Bjswholesalesclub.com

The timeline behind bjswholesalesclub.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 BJ’s Wholesale Club, Inc. v. ying zhao Case No. D2026-1201 1. The Parties The Complainant is BJ’s Wholesale Club, Inc., United States of America (“United States”) represented by Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, L.L.P., United States. The Respondent is ying zhao, Canada. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <bjswholesalesclub.com> is registered with Dynadot Inc (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 19, 2026. On March 20, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 25, 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 (Redacted for Privacy, Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on March 26, 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 on the same day. 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”). In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on April 1, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 21, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 24, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Zoltán Takács as the sole panelist in this matter on April 29, 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 in this administrative proceeding was founded in the mid-1980s and is asserted to be one of the leading operators of membership-only warehouse clubs concentrated primarily on the eastern half of the United States. As of May 2025, the Complainant operated 250 BJ’s clubs in 21 states and employed over 25,000 team members. The Complainant is the owner of among others: - the United States Trademark Registration No. 1643993 for the word mark BJ’S WHOLESALE CLUB registered on May 7, 1991; and - the United States Trademark Registration No. 2910211 for a figurative mark consisting of the literal, stylized elements BJ’s where the apostrophe is a checkmark (“figurative mark”) registered on December 14, 2004. The Complainant’s members can also shop online through its website located at “www.bjs.com”. The corresponding domain name <bjs.com> was registered on April 12, 1997. The disputed domain name was registered on December 18, 2025, and has been used to resolve to a website of a membership-based online club prominently displaying the Complainant’s marks and purportedly offering a variety of products for sale, along with an option for site visitors to input their email to “subscribe and get A discount”. 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: - the disputed domain name is comprised in its entirety of the BJ’S WHOLESALE CLUB mark with the addition of the letter “s” to pluralize the word “wholesale”; - the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name since it is unable to rely on any of the circumstances set out in paragraphs 4(c)(i), (ii), or (iii) of the Policy; - the composition and use of the disputed domain name suggests that the Respondent knew of the Complainant and registered the disputed domain name to impersonate the Complainant; and - the Respondent provided false contact details at registration since the city and province listed are actual places in China, but the Respondent stated Canada as its country. The Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant. page 3 B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A complainant must evidence each of the three elements required by paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in order to succeed on the complaint, namely that: (i) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; (ii) the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (iii) the 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 of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“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 BJ’S WHOLESALE CLUB mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name, except for the apostrophe. Although the addition of other terms, here the letter “s” to pluralize the word “wholesale” may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds that 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. WIPO Overview 3.1, sections 1.7 and 1.8. The Panel finds that 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 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. page 4 According to the documented evidence submitted by the Complainant, the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to resolve to a website which prominently displays the Complainant’s marks, thereby creating the impression of an official site of the Complainant or an officially affiliated site. Such use of the disputed domain name, which differs from the Complainant’s registered trademark by one letter and the omission of the apostrophe, is not legitimate since it is misleading as to the source or sponsorship and a pretext for commercial gain. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.5.3. The Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and that 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. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds that the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith under the Policy. In the present case, the Panel notes that the Complainant’s marks predate the registration of the disputed domain name which incorporates the marks. This fact, coupled with the composition and use of the disputed domain name to host a website which prominently displays the Complainant’s marks and appears designed to give the impression of an official site of the Complainant or an officially affiliated site is indication that the Respondent knew of the Complainant and its marks at the time of obtaining the disputed domain name and chose to register it to target the Complainant in bad faith for the Respondent’s financial benefit. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.2.1. In addition, it appears that the Respondent has provided false contact details at registration. Changsha and Hunan are a city and a province in China, yet the postal code listed is located in Shangrao City, Jiangxi Province, China and the country listed under ISO country code CA can only be understood as Canada. Provision of false contact information is in the view of the Panel further indication of the Respondent’s bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.6. 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 <bjswholesalesclub.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Zoltán Takács/ Zoltán Takács Sole Panelist Date: May 13, 2026

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