Russellathletics.com

The timeline behind russellathletics.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 Fruit Of The Loom, Inc. v. Domain Admin Case No. D2026-1025 1. The Parties The Complainant is Fruit Of The Loom, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by CSC Digital Brand Services Group AB, Sweden. The Respondent is Domain Admin, Bahamas. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <russellathletics.com> is registered with Internet Domain Service BS Corp (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 10, 2026. On March 10, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 20, 2026, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on March 20, 2026, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar. 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 the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 24, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 13, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 14, 2026. The Center appointed Andrew F. Christie as the sole panelist in this matter on April 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 The Complainant is a global underwear and casualwear business, stated to be classed as one of the largest manufacturers and marketers of men’s and boys’ underwear, women’s and girls’ underwear, printable T- shirts and fleece for the activewear industry, casualwear, women’s jeanswear, and childrenswear. It currently employs more than 17,000 employees across 10 countries with their products sold in over 80 countries. In 2006, the Complainant acquired Russell Brands, LLC, a global company whose brands included Russell Athletic, Brooks Running, and Spalding, among other names in athletic wear. Russell Brands, LLC is the owner of numerous registrations for the RUSSELL ATHLETIC word trademark, including United Kingdom Trademark No. 00001571350 (registered on October 11, 1996), United States Trademark No. 2591125 (registered on July 9, 2002, with a first use date of September 1975), and European Union Trade Mark No. 000451856 (registered on April 13, 2006). The Complainant’s primary domain name <russellathletic.com> has been registered since 1995. The disputed domain name was created on July 31, 1998. The Complainant provided a screenshot, taken on either March 4, 2026, or April 3, 2026, showing the webpage to which the disputed domain name then resolved. That webpage contained what appear to be links to third-party websites for athletic and sporting equipment and accessories. One of these links is labelled “Russell Athletic”. The Complainant also provided a screenshot, taken on either February 3, 2026, or March 2, 2026, showing the disputed domain name was listed for sale on “www.afternic.com”, with no price specified but a “get price” function provided. As at the date of this Decision, the disputed domain resolves to a webpage that is very similar in appearance to the page in the Complainant’s screenshot, and which contains links to pages that ultimately link to third party sites offering athletic and sporting equipment and accessories. One of these links is labelled “Russell Athletic”. The disputed domain name is also listed for sale on “www.afternic.com”, with no price specified but a “get price” function provided. 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 name. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which it has rights, on the following grounds, among others. The disputed domain name is a purposeful misspelling of the Complainant’s RUSSELL ATHLETIC trademark and must be considered confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The disputed domain name varies from the Complainant’s trademark by only one le tter (“s”), which must be considered a prototypical example of typosquatting. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name on the following grounds, among others. The Respondent is not sponsored by or affiliated with the Complainant in any way. The Complainant has not given the Respondent permission to use the Complainant’s trademarks in any manner, including in domain names. The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, which evinces a lack of rights or legitimate interests. At the time of filing the Complaint, the Respondent was using a privacy WhoIs service, which past panels have also found to equate to a lack of legitimate interest. The Respondent is using the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to a website featuring links to third-party websites, some of which directly compete with the Complainant’s business. Presumably, the Respondent received pay-per-click fees from the linked websites. As such, the Respondent is not using the disputed domain name to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Respondent has demonstrated a lack of legitimate rights and interests in the disputed domain name through the listing of it for sale and adding a “Get Price” where users are requested to make offers for the disputed domain name. page 3 The Complainant contends that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith on the following grounds, among others. The Complainant and its RUSSELL ATHLETIC trademark are known internationally, with trademark registrations across numerous countries. The Complainant has marketed and sold its goods and services using this trademark since it was founded in 1902, which is well before the Respondent acquired control of the disputed domain name. By registering a domain name that includes the trademark in its entirety with the addition of the letter “s”, the Respondent has created a domain name that is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. As such, the Respondent has demonstrated a knowledge of and familiarity with the Complainant’s brand and business. The Respondent is using the disputed domain name to confuse unsuspecting Internet users looking for the Complainant’s services, and to mislead Internet users as to the source of the disputed domain name and the website to which it resolves. The disputed domain name must be considered as having been registered and used in bad faith pursuant to Policy paragraph 4(b)(iv), with no good faith use possible. The Respondent is currently offering to sell the disputed domain name, which constitutes bad faith under Policy paragraph 4(b)(i) because the Respondent has demonstrated an intent to sell, rent, or otherwise transfer the disputed domain name for valuable consideration in excess of his out-of-pocket expenses. Seeking to profit from the sale of a confusingly similar domain name that incorporates a third party’s trademark demonstrates bad faith. On balance of the facts set forth above, it is more likely than not that the Respondent knew of and targeted the Complainant’s trademark, and the Respondent should be found to have registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the 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 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. The Complainant is the owner of Russell Brands, LLC, which is the owner of a number of registrations for the RUSSELL ATHLETIC trademark. As recognized in WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 1.4, a parent company may file a UDRP case on the basis of rights held in the trademark of one of the companies or brands under its corporate umbrella. Accordingly, the Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark for the purposes of the Policy. The entirety of the RUSSELL ATHLETIC trademark is reproduced within the disputed domain name, with the addition of a final “s”. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark. 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 page 4 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 Respondent is not a licensee of the Complainant, is not otherwise affiliated with the Complainant, and has not been authorized by the Complainant to use the RUSSELL ATHLETIC trademark. The Respondent has not provided any evidence that it has been commonly known by, or has made a bona fide use of, the disputed domain name, or that it has, for any other reason, rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The composition of the disputed domain name carries a risk of implied affiliation with the Complainant. The evidence establishes that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to resolve to a webpage which contains links to pages that ultimately link to third party sites offering athletic and sporting equipment and accessories, some of which compete with the Complainant’s products. Such use of the disputed domain name is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, and does not confer rights or legitimate interests on the Respondent. 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 name. 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 name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The creation date of the disputed domain name is July 31, 1998. It is not clear when the Respondent registered the disputed domain name. The Complainant said it suspects that the Respondent gained possession of the disputed domain name on August 1, 2023. The Respondent did not reply to this assertion (or, indeed, to any of the Complainant’s other assertions). Whatever may be the date on which the Respondent acquired the disputed domain name, it is after the first use and first registration by Russell Brands, LLC of the RUSSELL ATHLETIC trademark. The Panel notes that: (i) the Respondent registered the disputed domain name after the Complainant’s subsidiary first used and registered its RUSSELL ATHLETIC trademark; (ii) the disputed domain name incorporates the entirety of the RUSSELL ATHLETIC trademark, merely adding a final “s”; (iii) the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to resolve to a webpage that contains links to pages that ultimately link to third party sites offering athletic and sporting equipment and accessories, some of which compete with the Complainant’s products; and (iv) one of the links on the webpage to which the disputed domain name resolved is labelled “Russell Athletic”. It is clear to the Panel that, whatever be the date on which the Respondent acquired the disputed domain name, it did so with knowledge of the RUSSELL ATHLETIC trademark. 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 3.0, section 3.2.1. The evidence shows that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name in an intentional attempt to attract, apparently for commercial gain, Internet users to a webpage by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy. page 5 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 <russellathletics.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Andrew F. Christie/ Andrew F. Christie Sole Panelist Date: May 4, 2026

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