Hawxboots.com

The timeline behind hawxboots.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.

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Boot Barn, Inc. v. 布赵春 (Buzhaochun) Case No. D2026-1107 1. The Parties The Complainant is Boot Barn, Inc., United States of America (“the United States”), represented by Sisun Law, United States. The Respondent is 布赵春 (Buzhaochun), China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name < > is registered with Xiamen ChinaSource Internet Service Co., Ltd. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 13, 2026. On March 16, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 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 (Registration Private) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on March 18, 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 in English on March 20, 2026. On March 18, 2026, the Center informed the parties in Chinese and English, that the language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name is Chinese. On March 20, 2026, the Complainant confirmed its request that English be the language of the proceeding. The Respondent did not submit any comment on the Complainant’s submission. 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”). ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER page 2 In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent in Chinese and English 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 Sok Ling MOI 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. 4. Factual Background The Complainant is a Delaware, United States corporation registered in 2007 in the business of retailing clothing and footwear. With its origin as a single store in 1978, the Complainant has since become one of the largest work wear retailers in the United States. The Complainant has continuously used the brand HAWX for its products in commerce since at least 2018. The Complainant owns the following trade mark registration in the United States: - Registration No. 5645321 for the word mark HAWX in Class 25, registered on January 1, 2019 The Complainant registered the domain name <bootbarn.com> on March 13, 1996 and used it to operate its official website in connection with its advertisement and sale of its products. For the period of February 2025 to February 2026, the Complainant’s said website attracted more than 5.5 million visitors. The disputed domain name was registered on August 17, 2025, about 7 years after the Complainant began using, and registered, its trade mark HAWX. According to the evidence submitted by the Complainant, the disputed domain name resolves to a website that purports to offer work boots for sale under the HAWX brand. 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. Notably, the Complainant contends that by combining the Complainant’s trade mark HAWX and the generic term “boots”, the disputed domain name seeks to mislead or deceive customers into thinking they are visiting an online retail store featuring sale items of the Complainant’s merchandise. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. page 3 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1 Procedural Issue: Language of the Proceeding The language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name is Chinese. Pursuant to the Rules, paragraph 11(a), in the absence of an agreement between the parties, or unless specified otherwise in the registration agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the registration agreement. The Complaint was filed in English. The Complainant requested that the language of the proceeding be English for several reasons, including the fact that the disputed domain name incorporates the English descriptive term “boots” and the associated website contents are entirely in English. The Respondent did not make any specific submissions with respect to the language of the proceeding. In exercising its discretion to use a language other than that of the registration agreement, the Panel has to exercise such discretion judicially in the spirit of fairness and justice to both parties, taking into account all relevant circumstances of the case, including matters such as the parties’ ability to understand and use the proposed language, time and costs (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 4.5.1). Having considered all the matters above, the Panel determines under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules that the language of the proceeding shall be English. 6.2 Substantive Issue: Findings Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that a complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order for the disputed domain name to be transferred: (i) the disputed domain name registered by the respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; (ii) the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. 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 3.1, section 1.7. The 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 mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Although the addition of other terms may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such term does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, sections 1.7 and 1.8. The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established. page 4 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. The Complainant has confirmed that the Respondent is not in any way affiliated with the Complainant or otherwise authorized or licensed to use the HAWX trade mark or to seek registration of any domain name incorporating the HAWX trade mark. The Respondent is presumably an individual by the name of “布赵春 (Buzhaochun)”. There appears to be no independent evidence suggesting that the Respondent is commonly known by the name “hawx” or has any rights in the term “hawx”. According to the evidence submitted by the Complainant, the disputed domain name resolves to a website that purports to offer work boots for sale under the HAWX brand. The said website does not make any reference to the Complainant by name, but instead names “Hawx Boots” as the copyright owner. Nevertheless, without any accurate and prominent disclaimer of non-affiliation, the Respondent’s website conveys an impression that it is an official website of the Complainant. Such use would not be a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for here, claimed passing off can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.13.1 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 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 Panel notes that a simple Internet search would have returned results pointing to the Complainant’s business, and hence there is a strong presumption that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s trade mark when it registered the disputed domain name and had done so in bad faith. Although the Complainant claimed that the product images on the Respondent’s website were copied directly from the Complainant’s website, the Complainant did not provide direct evidence to substantiate this point (e.g., in the form of screenshots of the Complaint’s website showing the relevant product images corresponding to those shown on the Respondent’s website). Nevertheless, by offering work boots for sale under the HAWX brand without any accurate and prominent disclaimer of non-affiliation with the Complainant, and claiming “Hawx Boots” as the copyright owner, the Respondent is potentially engaging in an act of passing off. page 5 The Panel is therefore satisfied that the Respondent’s purpose of registering the disputed domain name was to trade on the reputation of the Complainant and its trade mark by diverting Internet users seeking the Complainant’s products to the Respondent’s website for commercial gain. By registering the disputed domain name which incorporates the HAWX trade mark, the Respondent is attempting to create a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website. The circumstances referred in paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy are applicable to the present case. Furthermore, panels have held that the use of a domain name for here, claimed passing off, constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.4. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith under the Policy. 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 name <hawxboots.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Sok Ling MOI/ Sok Ling MOI Sole Panelist Date: May 6, 2026

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