Goodfellowcosale.com + 6 more domains

The timeline behind goodfellowcosale.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

How each disputed name was decided in this proceeding.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION Target Brands, Inc. v. Davis Adam / Wilbanks Phyllis / Pereira Doris / MEdgar Sibyl / Hummer Georgia / WAdamson Mary / Jones Thomas Claim Number: FA2501002133036 PARTIES Complainant is Target Brands, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Jeanette Eriksson of FairWinds Partners LLC, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Davis Adam / Wilbanks Phyllis / Pereira Doris / MEdgar Sibyl / Hummer Georgia / WAdamson Mary / Jones Thomas ("Respondent"), Various Locations. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES The domain names at issue are <goodfellowcosale.com>, <goodfellowcoshop.com>, <heydayus.com>, <sunsquadsale.com>, <pillowfortus.com>, <babypillowfort.com> and <kidscatandjack.com> ("the Domain Names"), registered with Gname.Com Pte. Ltd. PANEL The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Alan L. Limbury, as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 2, 2025. Forum received payment on January 2, 2025. On January 2, 2025, Gname.Com Pte. Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the Domain Names are registered with Gname.Com Pte. Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Gname.Com Pte. Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Gname.Com Pte. Ltd. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy"). On January 3, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 23, 2025 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@goodfellowcosale.com, postmaster@goodfellowcoshop.com, postmaster@heydayus.com, postmaster@sunsquadsale.com, postmaster@pillowfortus.com, postmaster@babypillowfort.com and postmaster@kidscatandjack.com. Also on January 3, 2025, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts. Having received no response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On January 24, 2024, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Alan L. Limbury as Panelist. Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the Domain Names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE RESPONDENTS Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules provides that a "complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder". Paragraph 1(d) of the Forum's Supplemental Rules defines "The Holder of a Domain Name Registration" as "the single person or entity listed in the registration information, as verified by the Registrar, at the time of commencement" and sub-paragraph 1(d)(i) provides that a Complainant wishing to make an argument for a single Respondent having multiple aliases must comply with Supplemental Rules 4(c) and 17(a)(i). Complainant has shown that the Domain Names are effectively controlled by the same person and/or entity, which is operating under several aliases. Hence this decision refers to Davis Adam / Wilbanks Phyllis / Pereira Doris / MEdgar Sibyl / Hummer Georgia / WAdamson Mary / Jones Thomas as "Respondent". PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant, Target Brands, Inc., owns, promotes, and enforces the registered trademarks CAT & JACK, GOODFELLOW & CO, HEYDAY, SUN SQUAD and PILLOWFORT (the "Marks") and makes extensive use of them. Several years prior to the creation of the Domain Names, Complainant commenced use of the Marks in connection with in-store and online sales through Complainant's official website, offering CAT & JACK (kids' and baby apparel and accessories), GOODFELLOW & CO (men's apparel and accessories), HEYDAY (colorful and designed tech accessories), SUN SQUAD (pool floats, backyard and outdoor entertainment essentials and toys) and PILLOWFORT (kids home décor and furniture) products. Since the inception of the Marks, Complainant has continually used them in commerce. Each of the Domain Names is confusingly similar to one of Complainants' registered Marks. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Names. Respondent is not a licensee of Complainant and has never been authorized to register domain names incorporating Complainant's Marks. There is no evidence to suggest that Respondent is commonly known by the Domain Names or any of Complainant's Marks and does not own any trademark or service mark rights in any relevant names. Respondent does not use the Domain Names for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent is engaged in an impersonation and phishing scheme, utilizing the Domain Names. Before they were taken down following Complainant's representatives report to the Registrar Gname.com or put on client hold for abusive use, the Domain Names resolved to similar fraudulent retail websites, using the same website structure and layout. Respondent registered the Domain Names in bad faith with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in its Marks and uses them with bad faith intent to unfairly capitalize on Complainant's trademark rights and to create confusion with Complainant's Marks for Respondent's commercial gain. Use of a disputed domain name for impersonation, phishing and other scams has definitively been held to support a finding of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant has established all the elements entitling it to relief. DISCUSSION Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable." Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that the domain name should be cancelled or transferred: (i) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and (ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (iii)the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. In view of Respondent's failure to submit a Response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences as it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations set forth in a complaint. However, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) ('Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint'). Identical and/or Confusingly Similar Complainant has shown that it has rights in the Marks through numerous registrations, including with the USPTO (e.g., CAT & JACK, Reg. No. 5,143,395, registered on February 14, 2017; GOODFELLOW & CO, Reg. No. 5,532,024, registered on July 31, 2018; HEYDAY, Reg. No. 5,852,869, registered on September 3, 2019; SUN SQUAD, Reg. No. 6,441,461, registered on August 3, 2021; and PILLOWFORT, Reg. No. 5,074,070, registered on November 1, 2016). 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 Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Overview 3.0 "), section 1.7. The Panel finds Respondent's <goodfellowcosale.com>, <goodfellowcoshop.com>, <heydayus.com>, <sunsquadsale.com>, <pillowfortus.com>, <babypillowfort.com> and <kidscatandjack.com> Domain Names to be confusingly similar to Complainant's corresponding GOODFELLOW & CO, HEYDAY, SUN SQUAD, PILLOWFORT and CAT & JACK Marks, only differing by the addition of a generic word "sale", "shop", "us", "kids" or "baby"; the omission of spaces from the CAT & JACK, GOODFELLOW & CO and SUN SQUAD Marks, the omission of "&" from the GOODFELLOW & CO Mark; and the substitution of "and" for "&" in the CAT & JACK Mark, none of which differences is sufficient to distinguish any of the Domain Names from Complainant's corresponding Mark. The inconsequential ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD") may be ignored under this element. See, for example, Rollerblade, Inc. v. Chris McCrady, WIPO Case No. D2000-0429. Complainant has established this element. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy sets out three illustrative circumstances as examples which, if established by Respondent, shall demonstrate rights to or legitimate interests in the Domain Names for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, i.e. (i) before any notice to Respondent of the dispute, the use by Respondent of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Domain Names or names corresponding to the domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or (ii) Respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the Domain Names, even if Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Names, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert customers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue. The Domain Names were registered between March 15 and December 2, 2024, several years after Complainant registered its Marks. Before being taken down, they resolved to websites prominently displaying one of Complainant's Marks and photos of Complainant's products, apparently offering such products for sale and seeking Internet users' personal information via account login pages. These circumstances, together with Complainant's assertions, are sufficient to constitute a prima facie showing of absence of rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Names on the part of Respondent. The evidentiary burden therefore shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names. See Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014). Respondent has made no attempt to do so. The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Names. Complainant has established this element. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out four illustrative circumstances, which, though not exclusive, shall be evidence of the registration and use of the Domain Names in bad faith for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, including: (iv) by using the Domain Names, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent's website or location or of a product or service on its website or location. The circumstances set out above in relation to the second element satisfy the Panel that Respondent was fully aware of Complainant's Marks when Respondent registered the Domain Names and that Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent's websites, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's Marks as to the source of Respondent's websites and of the goods promoted on those websites. This demonstrates registration and use in bad faith to attract users for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). Complainant has established this element. DECISION Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <goodfellowcosale.com>, <goodfellowcoshop.com>, <heydayus.com>, <sunsquadsale.com>, <pillowfortus.com>, <babypillowfort.com> and <kidscatandjack.com> Domain Names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Alan L. Limbury, Panelist Dated: January 25, 2025 Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page. Click Here to return to our Home Page

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