Gforegolfshoes.com

The timeline behind gforegolfshoes.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 Peter Millar LLC v. Abbott Sandra Case No. D2026-2363 1. The Parties Complainant is Peter Millar LLC, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Stobbs IP Limited, United Kingdom. Respondent is Abbott Sandra, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <gforegolfshoes.com> is registered with West263 International Limited (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 1, 2026. On June 2, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 3, 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) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on June 3, 2026, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on June 4, 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on June 5, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 25, 2026. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on June 26, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Timothy D. Casey as the sole panelist in this matter on June 30, 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 Complainant is a subsidiary of a luxury goods group that was acquired in 2017. G/FORE is a brand founded in 2011 in the United States and acquired by Complainant in 2018. Complainant first began using G/FORE and G FORE as trademarks for golf gloves and subsequently G/FORE as a trademark for athletic apparel, including golf shoes, in 2013. Complainant owns the following registrations (the “G/FORE and G FORE Marks”): Mark Jurisdiction Class(es) Registration No. Registration Date G/FORE United States 25 4,808,894 September 8, 2015 G/FORE United States 28 4,117,878 March 27, 2012 G FORE United States 28 4,035,425 October 4, 2011 Complainant operates a website using the <gfore.co.uk> domain name and uses the G/FORE brand on various social media platforms. The disputed domain name was registered on October 3, 2025. At least as latest as May 18, 2026, the disputed domain name resolved to a website purporting to offer for sale clothing apparel and golf shoes bearing the G/FORE mark. 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, Complainant contends that it has rights in the G/FORE and G FORE Marks as evidenced herein, and that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the G/FORE and G FORE Marks because the G/FORE and G FORE Marks are fully incorporated into the disputed domain name with the addition of the descriptive terms “golf” and “shoes”. Complainant contends that the addition of the descriptive terms, which identify one of Complainant’s main product lines, only serves to compound the confusion between the disputed domain name and the G/FORE and G FORE Marks. Complainant notes that the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) of the disputed domain name “.com” should be disregarded in the analysis under the first element of the Policy. Complainant contends Respondent should be considered to have no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Complainant asserts that Respondent’s website offers infringing product that were not authorized by Complainant at prices that are materially lower than Complainant’s own products, suggesting that the goods are counterfeit, and has a look and feel that gives the misleading impression that Respondent’s website is associated or affiliated with Complainant and is therefore not a bona fide offering of goods and services that does not confer rights or legitimate interests on Respondent. Complainant further contends Respondent is not commonly known by the G/FORE and G FORE Marks or by the disputed domain name. Complainant contends the disputed domain name should be considered to have been registered and used in bad faith because: (1) Respondent’s registration occurred long after Complainant acquired rights in the G/FORE and G FORE Marks; (2) the disputed domain name is not a random or coincidental expression, but page 3 rather uses the G/FORE and G FORE Marks with descriptive terms in order to create a clear association with Complainant; (3) the above demonstrates that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s G/FORE and G FORE Marks at the time of registration; and (4) Respondent’s website makes clear that the disputed domain name was registered and has been used for the purpose of creating an association with the Complainant and commercially benefiting through the advertisement and offering for sale of purported G/FORE products in a manner that is disruptive to Complainant’s business. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to 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 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. 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. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. Although the addition of other terms here, the descriptive terms “golf” and “shoes”, may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such terms 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, section 1.8. 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 Complainant has established a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent has not rebutted 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 Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity here, claimed sale of counterfeit goods and passing off can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.13.1. 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 Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name is clearly intended to disrupt the business of Complainant and intentionally attempts to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the G/FORE and G FORE Marks. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity here, claimed sale of counterfeit goods and passing off, constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.4. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith under the Policy. The Panel finds that 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 <gforegolfshoes.com> be transferred to Complainant. /Timothy D. Casey/ Timothy D. Casey Sole Panelist Date: July 14, 2026

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