Wolfdressshoes.com

The timeline behind wolfdressshoes.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 Wolf & Shepherd LLC v. hvpbx 4fnzsp Claim Number: FA2502002142746 PARTIES Complainant is Wolf & Shepherd LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Melanie K. Lane of Bekiares Eliezer LLP dba Founders Legal, Georgia, USA. Respondent is hvpbx 4fnzsp ("Respondent"), Oklahoma, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <wolfdressshoes.com>, 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. The Honorable Neil Anthony Brown KC as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 28, 2025; Forum received payment on February 28, 2025. On March 2, 2025, Gname.com Pte. Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <wolfdressshoes.com> domain name is registered with Gname.com Pte. Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. 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 March 3, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 24, 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@wolfdressshoes.com. Also on March 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 March 25, 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. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant made the following contentions. 1. The Complainant is a United States company engaged in the provision of footwear including dress shoes, clothing and accessories and related goods and services. 2. The Complainant provides its goods and services under the trademark for WOLF AND SHEPHERD. In particular, the evidence will establish that the Complainant has acquired registered trademark rights in the WOLF AND SHEPHERD trademark by virtue of its registration of that mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") registered Number 7590404, registered on December 3, 2024 and other trademarks for WOLF AND SHEPHERD (collectively "the WOLF AND SHEPHERD trademark"). The Complainant has used that trademark since its registration to offer its goods and services. 3. The WOLF AND SHEPHERD 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 <wolfandshepherd.com> that it uses in its business and in particular for its website at www.wolfandshepherd.com where it markets its products, including dress shoes, under the WOLF AND SHEPHERD trademark and brand. 5. The Respondent registered the <wolfdressshoes.com> domain name on December 13, 2024 ("the disputed domain name"), after the Complainant had established its aforesaid trademark rights. 6. The disputed domain name embodies, without the consent of the Complainant, the dominant and identifiable portion of the WOLF AND SHEPHERD trademark, namely "WOLF", followed by the addition of the term "dressshoes" and the generic Top Level Domain ".com". 7. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the WOLF AND SHEPHERD trademark. 8. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. That is so because: (a) the Respondent registered the domain name after the Complainant had acquired its aforesaid trademark rights; (b) the Complainant has never given any licence, permission or authority to the Respondent to use the WOLF AND SHEPHERD trademark or any similar mark and there has never been any affiliation or relationship between the Complainant and the Respondent; (c) the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii); (d) the Respondent has caused the disputed domain name to resolve to a website that prominently displays and infringes the WOLF AND SHEPHERD trademark, offers products bearing that trademark which are the same or similar to the products of the Complainant and which is intended to and has the effect of luring internet users to that site under the mistaken belief that the Respondent is the Complainant or authorized by it to engage in that conduct; (e) moreover, and in the alternative, the aforesaid website was intended to and has had the effect of redirecting the Complainant's potential customers and internet users in general to the site which would then serve as a placeholder and so as to extract financial and personal information from them; 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. 9. The Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. That is so because: (a) the Respondent had actual knowledge of the Complainant and its trademark at the time it, the Respondent, registered the disputed domain name; (b) the Respondent's foresaid conduct was calculated to target the Complainant and its trademark and to confuse internet users within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) so as to induce in them the mistaken belief that its website was an authentic site of the Complainant which it was not; (c) the Respondent registered and has used the disputed domain name, embodying as it does the dominant portion of the WOLF AND SHEPHERD trademark, to offer counterfeit or illegally obtained products under the pretence that they are genuine products of the Complainant which they are not; 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. The evidence will therefore establish that the Complainant has been able to make out all of the grounds it must establish and that it is entitled to the relief that it seeks. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS 1. The Complainant is a United States company engaged in the provision of footwear including dress shoes, clothing and accessories and related goods and services. 2. The Complainant provides its goods and services under the trademark for WOLF AND SHEPHERD. In particular, the evidence has established that the Complainant has acquired registered trademark rights in the WOLF AND SHEPHERD trademark by virtue of its registration of that mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") registered Number 7590404, registered on December 3, 2024 and other trademarks for WOLF AND SHEPHERD (collectively "the WOLF AND SHEPHERD trademark"). The Complainant has used that trademark since its registration to offer its goods and services. 3. The Respondent registered the <wolfdressshoes.com> domain name on December 13, 2024 ("the disputed domain name"), after the Complainant had established its aforesaid trademark rights. 4. The Respondent has caused the disputed domain name to resolve to a website that infringes the Complainant's trademark, passes itself off as the Complainant, uses the WOLF AND SHEPHERD trademark to offer products that are the same or similar to the Complainant's genuine products, all to lure internet users into mistakenly believing that it is the Complainant and is authorized by it to sell WOLF AND SHEPHERD products, which it is not. 5. By reason of the matters aforesaid, and as established by the evidence, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the WOLF AND SHEPHERD 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. The evidence is that the Complainant offers its goods and services under the WOLF AND SHEPHERD trademark. In particular, the evidence has established that the Complainant has acquired registered trademark rights in the WOLF AND SHEPHERD trademark by virtue of its registration of that mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") registered Number 7590404, registered on December 3, 2024 and other trademarks for WOLF AND SHEPHERD (collectively "the WOLF AND SHEPHERD trademark"). The trademark is registered with respect to "Footwear; Hats; Socks; Belts for clothing; Shoe inserts for primarily non-orthopedic purposes". The Complainant has used the 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 WOLF AND SHEPHERD trademark. The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the WOLF AND SHEPHERD trademark for the following reasons. The disputed domain name embodies, without the consent of the Complainant, the dominant portion of the WOLF AND SHEPHERD trademark, namely WOLF, followed by the addition of the term "dressshoes" and the generic Top Level Domain ".com". When a domain name includes a trademark or its dominant portion, as in the present case, it is more likely than not that the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark itself. In the present case it is clearly so. Thus, internet users would read the domain name as invoking the WOLF AND SHEPHERD trademark and goods and services offered under the trademark, making the domain name similar to the trademark and confusingly so. Moreover, internet users would take the domain name as being either a domain name of the Complainant itself or one that has been registered with its consent and as invoking dress shoes offered under the trademark. 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 WOLF AND SHEPHERD trademark 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. Several of these considerations overlap, but the substance of them in combination is as follows. 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 evidence shows that Respondent registered the domain name after the Complainant had acquired its aforesaid trademark rights; the inference therefore necessarily arises that the Respondent registered the domain name because the trademark, having been applied for on January 30, 2023, had so recently been registered; (b) the Complainant has never given any licence, permission or authority to the Respondent to use the WOLF AND SHEPHERD trademark or any similar mark and there has never been any affiliation or relationship between the Complainant and the Respondent; accordingly it could not be contended that the domain name had been registered with any sort of consent from the Complainant; (c) 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 known by the domain name and no evidence that it is known by any name other than its own; (d) the Respondent has caused the disputed domain name to resolve to a website that prominently displays and infringes the WOLF AND SHEPHERD trademark, offers products bearing that trademark which are the same or similar to the products of the Complainant and which is intended to and has the effect of luring internet users to that site under the mistaken belief that the Respondent is the Complainant or authorized by it to engage in that conduct; this has been established in particular by the Complainant's Annexes 2,3,4, and 5 which are screenshots taken from their respective websites; Annexes 2 and 4 show the Complainant's genuine products and Annexes 3 and 5 show the Respondent's alleged products; the Complainant's products specifically promote "stylish dress shoes" among other items; they also include the Closer, marked with the TM symbol and the Closer Collection of dress shoes; the Respondent's alleged offerings also include dress shoes and the openly stated heading "Wolf & Shepherd (and) Wolf Dress Shoes" and the "Closer TM" product; in any event the two websites are similar in presentation and ambiance and it is clear that the Respondent's site is a copy-cat of the Complainant's genuine site; this is very apparent from the helpful presentation in the Complaint of two columns comparing the Complainant's and the Respondent's sites, showing that the Respondent has copied the Complainant's site in many respects; the Respondent's purported offerings are also at unrealistically discounted prices, so that it does not require a vivid imagination to conclude that they are counterfeit or illegally obtained; accordingly, the Respondent's use of the domain name to pass itself off as the Complainant and to promote rival products could not conceivably give it a right or legitimate interest in the domain name used to perpetrate this subterfuge; (e) moreover, and in the alternative, the evidence shows that the aforesaid website was intended to and has had the effect of redirecting the Complainant's potential customers and internet users in general to the site which would then serve as a placeholder and so as to extract financial and personal information from them; as the Complainant rightly points out, it may be that there is nothing actually for sale on the Respondent's website, but even if this is so, it use is equally reprehensible as it must have been designed to conduct a scam to induce internet users to part with personal and financial information; in that regard, it invites users to subscribe to a newsletter and provide an email address and it purports to offer several credit card facilities; and (f) the evidence shows that 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 evidence is such that the Respondent could not sustain an argument that it has used the domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or service or any form of legitimate fair use. The Complainant has therefore made out a very persuasive and detailed 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 had actual knowledge of the Complainant and its trademark at the time it, the Respondent, registered the disputed domain name; indeed, the Respondent could not have contrived its subterfuge without such actual knowledge and all the evidence points in that direction; (b) the evidence shows that the Respondent's aforesaid conduct was calculated to target the Complainant and its trademark and to confuse internet users within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) so as to induce in them the mistaken belief that its website was an authentic site of the Complainant which it was not; (c) the evidence shows that the Respondent registered and has used the disputed domain name, embodying as it does the dominant portion of the WOLF AND SHEPHERD trademark, to offer counterfeit or illegally obtained products under the pretence that they are genuine products of the Complainant which they are not; and (d) the evidence shows that all of the acts, facts, matters and circumstances revealed by the evidence have demonstrated 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 WOLF AND SHEPHERD 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, its customers and internet users in general, passed itself of as the Complainant, tried to set up an allegedly rival source of 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 <wolfdressshoes.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. The Honorable Neil Anthony Brown KC, Panelist Dated: March 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.