Westmore · UDRP DecisionReebbokdiscount-us.com + 3 more domains
The Panel ordered transfer of all four disputed domain names. It found the domains confusingly similar to Complainant's REEBOK mark, found no rights or legitimate interests because the domains were used to pass off as Complainant and offer competing unauthorized goods, and found bad-faith registration and use based on typosquatting, likely fictitious registration information, and commercially misleading websites.
The timeline behind reebbokdiscount-us.com
Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.
Westmore reconstructs the full history behind reebbokdiscount-us.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
How each disputed name was decided in this proceeding.
The Panel found bad-faith registration and use because Respondent registered four obvious typosquatting domains targeting Complainant's well-known mark, used at least partially invalid and likely fictitious registration information, and used the domains to pass off as Complainant while offering competing unauthorized and likely counterfeit or nonexistent products.
Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.
NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION Reebok International Limited v. Jacqueline K Sloan Sloan / Jacqueline K Sloan Claim Number: FA2502002138335 PARTIES Complainant is Reebok International Limited ("Complainant"), United States, represented by Bridgette Fitzpatrick of Authentic Brands Group LLC, United States. Respondent is Jacqueline K Sloan Sloan / Jacqueline K Sloan ("Respondent"), United States. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES The domain names at issue are <reebbokdiscount-us.com>, <reebbokinexpensive-us.com>, <reebbokinexpensive.com> and <reebookdiscount.com>, registered with Dominet (HK) Limited. 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. David E. Sorkin as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 3, 2025; Forum received payment on February 3, 2025. On February 4, 2025, Dominet (HK) Limited confirmed by email to Forum that the <reebbokdiscount-us.com>, <reebbokinexpensive-us.com>, <reebbokinexpensive.com> and <reebookdiscount.com> domain names are registered with Dominet (HK) Limited and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Dominet (HK) Limited has verified that Respondent is bound by the Dominet (HK) Limited 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 February 5, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 25, 2025 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registrations as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@reebbokdiscount-us.com, postmaster@reebbokinexpensive-us.com, postmaster@reebbokinexpensive.com and postmaster@reebookdiscount.com. Also on February 5, 2025, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email 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 registrations as technical, administrative, and billing contacts. Having received no response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On February 26, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed David E. Sorkin 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. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant is a leading manufacturer of athletic footwear, apparel, and other products that are marketed and distributed worldwide. Complainant has used the REEBOK mark in connection with footwear since at least as early as 1965. Complainant asserts that the REEBOK mark has become famous as a result of extensive use and promotion. Complainant owns longstanding United States trademark registrations for REEBOK in standard character and stylized form and for an associated logo. The disputed domain names <reebbokdiscount-us.com>, <reebbokinexpensive-us.com>, <reebbokinexpensive.com> and <reebookdiscount.com> were registered in January 2025. The names are registered to Respondent, although Respondent's identity is redacted from the public domain name registration records. The domain names are being used for websites that prominently display Complainant's REEBOK stylized mark or logo, along with images of products bearing Complainant's marks. Complainant alleges that Respondent is using the websites to sell competing and unauthorized goods. Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain names and is not authorized to use Complainant's marks. Complainant contends on the above grounds that each of the disputed domain names <reebbokdiscount-us.com>, <reebbokinexpensive-us.com>, <reebbokinexpensive.com> and <reebookdiscount.com> is confusingly similar to its REEBOK mark; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names; and that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS The Panel finds that each of the disputed domain names is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; and that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. 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 Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, § 4.3 (3d ed. 2017), available at http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/; UDRP Perspectives on Recent Jurisprudence, §§ 0.2, 0.8 (updated Jan. 15, 2025), available at https://udrpperspectives.org/; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (dismissing complaint where complainant failed to "produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations"). Identical and/or Confusingly Similar The disputed domain names <reebbokdiscount-us.com>, <reebbokinexpensive-us.com>, <reebbokinexpensive.com> and <reebookdiscount.com> all incorporate various misspellings of Complainant's registered REEBOK trademark, adding the generic term "discount" or "inexpensive" and, in two instances, a hyphen and the geographic term "US"; and appending the ".com" top-level domain. These alterations do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., Reebok International Ltd. v. Client Care / Web Commerce Communications Ltd., FA 2080459 (Forum Feb. 28, 2024) (finding <reebok-us.com> confusingly similar to REEBOK); Reebok International Ltd. v. Client Care, Web Commerce Communications Ltd., D2022-2523 (WIPO Oct. 3, 2022) (finding <rebokbelgium.com> confusingly similar to REEBOK); Eli Lilly & Co. v. Grace Beaumont et. al, FA 1615093 (Forum June 5, 2015) (finding <buy-cialis-discount.com> and <cialis-20mg-us.com> confusingly similar to CIALIS); Seiko Holdings Kabushiki Kaisha (trading as Seiko Holdings Corp.) v. Jonathan G. Till, Warner Brothers Studio Store, D2013-1431 (WIPO Oct. 14, 2013) (finding <seikojpdoninexpensive.org> confusingly similar to SEIKO). The Panel considers the disputed domain names to be confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights. Rights or Legitimate Interests Under the Policy, the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, and then the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc. v. Entertainment Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). The disputed domain names incorporate misspellings of Complainant's registered mark without authorization. Their sole apparent use has been for websites that attempt to pass off as Complainant to offer competing, unauthorized, and likely counterfeit or nonexistent products. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., Boardriders IP Holdings LLC v. Zheng Zhou, FA 2134159 (Forum Jan. 31, 2025) (finding lack of rights or interests in similar circumstances); Reebok International Ltd. v. Client Care / Web Commerce Communications Ltd., FA 2080459, supra (same); Reebok International Ltd. v. Client Care, Web Commerce Communications Ltd., D2022-2523, supra (same); Seiko Holdings Kabushiki Kaisha (trading as Seiko Holdings Corp.) v. Jonathan G. Till, Warner Brothers Studio Store, supra (same). Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of such rights or interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered a domain name "primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor." Under paragraph 4(b)(iv), bad faith may be shown by evidence that "by using the domain name, [Respondent] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent's] web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [Respondent's] web site or location or of a product or service on [Respondent's] web site or location." Respondent used what the Panel infers to be at least partially invalid and likely fictitious registration information to register four domain names incorporating misspellings of Complainant's well-known registered mark, in what the Panel considers to be obvious instances of typosquatting. Respondent is using the domain names to pass off as Complainant to offer competing, unauthorized, and likely counterfeit or nonexistent products. Such circumstances are indicative of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See, e.g., Boardriders IP Holdings LLC v. Zheng Zhou, supra (finding bad faith registration and use in similar circumstances); Reebok International Ltd. v. Client Care / Web Commerce Communications Ltd., FA 2080459, supra (same); Reebok International Ltd. v. Client Care, Web Commerce Communications Ltd., D2022-2523, supra (same); Seiko Holdings Kabushiki Kaisha (trading as Seiko Holdings Corp.) v. Jonathan G. Till, Warner Brothers Studio Store, supra (same). The Panel so finds. DECISION Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <reebbokdiscount-us.com>, <reebbokinexpensive-us.com>, <reebbokinexpensive.com> and <reebookdiscount.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. David E. Sorkin, Panelist Dated: February 26, 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.
What Westmore sees around reebbokdiscount-us.com
The decision is only the record. Westmore connects it to the cases, authorities, panelists, parties and domain evidence surrounding it.
A short, grounded explanation drawn only from this decision's record — not legal advice or a prediction.
Grounded in the Westmore record for this decision. Research/informational only — not legal advice or a prediction of any outcome.
The decision is only the beginning.
You've seen what happened. Now discover the deeper intelligence behind the case, the panelist, the parties and the authorities that matter.
Go beyond the public record: see how this case has been cited, find comparable decisions, analyze the panelist and apply the relevant authorities to your Matter.
Westmore Professional · $395/month
Research with UDRP IntelligenceWestmore AI drafts an attorney-review-ready UDRP response from your facts, grounded in the exact panel and closest precedent.
$895 one-time per matter · no subscription required. Self-help drafting aid — not legal advice.
Build your responseWestmore UDRP records draw on FORUM-indexed decisions and are provided for research and informational purposes only. Not legal advice, a clearance opinion, or a prediction of any outcome.