Kotex-km.com

The timeline behind kotex-km.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 Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc, Kimberly-Clark Corporation, and Kimberly-Clark (China) Co., Ltd v. lan deng nong Claim Number: FA2503002145343 PARTIES Complainant is Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc, Kimberly-Clark Corporation, and Kimberly-Clark (China) Co., Ltd ("Complainant"), represented by Renee Reuter, Missouri, USA. Respondent is lan deng nong ("Respondent"), China. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <kotex-km.com>, (the "Domain Name") registered with Alibaba Cloud Computing (Beijing) Co., Ltd. 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. Dawn Osborne as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on March 17, 2025; Forum received payment on March 17, 2025. On March 17, 2025, Alibaba Cloud Computing (Beijing) Co., Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <kotex-km.com> Domain Name is registered with Alibaba Cloud Computing (Beijing) Co., Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Alibaba Cloud Computing (Beijing) Co., Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Alibaba Cloud Computing (Beijing) Co., 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 25, 2025, Forum served the Chinese and English Complaint and all Annexes, including a Chinese and English Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 14, 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@kotex-km.com. Also on March 25, 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 April 15, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Dawn Osborne 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 THE PROCEEDING Pursuant to Rule 11(a), the Panel determines that the language requirement has been satisfied through the Chinese language Complaint and Commencement Notification, and, absent a Response, determines that the remainder of the proceedings may be conducted in English. PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE COMPLAINANTS Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc. ("K-C Worldwide"), Kimberly-Clark Corporation ("K-C Corp") and Kimberly-Clark (China) Co., Ltd ("K-C China") are affiliated/related companies. The parent organization, K-C Corp owns the organization's domain names, including <kotex.com> and <kotex.com.cn>, which are the main brand web sites in the United States and China, respectively. K-C Worldwide is the owner of all the US trademark registrations for the Kotex brand globally, and K-C China is the owner of the website directed to consumers in China, namely, <kotex.com.cn>. There is a sufficient nexus or link between the Complainants who all have rights in the KOTEX mark and the Panel agrees to treat them jointly (the "Complainant") in this proceeding. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant The Complainant is the owner of the mark KOTEX registered, inter alia, in the USA for sanitary products since 1920. The Domain Name was previously registered by a company associated with the Complainant with the consent of the Complainant for use on the Complainant's packaging. The Domain Name was not renewed. The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade mark adding only the letters KM, a hyphen and the gTLD .com which do not prevent such confusing similarity. The Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, is not commonly known by it and is not authorised by the Complainant. The Domain Name registered by the Respondent in 2024 has been used for links to adult content including gambling which is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate non commercial or fair use. It is registration and use in opportunistic bad faith diverting Internet users for commercial gain and disrupting the Complainant's business. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS The Complainant is the owner of the mark KOTEX registered, inter alia, in the USA for sanitary products since 1920. The Domain Name was previously registered by a company associated with the Complainant with the consent of the Complainant for use on the Complainant's packaging. The Domain Name was not renewed. The Domain Name registered by the Respondent in 2024 has been used for links to adult content including gambling. 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 Domain Name consists of the Complainant's KOTEX mark (registered, inter alia, in the USA, since at least 1920 for sanitary products), the letters 'km', a hyphen and the gTLD.com. Adding letters to a trade mark in a domain name does not distinguish that domain name from a complainant's mark. See Bittrex, Inc. v. Sergey Valerievich Kireev / Kireev, FA 1784651 (Forum June 5, 2018) (holding that the domain name consists of the BITTREX mark and adds "the letters 'btc' and the gTLD .com which do not distinguish the Domain Name from Complainant's mark."). The panel agreed that the addition of the letters 'km' to the Complainant's mark does not prevent confusing similarity between it and the Domain Name. Adding a hyphen does not distinguish a domain name from the Complainant's mark. See Health Devices Corp. v Aspen STC, FA 158254 (Forum July 1, 2003) (The addition of punctuation marks such as hyphens is irrelevant in the determination of confusing similarity pursuant to Policy 4(a)(i). ) The gTLD .com does not serve to distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant's mark, which is the distinctive component of the Domain Name. See Red Hat Inc v Haecke FA 726010 (Forum July 24, 2006) (concluding that the redhat.org domain name is identical to the complainant's red hat mark because the mere addition of the gTLD was insufficient to differentiate the disputed domain name from the mark). Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar for the purposes of the Policy with a mark in which the Complainant has rights. As such the Panel holds that Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant has not authorised the Respondent to use its mark. There is no evidence or reason to suggest the Respondent is, in fact, commonly known by the Domain Name. See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA1408001574905 (Forum September 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark).The use of the Domain Name was commercial and not legitimate non commercial fair use. The Domain Name was used for advertisements and links to commercial sites offering gambling services which is not a bona fide offering of goods and services or a legitimate non commercial or fair use. See Summit Group, LLC v. LSO, Ltd., FA 758981 (Forum Sept. 14, 2006) (finding that the respondent's use of the complainant's LIFESTYLE LOUNGE mark to redirect Internet users to respondent's own website for commercial gain does not constitute either a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)); see also Spike's Holding, LLC v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1736008 (Forum July 21, 2017) ("Using a confusingly similar domain to display unrelated content can evince a lack of a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use… The Panel therefore finds that Respondent's unrelated use of the <finishnline.com> domain name evinces a lack of rights and legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) & (iii)."). The Domain Name has been used for commercial advertising links which does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate non commercial or fair use. See Insomniac Holdings, LLC v. Mark Daniels, FA 1735969 (Forum July 15, 2017) ("Respondent's use of .. domain name resolves to a site containing pay-per-click hyperlinks and advertisements… Since these kinds of advertisements generate revenue for the holder of a domain name, they cannot be noncommercial; further, they do not qualify as a bona fide offering."). The Respondent has not answered this Complaint or rebutted the prima facie case evidenced by the Complainant as set out herein. As such the Panelist finds that the Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy. Registration and Use in Bad Faith The use made of the Domain Name in relation to commercial gambling sites is confusing and disruptive. Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Respondent intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to his website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trade mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the web site or services offered on it likely to disrupt the business of the Complainant. See MySpace, Inc. v. Myspace Bot, FA 672161 (Forum May 19, 2006) (holding that the respondent registered and used the <myspacebot.com> domain name in bad faith by diverting Internet users seeking the complainant's website to its own website for commercial gain because the respondent likely profited from this diversion scheme) See ask Health Republic Insurance Company v Above.comLegal, FA 1506001622088, (Forum July 10, 2015) re diversion to pay per click links. As such, the Panelist believes that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith and has satisfied the third limb of the Policy. 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 <kotex-km.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Dawn Osborne, Panelist Dated: April 15, 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.