Ericemnuelshorts.com

The timeline behind ericemnuelshorts.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. Muhammad Zaman Case No. D2026-1675 1. The Parties The Complainant is EE Holding Group LLC, United States of America (“United States”), represented by The Sladkus Law Group, United States. The Respondent is Muhammad Zaman, Pakistan. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <ericemnuelshorts.com> is registered with CloudFlare, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 20, 2026. On April 21, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 22, 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 (i.e., Data Redacted) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on April 22, 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 22, 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 27, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 17, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 20, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Eric Macramalla as the sole panelist in this matter on May 28, 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 designs and sells clothing and apparel, including streetwear and sportswear products. With a head office in New York City in the United States, the Complainant is widely recognized for its signature EE mesh shorts, along with ongoing sneaker and apparel collaborations with brands like Adidas, Reebok and New Era. The Complainant’s products are sold direct to consumer via its official website located at “www.ericemanuel.com”, through one of five brick and mortar retail stores located in New York, Miami, and Las Vegas, and through various authorized retailers. The Complainant is the owner of over 30 trademark registrations worldwide for trademarks comprised of, or containing, ERIC EMANUEL (the “ERIC EMANUEL Trademarks”). A sample of these trademark registrations is set out below: (a) ERIC EMANUEL (word), U.S. Trademark Registration No. 8025275 filed for use in association with Class 35 services and issued to registration on November 11, 2025; (b) ERIC EMANUEL (word), U.S. Trademark Registration No. 6721224 filed for use in association with Class 25 goods and issued to registration on May 24, 2022; (c) ERIC EMANUEL (word), Australian Trademark Registration No. 2448316 filed for use in association with Class 25 goods and issued to registration on May 7, 2024; and (d) ERIC EMANUEL (figurative), International Registration No. 1762468 filed for use in association with Class 25 goods and with protections granted in Chile, Colombia, Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand, Philippines, Singapore and the Republic of Korea , and registered as of October 11, 2023. The Complainant has made continuous use of the ERIC EMANUEL Trademarks since at least as early as 2014. The disputed domain name was registered on December 9, 2025. At the time of the filing of the Complaint and at the time of the Decision, the disputed domain name resolves to a website promoting the sale of the Complainant’s ERIC EMANUEL products in association with the Complainant’s ERIC EMANUEL Trademarks, the Complainant’s EE Design trademark and the trade name “Eric Emanuel”. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the three elements required under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy for the transfer of the disputed domain name. The Complainant has alleged that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the ERIC EMANUEL Trademarks in which it has rights. The omission of the letter “a” in the disputed domain name does not dispel confusion, and the Respondent’s typosquatting activities provide additional support for a finding of confusing similarity. Furthermore, the addition of the non-distinctive term “shorts” to the disputed domain name supports a finding of confusing similarity as the Complainant is well-known for its sale of shorts. page 3 The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as contemplated by paragraph 4(c) of the Policy. The Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to use ERIC EMANUEL Trademarks and is not otherwise connected to the Respondent. The disputed domain name was registered long after the Complainant established rights in its marks and is being used to operate a website that is designed to mislead end users as to source or sponsorship. The Respondent’s activities do not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services, the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and that the Respondent is not making any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name. Rather, the Respondent is using the domain name to mislead consumers and divert them for commercial gain. The Complainant contends that it is possible the Respondent is selling counterfeit goods. The disputed domain name was registered and is used in bad faith as per paragraph 4(b)(iv). The Respondent is intentionally attempting to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s trademarks as to the source or sponsorship. The Respondent’s typosquatting activities further support a finding of bad faith as does the possibility that the Respondent is promoting the sale of ERIC EMANUEL counterfeit goods. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings As per paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, to succeed a complainant must establish the following: (i) the disputed 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 disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. These elements are discussed in turn below. In considering these elements, paragraph 15(a) of the Rules provides that the Panel shall decide the Complaint on the basis of statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any other rules or principles of law that the Panel deems applicable. 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 established rights in respect of a trademark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. The Complainant has established rights in the ERIC EMANUEL Trademarks in multiple countries, including the United States, Australia, Chile, Colombia, Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand, Philippines, Singapore and the Republic of Korea. The Panel finds the mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name incorporates the trademark in its entirety save for the omission of the letter “a”. This constitutes a clear case of typosquatting. As per section 1.9 of the WIPO Overview 3.1, a disputed domain name consisting of common, obvious, or intentional misspellings of a trademark is considered confusingly similar. page 4 The Panel finds that the addition of the term “shorts” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s ERIC EMANUEL Trademarks for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.8. 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 1.9. 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 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. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate or illegal activities, including the sale of counterfeit goods, copycat sites and passing off cannot 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 Complainant has not authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use the ERIC EMANUEL Trademarks in any manner, including as part of a domain name. There is also no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. Furthermore, the disputed domain name constitutes an instance of typosquatting as it incorporates a misspelled version of the Complainant’s mark. The addition of the term “shorts” further supports the Panel’s finding that the Respondent lacks rights or a legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. Given that the Complainant is well-known for the sale of shorts, the Respondent’s inclusion of this term appears intended to create a false association with the Complainant. The Respondent is also using the disputed domain name to pass itself off as the Complainant having engaged in the extensive misappropriation of its trademark rights. In light of the foregoing, the Respondent’s activities demonstrate a clear intention to actively mislead and deceive end users as to source or sponsorship. The Panel finds that such conduct wholly undermines any claim of rights or a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. page 5 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. While 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, other circumstances may also be relevant in assessing whether a respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.2.1. Panels have consistently held that typosquatting may constitute evidence of bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.1.4. Panels have also held that passing off constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.4. In the present case, the Respondent has misappropriated the Complainant’s trademark rights with a view to misleading and deceiving potential consumers as to source or sponsorship. The Respondent is using the Complainant’s well-known ERIC EMANUEL Trademarks, the EE stylized trademark, a domain name which constitutes an intentional misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark, the trade name Eric Emanuel, and has included the word “shorts” in the disputed domain name to enhance a connection to the Complainant. Furthermore, the Panel concludes that the Respondent had actual knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark rights at the time of registering the disputed domain name. The Respondent has, for financial gain, gone to significant lengths to create the overall commercial impression that it is authorized by the Complainant, or otherwise connected to it. The Respondent’s conduct bears the hallmarks of passing off. The Panel finds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website or location or of a product or service on its website or location (paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy). This constitutes evidence of the registration and use of a disputed domain name in bad faith. The Panel therefore 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 <ericemnuelshorts.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Eric Macramalla/ Eric Macramalla Sole Panelist Date: June 11, 2026

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