Eeofficialshort.com

The timeline behind eeofficialshort.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 EE Holding Group LLC v. Aitzaz Ahmed Niaz Case No. D2026-1383 1. The Parties The Complainant is EE Holding Group LLC, United States of America (the “United States”), represented by The Sladkus Law Group, United States. The Respondent is Aitzaz Ahmed Niaz, Pakistan. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <eeofficialshort.com> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with CloudFlare, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 31, 2026. On April 1, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On April 2, 2026, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent (DATA REDACTED) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on April 2, 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 amendment to the Complaint on April 2, 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 the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on April 8, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 28, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 29, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Ian Lowe as the sole panelist in this matter on May 4, 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 the holding company that owns all the intellectual property in the ERIC EMANUEL brand. Eric Emanuel is an independent sportswear designer who started designing custom python basketball jerseys, but whose sportswear collection is now widely recognized for its signature EE mesh shorts as well as sneaker and apparel collaborations with other well-known brands. Authentic ERIC EMANUEL brand goods are sold at retail only through the brand’s official website at “www.ericemanuel.com”, at one of five brick and mortar ERIC EMANUEL retail stores in New York, Miami and Las Vegas, United States, and through other authorized retailers. ERIC EMANUEL brand signature mesh shorts are advertised and offered by the Complainant as “EE Shorts”. They usually retail for USD 98.00 to 108.00 per pair but are frequently sold on the secondary market for two or three times their original retail price. The Complainant is the proprietor of a number of registered trademarks including United States trademark Registration number 6721224 for ERIC EMANUEL registered on May 24, 2022; International trademark Registration number 1762468 for ERIC EMANUEL registered on October 11, 2023; United Kingdom trademark Registration number 3966758 for EE registered on February 16, 2024; and United Kingdom trademark number 4023216 for stylized EE device mark registered on October 1, 2020. The Complainant has used the ERIC EMANUEL and EE marks in commerce since at least 2014. The Domain Name was registered on April 25, 2025. It resolved to a website offering for sale a wide range of what purport to be ERIC EMANUEL branded sportswear products, including in particular shorts, at what are expressed to be substantially discounted prices. The home page has the prominent headline “Eric Emanuel Shorts” and the menu bar incorporates a copy of the Complainant’s EE device mark. The only information on the website about the operator of the website is an email address at the Domain Name, and an address in New York which appears to be a building comprising condo units. The Domain Name currently redirects to a website at “www.ericmanuelshorts.com” with an identical content. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its EE trademark, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name and that the Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings For this Complaint to succeed in relation to the Domain Name the Complainant must prove that: (i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and page 3 (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. Ignoring the generic Top-Level Domain “.com”, the Domain Name comprises the entirety of the Complainant’s EE mark (the “Mark”) with the addition of the terms “official” and “short”. Although the EE mark comprises only a minor part of the Domain Name, WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7 notes that “In some cases, in assessing the first element a panel may find that the broader case context (such as website content...) supports a finding of confusing similarity with the complainant’s mark”. In this case, it is clear from the content of the website to which the Domain Name resolves that the Respondent is targeting the Complainant in purporting to sell ERIC EMANUEL products, from the repeated use of the Eric Emanuel name on the website. The Panel further finds that the addition of the terms “official” and “short” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.8. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights, and 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 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. Accordingly, 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 made out a strong prima facie case that the Respondent could have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. The Respondent has used the Domain Name not in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, but for a website offering what the Complainant claims to be counterfeit products of the Complainant. The Panel notes that the website to which the Domain Name resolves is offering products for sale at what purport to be very substantially discounted prices, which is consistent with the products in question being counterfeit. There is no suggestion that the Respondent has ever been known by the Domain Name. The Respondent has chosen not to respond to the Complainant or to take any steps to counter the prima facie case established by the Complainant. In the circumstances, the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. In addition, the nature of the Domain Name together with the website at the Domain Name creates a strong risk of Internet user confusion. The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. page 4 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 Domain Name comprises the Mark with the addition of the terms “official” and “short”. Further, the Panel notes that the Respondent has used the Domain Name for a website selling what purport to be the Complainant’s goods, and accordingly the Panel is in no doubt that the Respondent had the Complainant and its rights in the EE mark in mind when it registered the Domain Name. In the absence of any response by the Respondent, the Panel has no reason to doubt that the Respondent is offering counterfeit goods of the Complainant on the website, particularly given the apparently substantially discounted prices at which the Respondent is purporting to sell the goods. The Panel considers that the Respondent has registered and used the Domain Name to deceive Internet users into believing that the Domain Name is operated or authorized by the Complainant, and to attract Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Mark. In the Panel’s view, the use of a domain name for such activity, clearly with a view to commercial gain, amounts to paradigm bad faith registration and use for the purposes of the Policy. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. 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 <eeofficialshort.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Ian Lowe/ Ian Lowe Sole Panelist Date: May 18, 2026

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