Myhudsonbay.com

The timeline behind myhudsonbay.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 Canadian Tire Corporation, Limited v. Vadym Bayev Case No. D2026-3319 1. The Parties The Complainant is Canadian Tire Corporation, Limited, Canada, represented by Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP, Canada. The Respondent is Vadym Bayev, Ukraine. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <myhudsonbay.com> is registered with Spaceship, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 27, 2026. On July 28, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 29, 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 (Withheld for Privacy) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on August 3, 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 August 6, 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 12, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 1, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 2, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Andrew Brown K.C. as the sole panelist in this matter on September 8, 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 corporation having its principal place of business in Toronto, Canada. The Complainant is the owner of HUDSON’S BAY brand. The Complainant is a Canadian retailer of a broad variety of goods and services. It was incorporated under the name “Canadian Tire Corporation, Limited” in 1927. It acquired all of the intellectual property including all goodwill and rights of enforcement in respect of the HUDSON’S BAY trademark in June 2025. The Complainant owns some 93 registered trademarks that consist of the word HUDSON’S BAY or a logo form of that mark (“the HUDSON’S BAY Trademark”). It also owns registered trademarks for a Stripes Design (being a combination of four different colored stripes). Some 53 of these registered trademarks are registered in Canada. The Complainant owns trademark registrations for the HUDSON’S BAY Trademark and the Stripes Design in several jurisdictions such as the United States of American (“United States”), China, Japan, India, and the United Kingdom. Brief details are as follows. All of the rights listed are for goods and services relating to the retail distribution of general merchandise and food products. Territory Trademark Registration Number Registration Date Class Canada HUDSON’S BAY (Word) TMA366997 March 23, 1990 35 Canada HUDSON’S BAY (Design) TMA1010317 December 4, 2018 35, 36, 37, 39, 40, 41, 44, and 45 United States Stripes Design 7078512 June 13, 2023 18, 20, 21, and 25 European Union Stripes Design 15148349 August 9, 2016 9, 12, 16, 18, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 28, 30, and 35 The Complainant is the owner of many domain names incorporating the HUDSON’S BAY Trademark including the domain name <hudsonsbay.com>, and promotes its business at the website “www.canadiantire.ca” on which the HUDSON’S BAY branded products are offered. The disputed domain name was registered on December 3, 2025. A landing page is located at the disputed domain name with a disclosure of participation in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, which is designed to enable websites to earn advertising fees by promoting and linking to Amazon. The website offers vintage wool blankets, towels and throws for sale under the sign Hudson Bay. The Complainant’s Stripes Design trademark has been used on the products sold at the website associated with the disputed domain name. 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. page 3 Notably, the Complainant contends that it has trademark rights to the HUDSON’S BAY Trademark in respect of a wide range of goods and services relating to the retail distribution of general merchandise and food items. These rights include the registration in Canada and a number of other jurisdictions. One of the Canadian registrations (616796) records use since at least 1884 in respect of some of the services for which the trademark is registered. The Complainant states that it has trademark rights in respect of its Stripes Design logo. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its HUDSON’S BAY Trademark on the basis that “Hudson Bay” without the “’s” in the disputed domain name is a common misspelling of the Complainant’s HUDSON’S BAY Trademark. The dominant element of the Complainant’s HUDSON’S BAY Trademark remains. The Complainant further asserts that the addition of the word “my” to “hudsonbay” in the disputed domain name does not preclude a finding of confusing similarity. The Complainant states that the addition of “my” focuses Internet users’ attention on the “hudsonbay” part of the disputed domain name and users will be confused into thinking that the disputed domain name is associated with the Complainant’s HUDSON’S BAY Trademark. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or interests in respect of the disputed domain name. In this regard the Complainant states: (a) the Respondent has not been authorized or licensed by the Complainant to use its HUDSON’S BAY Trademark any of its trademarks in any way including in the disputed domain name. (b) there is no evidence that the Respondent has become commonly known by the Hudson’s Bay name or the disputed domain name. (c) the Respondent has never made a bona fide use of the disputed domain name. In particular, the Complainant points to the fact that the disputed domain name was not registered until after the HUDSON’S BAY Trademark had been acquired by the Complainant and well after the HUDSON’S BAY Trademark had been in use and had achieved widespread recognition in Canada and elsewhere. The Complainant says that the Respondent’s actions, when using the disputed domain name to impersonate the Complainant’s brand, do not qualify as a bona fide use. (d) the Respondent’s actions in using the disputed domain name to impersonate the Complainant’s HUDSON’S BAY Trademark including selling counterfeit product bearing the Stripes Design could never confer legitimate rights on the Respondent. The Complainant states the disputed domain name has been registered in bad faith. This is based on the fact that registration of it on December 3, 2025 was at a date when the Complainant’s HUDSON’S BAY Trademark had been registered and had been extensively known in Canada and internationally for many decades. The Complainant says that it is improbable that the Respondent was not aware of its HUDSON’S BAY Trademark. As to use, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name shows that the Respondent was in fact targeting the Complainant’s HUDSON’S BAY Trademark. Further, the Complainant says that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to fraudulently pass itself off as the Complainant and that this is evidence of bad faith. The Complainant asserts that it is virtually inconceivable that the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name was not undertaken with an intent of targeting the Complainant’s HUDSON’S BAY Trademark. page 4 B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Preliminary Procedural Issue Under paragraph 10 of the Rules, the Panel is required to ensure that the Parties are treated with equality and that each Party is given a fair opportunity to present its case, and also that the administrative proceeding takes place with due expedition. Since the Respondent’s location is stated to be in Ukraine, which is subject to an international conflict at the date of this Decision that may affect case notification, it is appropriate for the Panel to consider, in accordance with its discretion under paragraph 10 of the Rules, whether the proceedings should continue. Although the Written Notice was correctly sent to the Respondent’s address, as provided by the Registrar, it was not able to be delivered by post. However, it appears that the Notification of Complaint emails were delivered at the Respondent’s email address, as provided by the Registrar. Therefore, there is no evidence that the case notification was not successfully delivered to the disclosed Respondent’s email address. It is moreover noted that, for the reasons which are set out later in this Decision, the Panel has no serious doubt (albeit in the absence of any Response) that the Respondent registered and has used the disputed domain name in bad faith and with the intention of unfairly targeting the Complainant’s HUDSON’S BAY Trademark. The Panel concludes that the Parties have been given a fair opportunity to present their case. The Panel therefore decides that the administrative proceedings should continue (see Netbet Entreprises Ltd v. Privacy Service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf / Vladimir Vladimir, Crowd inc, WIPO Case No. D2022-1420). 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 Panel finds that the HUDSON’S BAY Trademark is recognizable 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 or omission of other terms (here, the additional term “my” and the omission of “s”, i.e., to form “hudsonbay”) may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds that the addition and omission of such terms does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the HUDSON’S BAY Trademark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, sections 1.8 and 1.9. The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established. page 5 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. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity (here, the attempted impersonation/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 finds that the disputed domain name has been registered in bad faith for the following reasons: (a) the Complainant has clearly demonstrated its rights in the HUDSON’S BAY Trademark and that this trademark was well known for many decades in Canada and internationally prior to registration of the disputed domain name on December 3, 2025; and (b) the Panel finds that the Respondent knew of the Complainant’s HUDSON’S BAY Trademark prior to registration of the disputed domain name. This is confirmed by the landing page created at the disputed domain name upon registration which has displayed the Complainant’s HUDSON’S BAY Trademark (with the omission of the “s”) and has offered products bearing the Complainant’s Stripes Design trademark). This landing page and the statement “What HUDSON BAY delivers ...” evidence clear knowledge of the Complainant, its HUDSON’S BAY Trademark and the Complainant’s Stripe Design registered trademark. Further it evidences an intent to target the Complainant including its HUDSON’S BAY Trademark. The Panel is also satisfied that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name in bad faith for the following reasons: (a) the Complainant has provided evidence that the disputed domain name has been used to offer products bearing the Complainant’s Stripes Design trademark. It is likely that a significant number of Internet users encountering the disputed domain name and the landing page will be misled or deceived into believing that this has been licensed, authorized or endorsed by the Complainant, when this is not the case; page 6 (b) from the landing page at the disputed domain name, the Complainant claims that the Respondent is offering counterfeit copies of goods, which has not been disputed by the Respondent; and (c) the Panel is entitled to draw and does draw adverse inferences from the failure of the Respondent to respond to the Complaint and the allegations made by the Complainant. 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 <myhudsonbay.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Andrew Brown K.C./ Andrew Brown K.C. Sole Panelist Date: September 22, 2026

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