Spydercoknive.com

The timeline behind spydercoknive.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.

DECISION Spyderco, Inc. v. micheal cowell Claim Number: FA2505002155288 PARTIES Complainant is Spyderco, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Robert R. Brunelli of Sheridan Ross P.C., Colorado, USA. Respondent is micheal cowell ("Respondent"), Delaware, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <spydercoknive.com>, registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com. PANEL The undersigned certifies that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. James Bridgeman SC as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on May 13, 2025; Forum received payment on May 13, 2025. On May 14, 2025, PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <spydercoknive.com> domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com 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 May 14, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 3, 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@spydercoknive.com. Also on May 14, 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 June 4, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed James Bridgeman SC 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 claims rights in the SPYDERCO mark and the Spider Logo Mark established by its ownership of the portfolio of registrations described below and extensive use of the marks across the world, including in Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, the European Union, Hong Kong, India, Israel, Japan, Macao, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Russia, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea, Switzerland, Taiwan, Turkey and the United Kingdom in its business selling knives and related products and services. Complainant firstly alleges that the disputed domain name <spydercoknive.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant's registered SPYDERCO trademarks and service marks. Complainant submits that Respondent merely added the generic term "knive" and the generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") extension <.com> to the SPYDERCO mark to create the disputed domain name. Complainant contend that the added elements are not sufficient to distinguish the disputed domain name from the SPYDERCO mark. See Wiluna Holdings, LLC v. Edna Sherman, FA 1652781 (Forum Jan. 22, 2016) (holding the addition of a generic term and gTLD is insufficient in distinguishing a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). Furthermore, Complainant submits that the element "knive" has no distinctive value and so does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1804001782013 (Forum JUNE 4, 2018 ("Where a relevant trademark is recognizable 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."). Complainant next alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name arguing that: · Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name; · the WHOIS record for the disputed domain name shows that it was registered on March 26, 2025; · as shown in the screen capture of the website to which the disputed domain name resolves which is exhibited in an annex to the Complaint, Respondent does not use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, but instead has used, and continues to use it to impersonate Complainant and to confuse visitors by creating the false impression that it is either Complainant's own website or a website of an authorized distributor of Complainant's knives; · the exhibited screen capture also shows that Respondent is using Complainant's SPYDERCO trademark and Spider Design Mark on the website to which the disputed domain name resolves, without authorization, also creating the impression that the website at <spydercoknive.com> is Complainant's own website or otherwise affiliated with Complainant; · the exhibited screen capture also illustrates that Respondent is not only prominently displaying Complainant's trademark but also images that appear on Complainant's own website at <www.spyderco.com> website. · the exhibited screen capture further shows that Respondent is using both Complainant's SPYDERCO mark and Spider Design Mark in the same font and appearance as is used by Complainant on its own website at <www.spyderco.com>; · while Complainant does not know whether the products being advertised on <spydercoknive.com> are counterfeit replications or authentic SPYDERCO products, nonetheless in either case, such use of the disputed domain name is not in connection with a bona fide offering of goods; and if the products are counterfeits the offering does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods. See Guess? IP Holder L.P. and Guess?, Inc. v. ji zhou chen, FA1709001748495 (Forum Oct. 11, 2017) ("The sale of counterfeit products is evidence that the respondent does not make a bona fide offering of goods or services…."). Thirdly Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith, arguing that the disputed domain name was registered with actual knowledge of Complainant's SPYDERCO mark, because Complainant filed, registered and commenced use of the SPYDERCO mark in the United States long before Respondent's registration of <spydercoknive.com>. It is contended that Respondent's knowledge of Complainant and its SPYDERCO mark is demonstrated by the abovementioned exhibited content of Complainant's own website at <www.spyderco.com> and <spydercoknive.com>. Complainant submits that the screen captures of the respective websites, show that the content on Respondent's website to which the disputed domain name resolves is clearly copied from Complainant's legitimate website at <spyderco.com>. Complainant contends that this is indicative of Respondent's actual knowledge of Complainant's prior rights in the SPYDERCO mark. Furthermore, Complainant submits that while constructive notice is insufficient to demonstrate bad faith, actual knowledge of a complainant's rights in a mark prior to registration of a domain name at issue may be evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014) ("…the Panel here finds actual knowledge through the name used for the domain and the use made of it."). Complainant further argues that by using the disputed domain name in this manner, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users, and to trick such users into making purchases from Respondent, by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent's website. See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. jaskima smith, FA 1750160 (Forum Oct. 26, 2017) (finding the respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith to pass off as the complainant in an attempt to gain personal information from users who mistakenly access the website). Specifically it is contended that the exhibited screen capture of the content of the website at <spydercoknive.com> illustrates that Complainant's SPYDERCO trademark is displayed in the top left banner of the website, denoting itself as Complainant. Respondent adds that the word "knive" in the disputed domain name in combination with the SPYDERCO mark is intended to attract and confuse Internet users. Complainant further alleges that Respondent registered the disputed domain name to prevent Complainant from reflecting its trademarks and service marks in the domain name. Furthermore, Complainant argues that Respondent's fraudulent pretense to be Complainant by incorporating Complainant's trademarks and service marks not only within the disputed domain name but also on the content of the resolving website, displaying Complainant's SPYDER and Spider Design Mark, together with Complainant's product photographs and product names, all indicate that it is virtually impossible for Respondent to claim there was no bad faith in the use and registration of the disputed domain name. As such, it is not possible to conceive of a plausible circumstance in which Respondent could legitimately use the disputed domain name or that Respondent would not have been aware of the Complainant's marks. Shoreline Community College v. na, FA 101518 (Forum Dec. 19, 2001) (holding the only valid conclusion to respondent's registration of shorelinecommunitycollege.com was that respondent chose and registered the domain name in bad faith with the intention to capitalize on the public recognition of the complainant's mark). B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant is a manufacturer of knives, knife accessories and a provider of retail store services using the SPYDERCO mark for which it holds a portfolio of registrations including the following: · United States trademark registration SPYDERCO, registration number 1,965,458, registered on April 2, 1996 for goods in international class 8: · United States service mark registration SPYDERCO, registration number 2,169,685, registered on June 30, 1998 for services in international class 35. Additionally, and relevantly, Complainant owns and uses a number of trademark and service mark composed of a fanciful representation of a spider, for which it holds in international portfolio of registrations which include United States trademark registration 1957810 (illustration drawing, registered on the Principal Register on February 20, 1996 for goods in international class 8. (hereinafter referred to as the "Spider Design Mark"). Complainant has an established Internet presence and maintains a website to which its domain name <spyderco.com>, created on December 30, 1996. The disputed domain name <spydercoknive.com> was registered on March 26, 2025 and resolves to a website that is almost an identical copy of Complainant's website at <www.spyderco.com>. There is no information available about Respondent except for that provided in the Complaint, as amended, the Registrar's WhoIs for the disputed domain name and the response by the Registrar to the request by Forum for details of the registration of the disputed domain name for the purposes of this proceeding. 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 Complainant has provided uncontested convincing evidence that it has rights in the SPYDERCO mark, established by its ownership of the United States trademark registrations described above and extensive use of the mark in its business selling knives and accessories, and providing related services. The disputed domain name <spydercoknive.com> consists of Complainant's mark in its entirety, in combination with the element "knive" and the generic Top Level Domain "(gTLD") extension <.com>. Complainant's SPYDERCO mark is the dominant and only distinctive element in the disputed domain name. The element "knive" adds no distinguishing character as it is merely a misspelling of the word "knife" which is descriptive of the goods sold by Complainant. Neither does the gTLD extension <.com> add any distinguishing character because on the balance of probabilities it would be considered by Internet users as a necessary technical requirement for a domain name. This Panel finds therefore that the disputed domain name <spydercoknive.com> is confusingly similar to the SPYDERCO mark in which Complainant has rights and Complainant has therefore succeeded in the first element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant has made out a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as set out in Complainant's detailed submissions above and in particular that the exhibited screen captures show that the website to which the disputed domain name resolves is an almost identical unauthorized copy of Complainant's own website at <www.spyderco.com>, with the content including Complainant's SPYDERCO mark, Complainant's Spider Design Mark, as well as images taken directly from Complainant's website. It is well established that once a complainant makes out a prima facie case that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to prove its rights or legitimate interests. Respondent has failed to discharge that burden and therefore this Panel must find that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Complainant has therefore succeeded in the second element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant's registered trademark and service mark SPYDERCO mark is clearly recognizable as the only distinctive element within the disputed domain name. Complainant has held registered trademark rights in SPYDERCO since April 2, 1996, whereas the disputed domain name was not registered until March 2, 2025. SPYDERCO, is a very distinctive mark, presumably a coined word. It has no obvious meaning other than as Complainant's trademark and service mark. It is improbable therefore that the registrant of the disputed domain name was unaware of Complainant's mark when the disputed domain name was chosen and registered. There appears to be no plausible reason for registering the disputed domain name which incorporates Complainant's mark as its dominant and only distinctive element, other than to create an association between the disputed domain name on the one hand and on the other hand Complainant and its SPYDERCO mark. On the balance of probabilities, therefore, this Panel finds that the disputed domain name was in fact chosen and registered with Complainant's mark in mind with the intention of taking predatory advantage of Complainant's rights and goodwill in the SPYDERCO mark. The uncontested evidence in the form of the screen capture of the website to which the disputed domain name resolves shows that Respondent has extensively copied the content of Complainant's website at <www.spyderco.com>, and is prominently using Complainant's SPYDERCO mark and Spider Design Mark purporting to impersonate Complainant. Such copying and use of Complainant's trademarks supports this finding that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith and furthermore supports Complainant's submission that the disputed domain name is being used in bad faith. This Panel finds therefore that on the balance of probabilities Respondent is intentionally using the disputed domain name in bad faith, to impersonate Complainant, and to attract and confuse Internet users and cause them to divert their Internet traffic intended for Complainant and misdirect it to Respondent's website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent's web site, which constitutes bad faith for the purposes of the Policy. As this Panel has found that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, Complainant has succeeded in the third element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). 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 <spydercoknive.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. James Bridgeman SC Panelist Dated: June 6, 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.