recreation equipment under the mark MSR. Complainant is the owner of several registrations for its MSR mark. These include, among others, United States Registration No. 4,996,019 (registered July 12, 2016) and the European Union Registration No. 003526506 (registered February 2, 2007) for the MSR word mark as well as United States Registration No. 2,682,357 (registered February 4, 2003) for a composite word and design mark. The disputed domain name was registered on August 6, 2025. Respondent has used the disputed domain name to resolve to a website that prominent displays Complainant’s marks and purports to offer the Complainant’s products for sale without any disclaimer of affiliation. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends that (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademarks, (ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and (iii) Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Specifically, Complainant contends that it owns rights to the MSR mark. Complainant contends that it has used the associated word and design marks for years, with an established clientele, which Complainant further reaches via its own website located at the domain name <cascadedesigns.com>. Complainant further contends that Respondent has incorporated into the disputed domain name the entirety of Complainant’s MSR mark, with the addition of dictionary terms “camping” and “gear,” which describe the products offered by Complainant under the mark. Complainant asserts that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name, and rather has registered and is using it in bad faith, presumably for Respondent’s own commercial gain, by “attempting to pass itself off as Complainant, using Complainant’s marks and logo to offer unauthorized versions of Complainant’s products.” B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 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 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 the MSR mark, for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. The Panel finds that the MSR mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name. The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. page 3 B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which 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. Respondent has no affiliation with Complainant, and no authorization to use Complainant’s marks. Prior UDRP Panels have indicated that a reseller may be considered to have rights or legitimate interests in a mark, provided certain requirements are met. These generally include that: (i) the site is actually offering the goods at issue; (ii) the site is used only to sell the trademarked goods; (iii) the site accurately and prominently discloses the registrant’s relationship to the mark holder; and (iv) respondent does not try to “corner the market” in domain names that reflect the mark. See WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.8; see also Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2001-0903. The Panel finds that these qualifications are not fulfilled by the website associated with the disputed domain name. Rather, to the extent that any legitimate goods or services may be offered via the disputed domain name, the associated website does not appear to include a disclaimer of affiliation or endorsement by Complainant, and rather includes unauthorized use of Complainant’s marks. Respondent has not put forward any claims or evidence that would suggest rights or legitimate interests for the purposes of the Policy. Respondent’s website looks and feels like Complainant’s website, which gives Internet users a false impression that the website is operated or connected to Complainant. The Panel finds that Complainant has provided sufficient evidence of Respondent’s lack of “rights or legitimate interests” in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy which Respondent has not rebutted. D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith There are several ways that a complainant can demonstrate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith. As noted in Section 4 of this Panel’s decision, the record includes evidence that Respondent has used the disputed domain name to resolve to a website that passes it off Complainant’s own website, with prominent display of Complainant’s marks, and with no disclaimer of affiliation. The Panel thus finds sufficient evidence that Respondent was aware of Complainant’s rights and Complainant’s marks at the time of registering the disputed domain name. Panels have also held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity – here, claimed passing off constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.4. The Panel finds sufficient evidence that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith for purposes of paragraph (4)(a)(iii) of the Policy. page 4 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 name <msrcampinggear.com> be transferred to Complainant. /Lorelei Ritchie/ Lorelei Ritchie Sole Panelist Date: April 10, 2026

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