Shoppulseboutique.com

The timeline behind shoppulseboutique.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 The Pulse Boutique, LLC v. Shi Kai Zhang Claim Number: FA2502002141465 PARTIES Complainant is The Pulse Boutique, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Derrick M. Davis of LegalForce RAPC Worldwide, P.C., Arizona, USA. Respondent is Shi Kai Zhang ("Respondent"), China. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <shoppulseboutique.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC. 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 February 21, 2025; Forum received payment on February 21, 2025. On February 21, 2025, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <shoppulseboutique.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, LLC 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 27, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 19, 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@shoppulseboutique.com. Also on February 27, 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 formal response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On March 20, 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 formal response from Respondent. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant made the following contentions. 1. The Complainant is a United States company engaged in the provision of women's clothing and accessories and related goods and services and it has been so engaged since at least 2014. 2. The Complainant provides its goods and services under the trademark for THE PULSE BOUTIQUE. In particular, the evidence will establish that the Complainant has acquired registered trademark rights in the THE PULSE BOUTIQUE service mark by virtue of its registration of that mark with the United States and Patent and Trademark Office ("the USPTO"), registered number 5965604, registered on January 21, 2020 and other trademarks for PULSE and THE PULSE BOUTIQUE (collectively "the THE PULSE BOUTIQUE trademark" or "the PULSE BOUTIQUE"). The Complainant has used that trademark since its registration to offer its goods and services. 3. The THE PULSE BOUTIQUE trademark has attracted substantial goodwill and is uniquely associated with the Complainant's goods and services. 4. As well as its trademark, the Complainant has registered the domain name <thepulseboutique.com> that it uses in its business and in particular for its website at www.thepulseboutique.com where it markets its products under the THE PULSE BOUTIQUE trademark and brand. 5. The Respondent registered the <shoppulseboutique.com> domain name ("the disputed domain name") on July 27, 2024 well after the Complainant had established its aforesaid trademark rights and after the trademark had become very well known. 6. The disputed domain name embodies, without the consent of the Complainant, the THE PULSE BOUTIQUE trademark, omitting the word "THE" and adding the word "shop" and the generic Top Level Domain ".com.". 7. The disputed domain name is confusing similar to the THE PULSE BOUTIQUE trademark. 8. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. That is so because: (a) the THE PULSE BOUTIQUE trademark is arbitrary and can mean only that it identifies the Complainant, its name and trademark, as a result of which it must be concluded that the Respondent chose it deliberately to include in its domain name and invoke the trademark; (b) the Complainant has never given any licence, permission or authority to the Respondent to use the Complainant's trademark or any similar mark and there has never been any affiliation or relationship between the Complainant and the Respondent; (c) the Respondent has not used the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) but rather it has caused the domain name to resolve to a website that holds itself out that it is the website of the Complainant that is offering the Complainant's products or products that are very similar to them and with the consent of the Complainant as trademark owner; (d) the Respondent has not used the domain name for a legitimate non-commercial or fair use within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) but rather has used the domain name for improper commercial gain; (e) the Respondent's conduct evinces an intention to trade off the goodwill of the Complainant and its trademark; and (f) 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 under the UDRP Policy or otherwise. 9. The Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. That is so because: (a) the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with the intention of disrupting the Complainant's business within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii); (b) the Respondent has used the domain name to generate confusion within the meaning of Policy 4(b)(iv); (c) the Respondent has caused the domain name to resolve to a website that illegitimately offers competitive goods and services which are the same as or very similar to those of the Complainant under the false imprimatur of the Complainant's trademark and it has sought to copy the Complainant's name and its arbitrary trademark and the goods and services that it offers under the trademark; (d) the Complainant and its trademark are so widely known and distinctive that it is inconceivable that the Respondent could not have known of the Complainant's prior rights in THE PULSE BOUTIQUE trademark and in any event the Respondent had actual notice of the Complainant and its trademark by the date when it registered the domain name; (e) the intention of the Respondent and the effect of its conduct evinces the intention that it set about giving the false impression that it was the Complainant or authorized by it and/or that it was affiliated with the Complainant; and (f) 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. The evidence will therefore establish that the Complainant has made out all of the grounds it must establish and that it is entitled to the relief that it seeks. FINDINGS 1. The Complainant is a United States company engaged in the provision of women's clothing and accessories and related goods and services and it has been so engaged since at least 2014. 2. The Complainant provides its goods and services under the trademark for THE PULSE BOUTIQUE. In particular, the evidence has established that the Complainant has acquired registered trademark rights in the THE PULSE BOUTIQUE service mark by virtue of its registration of that mark with the United States and Patent and Trademark Office ("the USPTO"), registered number 5965604, registered on January 21, 2020 and other trademarks for PULSE and THE PULSE BOUTIQUE (collectively "the THE PULSE BOUTIQUE trademark" or "the PULSE BOUTIQUE"). The Complainant has used that trademark since its registration to offer its goods and services. 3. The Respondent registered the <shoppulseboutique.com> domain name on July 27, 2024 ("the disputed domain name"). 4. The Respondent has caused the disputed domain name to resolve to a website that displays and infringes the Complainant's trademark, passes itself off as the Complainant, uses the THE PULSE BOUTIQUE trademark and offers products purporting to be genuine PULSE BOUTIQUE products, all to lure internet users into mistakenly believing that it is the Complainant or is authorized by it to sell PULSE BOUTIQUE products. 5. By reason of the matters aforesaid, and as established by the evidence, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the THE PULSE BOUTIQUE 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. 6. 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 in this proceeding. The evidence has established that the Complainant provides its goods and services under the trademark for THE PULSE BOUTIQUE. In particular, the evidence has established that the Complainant has acquired registered trademark rights in the THE PULSE BOUTIQUE service mark by virtue of its registration of that mark with the United States and Patent and Trademark Office ("the USPTO"), registered number 5965604, registered on January 21, 2020 and other trademarks for PULSE and THE PULSE BOUTIQUE (collectively "the THE PULSE BOUTIQUE trademark" or "the PULSE BOUTIQUE trademark). The evidence also shows that the Complainant has common law trademark rights in the THE PULSE BOUTIQUE trademark and that it had those rights at all material times. The Complainant has used that trademark since its registration to offer its goods and services. The trademark is registered with respect to "Online retail store services featuring clothing; Online retail store services featuring subscription boxes containing clothing." 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 THE PULSE BOUTIQUE trademark. The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the THE PULSE BOUTIQUE trademark for the following reasons. The Respondent registered the <shoppulseboutique.com> domain name ("the disputed domain name") on July 27, 2024 well after the Complainant had established its aforesaid trademark rights and after the trademark had become very well known. The disputed domain name embodies, without the consent of the Complainant, the THE PULSE BOUTIQUE trademark, omitting the word "THE" from the trademark and adding the word "shop" and the generic Top Level Domain ".com". 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 THE PULSE BOUTIQUE 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 deletion of the word "THE" from the trademark is so inconsequential as not to change the impression given by the domain name, as the dominant portion of the domain name, "pulseboutique" which is Complainant's own name and the substance of its trademark, remains. Moreover, the addition of the word "shop" has the result that the domain name would be interpreted by internet users as signifying the goods and services of the Complainant offered though a shop. That is because the addition of a generic expression such as "shop" will not negate a finding of confusing similarity that is otherwise present on the evidence, which in the present case it is. Thus, internet users would read the domain name as invoking the Complainant's trademark, as dealing with the Complainant's well-known goods and services offered via a shop and as being a domain name of the Complainant itself or a domain name 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 Complainant's THE PULSE BOUTIQUE 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. Some of these considerations overlap, but their combined force is effective, due to the detailed and persuasive case presented on behalf of the Complainant. 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, namely: (a) the THE PULSE BOUTIQUE trademark is arbitrary and can mean only that it identifies the Complainant's name and trademark, as a result of which it must be concluded that the Respondent chose it deliberately to invoke the trademark; in other words, the Respondent could scarcely have constructed the domain name by accident or for any reason other than that it intended to draw attention to the trademark as part of its subterfuge; to use another party's trademark without permission in a domain name cannot confer on the Respondent any right or legitimate interest in the domain name so constructed; indeed, the Panel's view is that the Respondent probably examined the registration of the Complainant's trademark with the USPTO before registering the domain name; that is because the USPTO registration prints the entire trademark in the color pink, the same color that the Complainant uses in its promotions and the same color that the Respondent then used in its offending website and specifically when reproducing the trademark itself; (b) the Complainant has never given any licence, permission or authority to the Respondent to use the Complainant's trademark or any similar mark and there has never been any affiliation or relationship between the Complainant and the Respondent; thus, it cannot be said that the domain name was registered and used with any sort of consent from the Complainant; (c) the Respondent has not used the domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), but rather it has caused the disputed domain name to resolve to a website that is used to offer goods and services which are the same or very similar to those of the Complainant offered under its trademark; the evidence is unequivocally that the Respondent's website is intended to be a copy-cat of the Complainant's website; it prominently uses the Complainant's trademark THE PULSE BOUTIQUE, offers women's clothing and accessories of the same genre as those of the Complainant, presents them in the same ambiance as the Complainant, adopts the Complainant's pink theme, offers discount prices (often a feature of deceptive websites), displays recommended credit cards and invites users to sign up to a newsletter which has the scope for obtaining financial and personal information from customers; a comparison with the Complainant's website and its social media accounts shows that the Respondent has adopted the same products and styling as the Complainant and has clearly aimed at the same market; the evidence also shows that the Respondent's social media platforms have mimicked those of the Complainant; moreover, although the Respondent asserts that it is a "locally-owned and operated women's clothing store based in the heart of the USA", there is no evidence that this is the case and the Panel finds that it is doubtful; taken as a whole, the Panel finds that this conduct is not a bona fide offering of goods and services and hence that it cannot give rise to a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name; (d) the Respondent has not used the domain name for a legitimate non-commercial or fair use within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) but rather has used the domain name for improper commercial gain; there is nothing legitimate in the use the Respondent has made of the domain name, it is clearly commercial and it is not fair, either to the Complainant, its established customers or internet users in general, as it is an attempt to mislead them under cover of using the Complainant's trademark without permission; (e) the Respondent's conduct evinces an intention to trade off the goodwill of the Complainant and its trademark; this has clearly been established by the foregoing evidence; and (f) 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 under the UDRP Policy or otherwise. The Complainant has therefore made out a very persuasive evidentiary 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 the evidence referred to above. In particular, it is clear from the evidence that, as the Complainant has submitted: (a) the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with the intention of disrupting the Complainant's business within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii); clearly, the effect of the Respondent's scheme and its intention must have been to reduce the Complainant's business and divert as much of it as possible to the Respondent via its deceptive website; that is clearly disruption; (b) the Respondent has used the domain name to generate confusion within the meaning of Policy 4(b)(iv); it was in the interests of the Respondent and no doubt its intention to cause as much confusion as possible so that the Complainant's customers and potential customers would think that the Respondent's website was an official PULSE BOUTIQUE website and that the products on sale were genuine PULSE BOUTIQUE products; (c) the Respondent has caused the domain name to resolve to a website that illegitimately offers competitive goods and services which are the same as or very similar to those of the Complainant under the false imprimatur of the Complainant's trademark and it has sought to copy the Complainant's name and its arbitrary trademark and the goods and services that it offers under the trademark; that has clearly been established by the evidence already referred to in paragraph (c) of the Rights and Legitimate Interests section of this decision above; (d) the evidence is that the Complainant and its trademark are so widely well-known and distinctive that it is inconceivable that the Respondent could have not known of the Complainant's prior rights in the THE PULSE BOUTIQUE trademark and in any event the Respondent had actual notice of the Complainant and its trademark by the date when it registered the domain name; the only inference that can be drawn from the evidence is that the Respondent had actual knowledge of the Complainant and its trademark when it, the Respondent, registered the domain name; in any event, the Respondent could not have set up its system of deception unless it had intimate and actual knowledge of the Complainant and its trademark which it used to set about manipulating the trademark; as already noted, the Respondent probably looked up the registration of the trademark at the USPTO and noticed the use of the color pink in the trademark and then adopted the same color when it came to copying the trademark; (e) the intention of the Respondent and the effect of its conduct evinces the intention that it set about giving the false impression that it was the Complainant or authorized by it and/or that it was affiliated with the Complainant; this has already been shown by the evidence; and (f) all of the acts, facts, matters and circumstances revealed by the evidence have shown that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith; the totality of the evidence shows that the Respondent was motivated by the intention to mislead internet users, trade off the Complainant's trademark and its goodwill and that it used the trademark illegally to get to that point. Finally, in addition to the specific provisions of the Policy which show registration and use in bad faith 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 THE PULSE BOUTIQUE trademark and in view of the conduct of the Respondent, as shown by all of the available evidence, 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, tried to set up an allegedly rival source of competing products in the same field as the Complainant and sought to mislead internet users to believe that the products offered on its website were genuine and authorized products of the Complainant, which they were not. The Complainant has thus made out the third of the three elements that it must establish. The Complainant has also cited several 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, namely transfer of the disputed domain name. 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 <shoppulseboutique.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. The Honorable Neil Anthony Brown KC, Panelist Dated: March 23, 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.