Joutsenstore.shop

The timeline behind joutsenstore.shop

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 Joutsen Finland Oy v. Jonah Ridley Case No. D2026-3245 1. The Parties The Complainant is Joutsen Finland Oy, Finland, represented by Boco IP Oy Ab, Finland. The Respondent is Jonah Ridley, United States of America (“United States”). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <joutsenstore.shop> is registered with Dynadot Inc (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 23, 2026. On July 23, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 24, 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 (Dynadot Privacy Service / Super Privacy) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on July 24, 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 July 27, 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 August 6, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 26, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 27, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed David Taylor as the sole panelist in this matter on September 17, 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 First established in Finland in 1936, the Complainant is a company engaged in the manufacture and sale of down-filled products and related home and apparel goods, including duvets, pillows, bedding, sleeping bags, down jackets, coats, slippers, and other textile and furnishing products. The Complainant is the owner of numerous registrations for the trademark JOUTSEN, including: - Finnish Trademark Registration No. 67701, JOUTSEN, registered on August 21, 1978; - European Union Trade Mark No. 002031532, JOUTSEN, registered on February 13, 2004; and - United States Trademark Registration No. 6897636, JOUTSEN, registered on November 15, 2022. The Complainant is also the owner of the domain name <joutsen.com>, through which the Complainant promotes and sells its products online. The disputed domain name was registered on May 15, 2026. Prior to submission of the Complaint, the disputed domain name resolved to a Finnish-language website displaying the Complainant’s JOUTSEN trademark and purporting to offer products corresponding to those sold by the Complainant (the “Respondent’s website”). The Respondent’s website included categories such as women’s down coats, men’s down coats, down slippers, duvets, pillows, sheets, and other products. At the time of this decision, the disputed domain name no longer resolves to an active web page. On July 21, 2026, the Complainant’s representative submitted a contact request via the Registrar’s contact form, putting the Respondent on notice of the Complainant’s trademark rights and requesting transfer of the disputed domain name. The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s request. 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. The Complainant asserts rights in the JOUTSEN trademark. The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark. The Complainant submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant asserts that it has never authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use the JOUTSEN trademark or to register any domain name incorporating that mark. The Complainant notes that the disputed domain name has been used in connection with a website that purports to sell the Complainant’s products, presented in a materially-similar way to the layout of the Complainant’s own website. The Complainant argues that the Respondent’s website was designed to create the impression that it was an official online store of the Complainant or was otherwise affiliated with or authorized by the Complainant. The Complainant alleges that the Respondent has sought to impersonate the Complainant and that such use cannot confer rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name on page 3 the Respondent. The Complainant further asserts that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has the Respondent made any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant contends that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with knowledge of the Complainant and its trademark rights. The Complainant relies on the incorporation of the JOUTSEN trademark in its entirety together with the term “store”, which it argues conveys the impression of an official online store associated with the Complainant. The Complainant further argues that the content of the Respondent’s website demonstrates actual knowledge of the Complainant, noting that the Respondent’s website reproduced product categories, product names, imagery, and presentation corresponding to the Complainant’s website and was presented in the Finnish language, including references directed at Finnish consumers. These circumstances show that the Respondent specifically targeted the Complainant and its trademark rights when registering the disputed domain name. The Complainant contends that the Respondent intentionally used the disputed domain name to attract Internet users by creating confusion with the Complainant’s JOUTSEN trademark. According to the Complainant, the Respondent’s website imitated the Complainant’s online store by reproducing its trademark, product images, product names, and overall presentation, thereby falsely suggesting an affiliation with the Complainant. The Complainant characterizes this conduct as deliberate impersonation intended to mislead consumers. The Complainant further submits that the Respondent’s failure to respond to its pre-Complaint notice, coupled with the use of a privacy service and the alleged impersonation of the Complainant, provides additional evidence of use of the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Complainant requests transfer of the disputed domain name. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings In order to prevail, the Complainant must demonstrate on the balance of probabilities that it has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy: (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. 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 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. page 4 Although the addition of the term “store” may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such a 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, 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 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 record shows that prior to the filing of the Complaint, the disputed domain name resolved to a website purporting to offer products corresponding to those sold by the Complainant. The Respondent’s website prominently displayed the Complainant’s JOUTSEN trademark and, according to the unrebutted evidence submitted by the Complainant, reproduced product names, images, and an overall online presentation closely resembling the Complainant’s official website. Even assuming that the Respondent’s website offered genuine JOUTSEN products, the Panel finds that the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name would not satisfy the criteria set out in Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2001-0903, which UDRP panels commonly apply in assessing reseller rights or legitimate interests. In particular, the evidence does not show that the Respondent accurately and prominently disclosed its relationship, or lack thereof, with the Complainant. To the contrary, the disputed domain name itself combines the Complainant’s trademark with the term “store”, and the website appears to have been presented in a manner suggesting that it was an official JOUTSEN online store. The Respondent therefore fails to satisfy the third Oki Data criterion requiring clear disclosure of the registrant’s relationship with the trademark owner. The Panel finds that the Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy. The Respondent’s name bears no resemblance to the disputed domain name. There is no evidence in the record indicating that the Respondent has been commonly known by “Joutsen” or by the disputed domain name. Nor has the Respondent submitted any Response or supporting evidence that might support such a finding. The Panel therefore finds that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name within the meaning of paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy. The Panel further notes that the Respondent’s website was manifestly commercial in nature and finds that the Respondent has not made any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name further to paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy. page 5 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. The disputed domain name wholly incorporates the Complainant’s JOUTSEN trademark together with the term “store”. In the Panel’s view, the addition of the term “store” reinforces an association with the Complainant by suggesting an official retail outlet for the Complainant’s products. The Panel further notes that the Respondent’s website prominently displayed the Complainant’s trademark, reproduced content associated with the Complainant’s business, and was presented in the Finnish language despite the Respondent being located in the United States. The Respondent’s website purported to offer products corresponding to those sold by the Complainant and included categories matching those promoted through the Complainant’s own online store. These circumstances support a finding that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and deliberately targeted the Complainant’s mark when registering the disputed domain name. In the absence of any Response or other explanation from the Respondent, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith. The Panel further finds that by using the disputed domain name in the manner described above, the Respondent intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to its website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website and the products purportedly offered thereon, amounting to bad faith use as contemplated by paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. The Panel further notes that the Respondent failed to reply to the Complainant’s pre-Complaint communication notifying it of the Complainant’s trademark rights and requesting transfer of the disputed domain name. While the Respondent was under no obligation to respond, the absence of any explanation for its conduct lends further support to the Panel’s finding of bad faith. The Panel notes that, at the time of this Decision, the disputed domain name no longer resolves to an active website. However, the subsequent deactivation of the Respondent’s website does not prevent a finding of bad faith where the record contains evidence of the Respondent’s prior use of the disputed domain name and the surrounding circumstances otherwise support a finding of bad faith registration and use. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. 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 <joutsenstore.shop> be transferred to the Complainant. /David Taylor/ David Taylor Sole Panelist Date: September 24, 2026

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