Patriciagreen-us.shop

The timeline behind patriciagreen-us.shop

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 Skye Associates, LLC v. haoming lyu Claim Number: FA2506002158574 PARTIES Complainant is Skye Associates, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Susan Weller of Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C., District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is haoming lyu ("Respondent"), Delaware, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <patriciagreen-us.shop>, registered with Spaceship, Inc. 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. Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 2, 2025; Forum received payment on June 2, 2025. On June 3, 2025, Spaceship, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <patriciagreen-us.shop> domain name is registered with Spaceship, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Spaceship, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Spaceship, 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 June 3, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 23, 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@patriciagreen-us.shop. Also on June 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 June 24, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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 contends in part as follows: Complainant, Skye Associate, LLC, markets goods and services via its website, <patriciagreen.com>. Complainant has been assigned all rights and interest in the PATRICIA GREEN trademark. Respondent's at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights. Complainant's trademark registration in the U.S. principal register is sufficient evidence of Complainant's rights in the PATRICIA GREEN trademark. Adding a generic, geographic term such as "us" after a registered mark to the infringing site's domain names is insufficient to eliminate the likelihood of confusion. Nor does the addition of the word "shop" as the gTLD render the mark any less confusing. Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. There is no evidence showing Respondent is commonly known as or referred to by the PATRICIA GREEN mark, or that Respondent has ever even engaged in actually providing the goods covered by the PATRICIA GREEN mark. There is also no legitimate right or interest for a competitor to use another's exact trademark to attract consumers to its own competing services, simply to steal consumers' money and provide no goods in return. Respondent registered and used the at-issue domain name in bad faith. The at-issue domain was clearly registered to confuse consumers into visiting and making purchases from a competing site offering competing goods or – more likely – scamming customers who intended to purchase from Complainant out of their money entirely and providing no goods whatsoever. Respondent took Complainant's PATRICIA GREEN Mark and used it in the domain name and throughout the infringing website. This shows Respondent's actual knowledge of the existence of Complainant's mark, which is all that is needed for a finding of bad faith B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant has trademark rights in the PATRICIA GREEN mark. Complainant's rights in PATRICIA GREEN predate Respondent's registration of <patriciagreen-us.shop>. Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant nor authorized to use Complainant's trademarks in any capacity. Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to offer products for sale that compete with products offered by 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 at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights. Complainant's ownership of a USPTO registration for PATRICIA GREEN is sufficient to demonstrate Complainant's rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Target Brands, Inc. v. jennifer beyer, FA 1738027 (Forum July 31, 2017) ("Complainant has rights in its TARGET service mark for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) by virtue of its registration of the mark with a national trademark authority, the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO").") Respondent's <patriciagreen-us.shop> domain name consists of Complainant's PATRICIA GREEN trademark less its domain name impermissible space, followed by an inconsequential hyphen and the geographic term "us," with all followed by the confusing similarity analysis irrelevant ".shop" top-level. The differences between Complainant's trademark and the at-issue domain name fail to distinguish Respondent's domain name from Complainant's PATRICIA GREEN trademark. Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent's <patriciagreen-us.shop> domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (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."). Rights or Legitimate Interests Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond, Complainant's prima facie showing acts conclusively. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant's trademark in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in respect of the at‑issue domain name. See Navistar International Corporation v. N Rahmany, FA 1620789 (Forum Jun. 8, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the at-issue domain name where the complainant had never authorized the respondent to incorporate its NAVISTAR mark into any domain name). The WHOIS information for <patriciagreen-us.shop> identifies the domain name's registrant as "haoming lyu" and the record contains no evidence that tends to prove that Respondent is commonly known by <patriciagreen-us.shop>. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name). Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to address a website that is very similar to Complainant's genuine website. Respondent's <patriciagreen-us.shop> website prominently displays Complainant's PATRICIA GREEN trademark as well as product images and descriptions apparently misappropriated from Complainant's genuine website. Respondent's <patriciagreen-us.shop> website thereby attempts to pass itself off as being affiliated with Complainant to cause internet users to falsely believe that Respondent's domain name and its referenced website are endorsed by Complainant. There, Respondent purports to sell Complainant's products. Respondent's use of the <patriciagreen-us.shop> domain name in this manner constitutes neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a non-commercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Insomniac Holdings, LLC v. Mark Daniels, FA 1735969 (Forum July 15, 2017) (refusing to find rights and legitimate interests in a domain name on the part of a respondent when the disputed domain name "resolves to a website that Respondent has designed to mimic Complainant's own in an attempt to pass itself off as Complainant"). Given the forgoing, Respondent lacks rights and lacks legitimate interests in respect of <patriciagreen-us.shop>. Registration and Use in Bad Faith As discussed below without being exhaustive, Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to the Policy. Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to address a website looking much like Complainant's genuine website and there purports to offer products for sale that appear identical to Complainant's products. The record contains no evidence supporting a finding that the products offered by Respondent are genuine or that Respondent actually takes and fulfills any orders via the website. Nevertheless, Respondent's use of <patriciagreen-us.shop> to pass itself off as Complainant, or an affiliate of Complainant, is disruptive to Complainant's business and is intended to deceptively attract internet users looking for Complainant to Respondent's <patriciagreen-us.shop> website, presumably for Respondent's commercial benefit by actually selling such products or through swindling consumers by receiving payments while failing to deliver any merchandize. In either case, Respondent thus capitalizes on the confusion it created between its <patriciagreen-us.shop> domain name and Complainant's PATRICIA GREEN trademark. Respondent's use of <patriciagreen-us.shop> demonstrates Respondent's bad faith registration and use of such domain name under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See DatingDirect.com Ltd. v. Aston, FA 593977 (Forum Dec. 28, 2005) ("Respondent is appropriating Complainant's mark to divert Complainant's customers to Respondent's competing business. The Panel finds this diversion is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)."); see also, Xylem Inc. and Xylem IP Holdings LLC v. YinSi BaoHu YiKaiQi, FA1504001612750 (Forum May 13, 2015) ("The Panel agrees that Respondent's use of the website to display products similar to Complainant's, imputes intent to attract Internet users for commercial gain, and finds bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)."); see also, Funding Circle Limited v. tim mcelwain / timmcelweain, FA 2003934 (Forum Aug. 4, 2022) ("Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to facilitate [a] phishing scheme designed to swindle funds from Complainant's customers. Such use of the confusingly similar domain name indicates Respondent's bad faith under the Policy.") Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the PATRICIA GREEN mark when it registered <patriciagreen-us.shop> as a domain name. Respondent's prior knowledge is apparent given the mark's notoriety and given Respondent's use of the domain name to address a website mimicking Complainant's official website. Respondent's actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in PATRICIA GREEN further demonstrates Respondent's bad faith under the Policy. See Lemon Inc. v. Sumer Singh, FA 2110519 (Forum September 5, 2024 ("registration of a disputed domain name with actual knowledge of another's trademark rights is sufficient to establish bad faith, and can be shown by the notoriety of the mark and the use the Respondent makes of the disputed domain name"); see also, Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering 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 <patriciagreen-us.shop> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist Dated: June 24, 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.