Trophy-ridge.com

The timeline behind trophy-ridge.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.

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION Bear Archery, Inc. v. Chi Cui Claim Number: FA2501002134900 PARTIES Complainant is Bear Archery, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Charles J. Meyer of Woodard, Emhardt, Henry, Reeves & Wagner LLP, Indiana, USA. Respondent is Chi Cui ("Respondent"), China. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <trophy-ridge.com>, registered with DNSPod, Inc. 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. The Honorable Neil Anthony Brown KC as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 13, 2025; Forum received payment on January 13, 2025. On January 14, 2025, DNSPod, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <trophy-ridge.com> domain name is registered with DNSPod, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. DNSPod, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the DNSPod, Inc. 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 14, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Chinese and English Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 3, 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@trophy-ridge.com. Also on January 14, 2025, the Chinese and English 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 in Chinese and English. On February 4, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed The Honorable Neil Anthony Brown KC 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 name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PRELIMINARY ISSUE: LANGUAGE OF PROCEEDING Complainant has submitted that the administrative proceeding be conducted in the English language pursuant to UDRP Rule 11(a). That Rule provides that the language of the proceeding is to be the language of the registration agreement relating to the domain name at issue, unless the Panel determines that it should be a different language having regard to the circumstances of the proceeding. Complainant makes this request in light of the Chinese language Registration Agreement. It is also the established practice to take UDRP Rules 10(b) and (c) into consideration for the purpose of determining the language of the proceeding to ensure fairness and justice to both parties. In that regard, panels have given particular note to whether there are any circumstances showing the Respondent's familiarity with the English language; see The Argento Wine Company Limited v. Argento Beijing Trading Company, D2009-0610 (WIPO July 1, 2009) (panel exercising discretion in deciding that the language of the proceedings advance in English, contrary to the Registration Agreement, based on evidence that respondent has command of the language). The Complainant submits and has established that the Respondent probably has the ability to understand and converse in English, such that conducting the proceeding in English will not prejudice it. The Complainant relies on the circumstances that the domain name and the contents of the Respondent's website are in English; that the ".com" Top-Level Domain primarily targets English-speaking users, a process using the English language; that there is nothing inherently Chinese in the domain name or on the website; that the prices of goods offered on the website are in US dollars; that the Respondent has clearly targeted an English-speaking company in the United States; and that if the proceeding is to be conducted in Chinese, the documents will have to be translated into that language, imposing unnecessary and probably substantial costs on the Complainant. The Panel agrees with those submissions and concludes that the language of the proceeding should in all the circumstances be English. Accordingly, and pursuant to UDRP Rule 11(a), the Panel finds that persuasive evidence has been adduced by Complainant to show that the Respondent is conversant and proficient in the English language. The Panel therefore decides that the proceeding should be conducted in the English language. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant made the following contentions. 1. The Complainant is a United States company engaged in the provision of archery equipment and related goods and services. 2. The Complainant provides its goods and services under the trademark for TROPHY RIDGE. In particular, the evidence will establish that the Complainant has acquired registered trademark rights in the TROPHY RIDGE trademark by virtue of its registration of that mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office, registration number number 3,282,746, registered on August 21, 2007 ("the TROPHY RIDGE trademark"). The Complainant has used that trademark since its registration to offer its goods and services. 3. The TROPHY RIDGE trademark has attracted substantial goodwill and is uniquely associated with the Complainant's goods and services. 4. As well as its trademark, Complainant has registered the domain name <beararchery.com> that it uses in its business and in particular for its website at www.beararchery.com where it markets its products under the TROPHY RIDGE trademark and brand, including online, enables customers to locate the Complainant's dealers and includes its TROPHY RIDGE products for sale. 5. The Respondent registered the <trophy-ridge.com> domain name on August 31, 2024 ("the disputed domain name"). 6. The disputed domain name embodies, without the consent of the Complainant, the TROPHY RIDGE trademark with the addition of a hyphen between "trophy" and "ridge" and the generic Top Level Domain ".com". 7. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the TROPHY RIDGE trademark. 8. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. That is so because: (a) the Respondent registered the disputed domain name on August 31, 2024 and is using it to divert internet users to a website that is very similar to the Complainant's website, indicating the Respondent's intention to trade wilfully on the TROPHY RIDGE trademark and its goodwill for profit by selling the Complainant's goods or by receiving pass-through revenue by pretending that the goods are genuine TROPHY RIDGE goods; (b) the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii); (c) the Respondent has no trademark or other rights in TROPHY RIDGE; and (d) there is no other ground on which it could conceivably be shown that the Respondent has a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. 9. The Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. That is so because: (a) the disputed domain name and the offending website to which it resolves, replete as it is with content copied from the Complainant's genuine website and the provision of facilities for internet users to buy the Complainant's goods or goods purporting to be the Complainant's goods, show that the Respondent has impersonated the Complainant and registered and used the domain name in bad faith; (b) the Respondent has attempted to attract buyers by false pretences and for its own commercial gain; (c) the Respondent had constructive if not actual notice of the Complainant and its trademark when it registered the disputed domain name; and (d) all of the acts, facts, matters and circumstances to be revealed by the evidence will show that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a formal Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS 1. The Complainant is a United States company engaged in the provision of archery equipment and related goods and services. 2. The Complainant provides its goods and services under the trademark for TROPHY RIDGE. In particular, the evidence has established that the Complainant has acquired registered trademark rights in the TROPHY RIDGE trademark by virtue of its registration of that mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office, registration number number 3,282,746, registered on August 21, 2007 ("the TROPHY RIDGE trademark"). The Complainant has used that trademark since its registration to offer its goods and services. 3. The Respondent registered the <trophy-ridge.com> domain name on August 31, 2024 ("the disputed domain name"). 4. The disputed domain name embodies, without the consent of the Complainant, the TROPHY RIDGE trademark with the addition of the generic Top Level Domain ".com". 5. The Respondent has caused the domain name to resolve to the Respondent's website at www.trophy-ridge.com that impersonates the Complainant, purports to sell the Complainant's products, misleads internet users, infringes the Complainant's trademark rights, uses the Complainant's copyright material, trades on the goodwill of the Complainant, its trademark and products and generates confusion with the Complainant. 6. By reason of the matters aforesaid, and as established by the evidence, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the TROPHY RIDGE trademark, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and the disputed domain name has been registered and used in bad faith. 7. Accordingly, the disputed domain name should be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant. DISCUSSION Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and 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 a domain name should be cancelled or transferred: (1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and (2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (3) 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 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 The first question that arises is whether the Complainant has rights in a trademark or service mark on which it may rely. The evidence has shown that the Complainant provides its goods and services under the trademark for TROPHY RIDGE and that it has done so at least from the registration of the trademark in 2007. In particular, the evidence has established that the Complainant has acquired registered trademark rights in the TROPHY RIDGE trademark by virtue of its registration of that mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office, registration number number 3,282,746, registered on August 21, 2007 ( "the TROPHY RIDGE trademark"). The Complainant has used that trademark since its registration to offer its goods and services. The aforesaid facts have been established by documentary evidence that the Panel has examined and finds to be in order. The Complainant has thus established its trademark rights and hence its standing to bring this proceeding. The next question that arises is whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's TROPHY RIDGE trademark. The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the TROPHY RIDGE trademark for the following reasons. The disputed domain name embodies, without the consent of the Complainant, the TROPHY RIDGE trademark with the addition of a hyphen between the word "trophy" and the word "ridge" and the generic Top Level Domain ".com". The hyphen is such a minor addition that it cannot possibly change the meaning of the domain name. When a domain name includes a trademark, as in the present case, it is more likely than not that the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark. In the present case it is obviously so. Thus, internet users would read the domain name as invoking the trademark and as dealing with the Complainant's goods and services offered under the trademark and as being either a domain name of the Complainant itself or one that has been registered with its consent. The addition of the generic Top Level Domain ".com" is ignored in making the comparison, because all domain names must have such an extension. The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the TROPHY RIDGE trademark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). The Complainant has thus made out the first of the three elements that it must establish under the Policy. Rights or Legitimate Interests It is now well established that the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) and that, if the prima facie case is made out, the burden then shifts to the Respondent to show that it does have such rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)). The Panel finds on the evidence that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case that arises from the following considerations. The Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name on all of the grounds relied on by the Complainant: (a) the Respondent registered the disputed domain name on August 31, 2024 and is using it to divert internet users to a website that is very similar to the Complainant's website, indicating the Respondent's intention to trade wilfully on the TROPHY RIDGE trademark and its goodwill for profit by selling the Complainant's goods or by receiving pass-through revenue by pretending that the goods are genuine TROPHY RIDGE goods; registering the domain name many years after the Complainant acquired its trademark rights was a clear infringement of the trademark and to use the domain name to offer for sale, goods that were either the Complainant's own goods which the Respondent had no right to sell or goods offered for sale on which the Respondent would receive some form of commission or other payment; thus, the use of the domain name could not in any sense be a bona fide offering of goods or services within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii); (b) the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii); there is no evidence that the Respondent is so known and no evidence that it is known by any name other than its own; (c) the Respondent has no trademark or other rights in TROPHY RIDGE; this has already been established by the evidence and must negate any suggestion that the Respondent has any trademark or other right that entitles it to use the Complainant's trademark without permission. (d) In particular, the Complainant has usefully adduced evidence in Exhibit C which is a copy of the Complainant's official and genuine website at www.beararchery.com which is the website it uses to promote it TROPHY RIDGE trademarked products; it also adduces Exhibit D which is a copy of the Respondent's offending website at www.trophy-ridge.com, which has been annotated to show the many copyright breaches on the latter; it is immediately apparent that the Respondent's website is an attempt to copy the Complainant's own website; not the least transgression in this regard is that although the website is www.trophy-ridge.com, the body of the website itself uses the expression TROPHY RIDGE, without a hyphen, making it plain that the intention of the Respondent was to give the false impression that the website was an official and genuine site of the Complainant, which it is not; moreover, it seems to the Panel that every product on the Respondent's website is a product that is or purports to be a product of the Complainant; both websites also have the same look and feel and much the same content, clearly displaying the products of the Complainant, and the intention is clearly to suggest that it is offering the Complainant's goods, under its trademark but without permission; and (e) there is no other ground on which it could conceivably be shown that the Respondent has a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name; the facts as they are known could not bring the Respondent within any of the criteria in Policy ¶ 4(c) that would show a right or legitimate interest in the domain name. The Complainant has therefore made out a persuasive case for all of the grounds it relies on to show that the Respondent does not have a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. All of these matters make out the prima facie case against the Respondent. The Respondent has not filed a Response and is in default and has thus not rebutted the prima facie case against it. The Complainant has therefore made out the second of the three elements it must establish under the Policy. Registration and Use in Bad Faith It is clear that to establish bad faith for the purposes of the Policy, the Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith. It is also clear that the criteria set out in the Policy ¶ 4(b) are not exclusive but that domain name proceedings may also rely on conduct that is bad faith within the generally accepted meaning of that expression. The Complainant has submitted that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith on several grounds. In view of the evidence discussed above, which is equally applicable to bad faith as it is to rights and legitimate interests and which it is not necessary to repeat, it is clear that the Complainant has made out all of the grounds relied on. The Respondent has clearly been motivated by bad faith in the registration and use of the domain name and in particular in the deception of potential buyers and internet users in which the Respondent has engaged, amply demonstrated by Exhibits C and D, discussed above. In particular, it is clear from the evidence that, as the Complainant has submitted: (a) the disputed domain name and the offending website to which it resolves, replete as it is with content copied from the Complainant's genuine website and the provision of facilities for internet users to buy the Complainant's goods or goods purporting to be the Complainant's goods, show that the Respondent has impersonated the Complainant and registered and used the domain name in bad faith; (b) the evidence is that the Respondent has attempted to attract buyers by false pretences and for its own commercial gain; (c) the Complainant submits that the Respondent had constructive if not actual notice of the Complainant and its trademark when it registered the disputed domain name; the Panel's view is that the Respondent had actual knowledge of the Complainant and its trademark when it registered the disputed domain name; that is because the evidence is that the Complainant had acquired fame and goodwill though its name, trademark and products; the fact that the trademark had been registered and used for so long also makes it plain that the Respondent could not but have had actual knowledge of the trademark and its use when it registered the domain name and used it for the offending website; also, the wide range of products advertised on the website shows that the Respondent had an intimate knowledge of the trademark and the products offered under it; all of that contributes to the finding of actual notice; and (d) all of the acts, facts, matters and circumstances shown by the evidence have established that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. Finally, in addition to the specific provisions of the Policy and having regard to the totality of the evidence, the Panel finds that, in view of the Respondent's registration of the disputed domain name using the TROPHY RIDGE trademark and in view of the conduct of the Respondent, as shown by all of the available evidence, particularly Exhibits C and D, the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith within the generally accepted meaning of that expression. It is clear that, from the beginning, the Respondent set about targeting the Complainant and actively set about misleading potential buyers so as to make money. The Complainant has thus made out the third of the three elements that it must establish. The Complainant has also correctly cited numerous prior UDRP decisions that support all of its contentions. The Complainant has therefore established all of the elements that it must show under the Policy and it is entitled to the relief it seeks. DECISION Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <trophy-ridge.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. The Honorable Neil Anthony Brown KC Panelist Dated: February 5, 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.