Sojaggazebo.com

The timeline behind sojaggazebo.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 ShelterLogic Operations Canada, Ltd. v. huang di Claim Number: FA2506002158682 PARTIES Complainant is ShelterLogic Operations Canada, Ltd. ("Complainant"), represented by Fatima Lahnin, Connecticut, USA. Respondent is huang di ("Respondent"), China. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <sojaggazebo.com>, registered with Name.com, 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 2, 2025, Name.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <sojaggazebo.com> domain name is registered with Name.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Name.com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Name.com, 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@sojaggazebo.com. 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: Since 1993, Complainant ShelterLogic Operations Canada, Ltd., has developed and distributed sun shelters, solariums and outdoor furniture, which can be found at most vendors throughout North America. As an industry leader, Complainant is passionate about providing products that transform outdoor spaces, extend summer seasons and create an incomparable relaxing atmosphere. Complainant has exclusive rights in the SOJAG mark used in connection with outdoor furniture, including gazeboes and garden sheds. The Complainant has been using the SOJAG mark in connection with these goods since at least as early as 2006. Complainant has established rights in the mark SOJAG through its registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office Respondent's at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights. The at-issue domain name fully incorporates Complainant's federally registered trademark. It is well-established under UDRP precedent that merely appending the descriptive term-"gazebo"-which is directly associated with a trademark owner's business activities or products, to a trademark does not sufficiently distinguish a domain name from a trademark, nor does it mitigate confusion. Moreover, the selection of the at-issue domain unequivocally targets consumers familiar with Complainant's SOJAG mark, reinforcing confusion as to source, sponsorship, or affiliation. Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent is neither affiliated with nor authorized or licensed by Complainant to use the SOJAG mark in any capacity. Complainant has never granted permission to register or use domain names incorporating its federally registered SOJAG trademark. Respondent is not, nor has it ever been, commonly known by the domain name <sojaggazebo.com>. Respondent's use is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and 4(c)(iii). Although Respondent claims to operate a "fan site" and includes a disclaimer and link to Complainant's store, these do not establish rights or legitimate interests. The domain name's website's use of the SOJAG trademark, first-person narrative ("we," "our products"), and Complainant's exact product names and descriptions further reinforces this false impression. The site lists actual SOJAG products-such as the Messina, Monaco, Lena, Sanibel, and Dakota grill gazebos-with promotional descriptions substantially similar to those found on Complainant's site. The infringing site even presents customer testimonials and service language lifted nearly verbatim from Complainant's website. The disclaimer at the top of <sojaggazebo.com> is insufficient to cure this confusion. Respondent's conduct goes beyond referencing Complainant's brand. It impersonates the brand, mimics its voice, and adopts product language, creating a misleading online presence. The overall presentation suggests that Respondent registered the domain name to divert consumers and benefit from the SOJAG brand's goodwill. Respondent registered and used the at-issue domain name in bad faith. The totality of circumstances --timing, content, and presentation-- confirms that Respondent knowingly registered and used the domain name to exploit Complainant's SOJAG mark and divert internet traffic for its own benefit. Respondent deliberately incorporated Complainant's distinctive SOJAG mark into the domain name, adding the generic term "gazebo," which directly references Complainant's primary product line. The <sojaggazebo.com> website content confirms Respondent's awareness of Complainant and intent to mislead. Respondent attempts to shield itself behind a "fan site" label and a generic disclaimer. But UDRP panels have consistently held that disclaimers do not mitigate bad faith where the domain itself falsely implies affiliation. Finally, there is no indication that Respondent is engaged in any genuine fan activity or commentary. The site does not include original content, discussion, or critique. Instead, it is a near copy of Complainant's own web presence, complete with commercial-sounding product listings, testimonials, and marketing language. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant has trademark rights in SOJAG. Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and had not been authorized to use Complainant's trademarks in any capacity. Respondent registered the at‑issue domain name after Complainant acquired rights in the SOJAG trademark. Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to attempt to pass itself off as Complainant or an affiliate thereof by addressing a website mimicking much of Complainant's genuine website. 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 shows that it has a USPTO registration for its SOJAG trademark. Such registration is sufficient to demonstrate Complainant's rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Thermo Electron Corp. v. Xu, FA 713851 (Forum July 12, 2006) (finding that the complainants had established rights in marks where the marks were registered with a trademark authority). Respondent's <sojaggazebo.com> domain name consists of Complainant's entire SOJAG trademark followed by the suggestive term "gazebo" with all followed by the confusing similarity irrelevant ".com" top-level domain name. The differences between Respondent's domain name and Complainant's trademark are insufficient to distinguish Respondent's domain name from Complainant's mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent's <sojaggazebo.com> domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights. 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 the 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 trademarks 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 <sojaggazebo.com>. The WHOIS information for <sojaggazebo.com> indicates that the domain name's registrant is "huang di" and the record before the Panel contains no evidence that tends to show that Respondent is commonly known by the <sojaggazebo.com> domain name. 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 appears to mimic the look and feel of Complainant's genuine website in an effort to deceive visitors into believing that the domain name and website are related to or approved by Complainant. Such use of <sojaggazebo.com> indicates neither a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor any legitimate non-commercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (c)(iii) respectively. 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's lacks rights and lacks legitimate interests in respect of <sojaggazebo.com>. Registration and Use in Bad Faith As discussed below without being exhaustive, Respondent acted in bad faith. Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to direct internet users to a website appearing as if it may be affiliated with, or sponsored by, Complainant. The site features products identical to Complainant's offering. Notably, Respondent's <sojaggazebo.com> website lists actual examples of Complainant's products using their authentic names and provides promotional product descriptions similar or identical to those used by Complainant. Respondent's bogus website further presents customer testimonials and services language taken from Complainant's genuine website. Respondent's use of the at-issue domain and its associated website to pose as Complainant disrupts Complainant's business by diverting traffic intended for Complainant to Respondent. Respondent thus capitalizes on the confusion that it created between its <sojaggazebo.com> domain name and Complainant's SOJAG trademark and although the <sojaggazebo.com> website contains a disclaimer and pretends to be intended as a "fan site," its construct is such that the disclaimer and sham title are ineffective in mitigating the confusion fostered by Respondent. Indeed, there is no evidence that the domain name is or has in any way supported what might be characterized as a "fan site." Respondent's use of <sojaggazebo.com> and its associated domain name thus demonstrates Respondent's bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Domain ID Shield Service / Domain ID Shield Service CO., Limited, FA 1841700 (Forum June 21, 2019) (finding that respondent was using "chevronplacement.com" in bad faith in order to "disrupt the business of Complainant by causing internet users to think an affiliation exists"); see also, Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum Dec. 27, 2017) (finding bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where "Respondent registered and uses the <lbittrex.com> domain name in bad faith by directing internet users to a website that mimics Complainant's own website in order to confuse users into believing that Respondent is Complainant, or is otherwise affiliated or associated with Complainant.") Moreover, Respondent registered the <sojaggazebo.com> domain name knowing that Complainant had trademark rights in SOJAG. Respondent's prior knowledge is evident from the notoriety of Complainant's SOJAG trademark and from Respondent's use of the confusingly similar <sojaggazebo.com> domain name to address a website that substantially copies from Complainant's genuine website. Respondent's prior knowledge of Complainant's trademark rights further indicates Respondent's bad faith. 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);see also, Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION 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 <sojaggazebo.com> 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.