Urban-outfitters.com

The timeline behind urban-outfitters.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 Urban Outfitters Inc. v. John Doe, John Doe Case No. D2026-2283 1. The Parties The Complainant is Urban Outfitters Inc., United States of America (“United States” or “U.S.”), represented by SafeNames Ltd., United Kingdom. The Respondent is John Doe, John Doe, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <urban-outfitters.com> is registered with Wix.com Ltd. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 27, 2026. On May 28, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 4, 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 and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on June 5, 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 June 8, 2026. 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 June 9, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 29, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 3, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Kathryn Lee as the sole panelist in this matter on July 10, 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 U.S. fashion and lifestyle retailer, founded in 1970 in Philadelphia, United States. The Complainant currently operates approximately 260 brick and mortar URBAN OUTFITTERS stores and franchise locations across North America, Europe, and the Middle East. The Complainant also operates its own URBAN OUTFITTERS brand for apparel and accessories, beauty and wellness products, home furnishings, music-related products, among others. In 2025, the Complainant had net sales of 1.3 billion USD for its URBAN OUTFITTERS brand, and 6.1 billion USD across brands that it offers. The Complainant was listed on the NASDAQ stock exchange in 1993. In 2000, the Complainant’s URBAN OUTFITTERS brand launched an online store at its official website at “www.urbanoutfitters.com”, with approximately 22.8 billion visits in April 2026. The Complainant has partnered with famous artists and brands such as Hillary Duff, Justin Bieber, Lady Gaga, adidas and Calvin Klein, amongst others. The Complainant and its subsidiaries own trademark registrations for the URBAN OUTFITERS trademark in a number of jurisdictions, including in the United States (U.S. Registration Number 1323901 registered on March 5, 1985), and Switzerland (Swiss Trademark Registration Number 2P-423691 registered on April 4, 1996), and the European Union (European Union Trade Mark Number 010182061 registered on October 1, 2012). Based on information from the Registrar, the Respondent is recorded as “John Doe” with an address in the United States. The disputed domain name was registered on April 17, 2026, and currently does not resolve to any website with active content. Evidence shows that the disputed domain name at one point was used to host an online clothing store that offered for sale men’s clothing from a brand called EVEN. 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 disputed domain name incorporates the URBAN OUTFITTERS mark in its entirety, separated only by a hyphen, and thus, it is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark. The Complainant also contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and confirms that it has not authorized or licensed rights to the Respondent in any respect. The Complainant further contends that there is no evidence of the Respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name in providing any bona fide offering of goods or services. The Complainant contends that the Respondent used the disputed domain name around April 18, 2026, to host an online clothing store offering men’s clothing products from a brand called EVEN, and that this was not a bona fide offering of goods or services since it traded intentionally on the mark of the Complainant, creating confusing and misdirecting Internet users to its own website for commercial gain by selling competing goods. Finally, the Complainant contends that its URBAN OTFITTERS mark is highly distinctive and well-known, making it unlikely that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name by chance, without targeting the Complainant or its mark. The Complainant also contends that use of the disputed domain name to sell goods of the Complainant’s competitor is an indicator of bad faith use. page 3 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 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 URBAN OUTFITTERS is reproduced within the disputed domain name, with only the addition of a hyphen and the generic Top-Level Domain “.com”. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. 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. 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 Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to offer for sale competing goods of a competitor does not represent use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services (see, Barry D. Sears Ph.D. v. Oded Kariti/Whoisguard, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2015-0174). Moreover, UDRP panels have found that domain names identical to a complainant’s trademark carry a high risk of implied affiliation. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.5.1. Here, the disputed domain name incorporates the entirety of the Complainant’s trademark URBAN OUTFITTERS and therefore is likely to mislead Internet users into believing that the website at the disputed domain name is related to and/or operated by the Complainant, contrary to the fact. 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. First, panels have found that the mere registration of a domain name that is confusingly similar to a well- known trademark can by itself create a presumption of bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.1.4. Here, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark URBAN OUTFITTERS mark, which is famous as the name and mark of the Complainant. Next, considering the fame of the Complainant’s mark, the composition of the disputed domain name, and the manner in which the disputed domain name was used, the Panel finds that the Respondent no doubt knew of the Complainant and the Complainant’s mark when registering the disputed domain name. The Respondent at one point used the disputed domain name to offer for sale clothing from a competitor which means that the Respondent created a likelihood of confusion and likely benefited commercially from the confusion of Internet users that visited the site by mistake as per paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. Lastly, based on the Respondent’s use of a privacy service and the placeholder name “John Doe”, the Respondent is attempting to hide its identity which supports an inference of 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 <urban-outfitters.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Kathryn Lee/ Kathryn Lee Sole Panelist Date: July 20, 2026

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