Fashiongowholesale.com

The timeline behind fashiongowholesale.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 NHN Global, Inc. v. jack huang Claim Number: FA2503002145283 PARTIES Complainant is NHN Global, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Christine Chung of NHN Global, Inc., California, USA. Respondent is jack huang ("Respondent"), China. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <fashiongowholesale.com> ("disputed domain name"), registered with Dynadot Inc. PANEL The undersigned certifies that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Lynda M. Braun as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on March 14, 2025; Forum received payment on March 14, 2025. On March 18, 2025, Dynadot Inc confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <fashiongowholesale.com> disputed domain name is registered with Dynadot Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Dynadot Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Dynadot 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 March 18, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 7, 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@fashiongowholesale.com. Also on March 18, 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 April 8, 2025 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Lynda M. Braun 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 disputed domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant is an e-commerce platform development company that operates a one-stop online clothing, shoe, fashion accessory, and home decor wholesale marketplace under the trademark FASHIONGO. Complainant uses its mark in connection with its business platform to assist vendors with shopping smarter, selling more inventory, and growing their brand faster. Complainant owns the domain names <fashiongo.com> and <fashiongo.net>, which resolve to its popular websites at "www.fashiongo.com" and "www.fashiongo.net", respectively, and which cater to over 2,200 wholesalers and more than 828,000 registered buyers. Complainant owns the following registered trademarks through the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO"): FASHIONGO, United States Registration No. 4,288,702; registered on February 12, 2013, with a first use in commerce date of February 7, 2002, in International Class 35; and FASHIONGO.NET, United States Registration No. 4,288,700, registered on February 12, 2013, with a first use in commerce date of February 7, 2002, in International Class 35 (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "FASHIONGO Mark"). Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's FASHIONGO Mark. Complainant also contends that Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, but instead, is seeking to misleadingly divert consumers to its website for commercial gain, and thus Respondent has no legitimate business purpose for which it can use the disputed domain name and is not using the disputed domain name for a legitimate business purpose or fair use under UDRP Policy paragraphs 4(c)(i) and 4(c)(iii). Finally, Complainant claims that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith since Respondent registered the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting Complainant's business and for attracting, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's trademarks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, and endorsement of Respondent's website and its goods and services. The disputed domain name was registered on May 18, 2023 and resolves to a website at "www.fashiongowholesale.com". Respondent not only makes unauthorized use of the FASHIONGO Mark, but copies Complainant's business model in connecting wholesale vendors and buyers via its online platform, catering primarily to the Los Angeles, United States area, where Complainant is located. On January 27, 2025, Complainant sent Respondent a cease-and-desist letter at "fashiongowholesale@gmail.com", the email address listed on Respondent's website, but the email bounced, stating that the email could not be delivered because the email address was inactive. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS The Panel finds that Complainant has registered trademark rights in the FASHIONGO Mark as described above. The Panel also finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's FASHIONGO Mark, that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and that the disputed domain name was registered and is 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 disputed domain name should be cancelled or transferred: (1) the disputed 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 Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the FASHIONGO Mark. The Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the FASHIONGO Mark based on its registration of the mark with the USPTO (e.g., FASHIONGO, United States Trademark Registration No. 4,288,702; registered on February 12, 2013, with a first use in commerce date of February 7, 2002, in International Class 35). Registration of a mark with the USPTO confers upon a complainant trademark rights for purposes of the Policy paragraph 4(a)(i). See Liberty Global Logistics, LLC v. damilola emmanuel / tovary services limited, FA 1738536 (Forum Aug. 4, 2017) ("Registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently establishes the required rights in the mark for purposes of the Policy."). The Panel additionally finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the FASHIONGO Mark under Policy paragraph 4(a)(i). The disputed domain name incorporates the FASHIONGO Mark, followed by the term "wholesale", and then followed by the generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD"). Adding a term to a disputed domain name does not distinguish a disputed domain name from a trademark under Policy paragraph 4(a)(i) because where a trademark is recognizable in a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognisable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element."). Moreover, the addition of a gTLD to an otherwise recognizable mark, as here, does not distinguish a disputed domain name from the trademark under Policy paragraph 4(a)(i). The addition of a gTLD to a complainant's mark is irrelevant in determining whether the disputed domain name is confusingly similar. See Tupelo Honey Hospitality Corp. v. King, Reggie, FA 1732247 (Forum July 19, 2017) (the addition of a gTLD is irrelevant where a mark has been fully incorporated into a domain name). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Policy paragraph 4(a)(i) has been established by Complainant. Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant alleges that Respondent holds no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving that a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult task of "proving a negative", requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. In order for Complainant to succeed under this element, it must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy paragraph 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006) and AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Forum Sept. 25, 2006) ("Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names."). Here, the Panel holds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case. The Panel concurs with Complainant that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as Respondent has not proven that it is commonly known by the disputed domain name or Complainant's trademark, nor has Complainant authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted Respondent to use the FASHIONGO Mark. The Panel further concludes that Respondent has no relationship, affiliation, connection, endorsement or association with Complainant. The Panel also finds that Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, but instead, is seeking to misleadingly divert consumers to its website for commercial gain, and thus Respondent has no legitimate business purpose for which it can use the disputed domain name and is not using the disputed domain name for a legitimate business purpose or fair use under UDRP Policy paragraphs 4(c)(i) and 4(c)(iii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith This Panel finds that, based on the record, the Complainant has demonstrated the existence of Respondent's bad faith registration and use pursuant to paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy as described below. First, the use of a disputed domain name to intentionally attempt to attract Internet users to a respondent's website or online location by creating a likelihood of confusion or a false association with a complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the registrant's website or online location demonstrates registration and use in bad faith. See AOL LLC v. iTech Ent, LLC, FA 726227 (Forum July 21, 2006). Second, where a disputed domain name is so obviously connected with a well-known name, product or service, their use by someone with no connection to the name, product or service indicates opportunistic bad faith. Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent's registration and use constitutes bad faith under Policy paragraph 4(a)(iii). Third, Respondent disrupts Complainant's business by diverting consumers to Respondent's website and by passing off the website as Complainant's own website for commercial gain. Use of a disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to a respondent's website, which mimics Complainant's site in terms of soliciting wholesale business, constitutes bad faith disruption of a complainant's business under Policy paragraph 4(b)(iii) and an attempt to attract users for commercial gain under Policy paragraph 4(b)(iv). Finally, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith because Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the FASHIONGO Mark. In this case, it strains credulity to think that Respondent did not have actual knowledge of Complainant's FASHIONGO Mark as the disputed domain name chosen by Respondent incorporates the FASHIONGO Mark and resolves to a website operated by Respondent. See Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014) (finding actual knowledge due to the domain name chosen and the use made of it); Yahoo! Inc. v. Butler, FA 744444 (Forum Aug. 17, 2006) (finding bad faith where the respondent was "well-aware" of the complainant's mark at the time of registration). The use of Complainant's FASHIONGO Mark combined with the use of the disputed domain name to resolve to a website that mimics Complainant's business model, demonstrates that Respondent intentionally registered and is using the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the FASHIONGO Mark and in bad faith. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Policy paragraph 4(a)(iii) has been established by Complainant. 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 <fashiongowholesale.com> disputed domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Lynda M. Braun, Panelist Dated: April 11, 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.