Spy-derco.com

The timeline behind spy-derco.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 Spyderco, Inc. v. as8a6 as8a6 Claim Number: FA2506002163044 PARTIES Complainant is Spyderco, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Robert R. Brunelli of Sheridan Ross P.C., Colorado, USA. Respondent is as8a6 as8a6 ("Respondent"), Turkey. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <spy-derco.com>, registered with NameCheap, 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. Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 27, 2025; Forum received payment on June 27, 2025. On July 1, 2025, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <spy-derco.com> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, 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 July 2, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 22, 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@spy-derco.com. Also on July 2, 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 July 23, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. 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 i) Complainant has been using the trademark/service mark SPYDERCO and variations containing SPYDERCO in connection with knives, knife accessories, and online retail store services featuring such knives and knife accessories, since as least as early as 1981 in the United States. Complainant holds rights, inter alia, in the SPYDERCO by virtue of its registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 1,965,458, registered April 2, 1996). Complainant owns numerous active trademark and service mark registrations containing the word "SPYDERCO" all over the world. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark. ii) Respondent holds no rights or legitimate interests in the SPYDERCO mark and has no affiliation with, or authorization from, Complainant. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, as Respondent is repeatedly using Complainant's SPYDERCO trademark and Bug Design Logo on the website, without authorization, causing the impression that the website is Complainant's website or otherwise affiliated with Complainant. Whether the goods offered are counterfeit or authentic, such use does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods under the Policy. iii) Respondent has intentionally used the disputed domain name to create a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's SPYDERCO mark for commercial gain, thereby misappropriating Complainant's goodwill. The website linked to the disputed domain name falsely suggests an affiliation with Complainant by incorporating Complainant's SPYDERCO mark and Bug Design Logo in identical font and layout, including a red Bug Design Logo to the left of the word "SPYDERCO," as used on Complainant's own website. The site also displays product images and descriptions identical to those of Complainant, and includes a favicon closely resembling Complainant's own, further reinforcing the misleading impression. B. Respondent Respondent did submit correspondence in this proceeding. In its communication to Forum, Respondent informally expressed a willingness to transfer the disputed domain name to the appropriate party. However, Respondent did not otherwise substantively contest Complainant's allegations or assert any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. FINDINGS 1. Respondent registered the disputed domain name on June 10, 2021. 2. Complainant has established rights, inter alia, in the SPYDERCO by virtue of its registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 1,965,458, registered April 2, 1996). 3. The website associated with the disputed domain name falsely suggests an affiliation with Complainant by prominently displaying Complainant's SPYDERCO mark and Bug Design Logo in an identical font and layout, including the use of a red Bug Design Logo positioned to the left of the word "SPYDERCO," consistent with Complainant's branding on its official website. 4. The disputed domain name's resolving website further features product images and descriptions that are identical to those found on Complainant's website, and displays a favicon that closely resembles the one used by Complainant, thereby reinforcing the misleading impression of affiliation. 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 asserts rights in inter alia, in the SPYDERCO mark by virtue of its registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 1,965,458, registered April 2, 1996). Registration of a mark with the USPTO is typically considered valid evidence of rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). As Complainant has submitted a valid trademark registration issued by the USPTO, the Panel determines that Complainant has thereby established rights in the SPYDERCO mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Complainant contends that the disputed domain name, <spy-derco.com>, is confusingly similar to its SPYDERCO mark, as the disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's SPYDERCO mark in its entirety, with the addition of a hyphen, which is insufficient to distinguish the domain name from Complainant's SPYDERCO mark. The Panel concurs and finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's SPYDERCO mark within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Section 2.1, WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 ("Where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element."). Complainant argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name nor has Respondent been authorized by Complainant to use Complainant's mark; and Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant. Relevant information, such as WHOIS information, can be used as evidence to show a respondent is or is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). The Panel notes that the unmasked WHOIS information lists "as8a6 as8a6" as the registrant, and there is no evidence in the record to suggest Respondent was authorized to use the mark. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Complainant argues that Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor for legitimate noncommercial or fair use. The Panel observes that Respondent is using the disputed domain name for an online retail store offering products, which are identical or closely related to those of Complainant, by prominently displaying Complainant's SPYDERCO mark and Bug Design Logo in an identical font and layout, including the use of a red Bug Design Logo positioned to the left of the word "SPYDERCO," consistent with Complainant's branding on its official website. The disputed domain name's resolving website further features product images and descriptions that are identical to those found on Complainant's website, and displays a favicon that closely resembles the one used by Complainant, thereby reinforcing the misleading impression of affiliation. In the absence of any response, it is difficult to determine from the screenshot of the disputed domain name's website whether it was offering counterfeit goods, competing goods, or Complainant's genuine products. If Respondent's website is offering only Complainant's genuine goods, the question of fair use must be considered. The leading case on this issue is Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc., where the respondent was a reseller of the complainant's OKIDATA products. The respondent registered and used the domain <okidataparts.com> for that business. The panel in that case found that such use could qualify as a bona fide offering of goods or services under the Policy if certain conditions were met: -The respondent must actually be offering the goods or services at issue; -The respondent must use the site to sell only the trademarked goods (otherwise there is the possibility that the respondent is using the trademark in a domain name to bait consumers and then switch them to other goods); -The site itself must accurately disclose the respondent's relationship with the trademark owner; and -The respondent must not try to 'corner the market' in all relevant domain names, thus depriving the trademark owner of the ability to reflect its own mark in a domain name. The Panel notes that Respondent's website does not disclose its relationship with Complainant. Therefore, even if Respondent is offering only Complainant's genuine goods on the disputed domain name's website, the Panel concludes that this does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor is it a legitimate non-commercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii), see General Motors LLC v. MIKE LEE, FA 1659965 (Forum Mar. 10, 2016) (finding that "use of a domain to sell products and/or services that compete directly with a complainant's business does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)."). The Panel finds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case that arises from the considerations above. All of these matters go to make out the prima facie case against Respondent. As Respondent has not filed a Response or attempted by any other means to rebut the prima facie case against it, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant asserts that by using the disputed domain name, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent's website by creating a likelihood of confusion, and actual confusion, with Complainant's SPYDERCO mark. As previously noted, Respondent is using the disputed domain name for an online retail store offering products that are identical or closely related to those of Complainant by displaying the SPYDERCO mark. The Panel notes that the website at the disputed domain name explicitly references the same goods offered by Complainant and uses Complainant's product images. Without a response from Respondent, it is difficult to determine from the evidence whether the websites are offering counterfeit goods, competing goods, or Complainant's genuine products. The Panel also notes that Respondent's website does not disclose any relationship with Complainant. Even if Respondent is offering only Complainant's genuine products, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii), 4(b)(iv), with the intent to disrupt Complainant's business by diverting Internet users from Complainant's website to Respondent's website, creating confusion with Complainant's SPYDERCO mark for commercial gain by misleading consumers into believing that Respondent's website is connected to Complainant. See ZIH Corp. v. ou yang lin q, FA1761403 (Forum Dec. 29, 2017) (finding bad faith where Respondent used the infringing domain name to disrupt Complainant's business by diverting Internet users from Complainant's website to Respondent's website where it offered competing printer products), see also Citadel LLC and its related entity, KCG IP Holdings, LLC v. Joel Lespinasse / Radius Group, FA1409001579141 (Forum Oct. 15, 2014) ("Here, the Panel finds evidence of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) bad faith as Respondent has used the confusingly similar domain name to promote its own financial management and consulting services in competition with Complainant."). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii), 4(b)(iv), and thus Complainant has satisfied the threshold per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). Complainant further contends that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the SPYDERCO mark. While constructive knowledge is insufficient for a finding of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii), 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 Respondent makes of the disputed domain name. The Panel notes that since 1981, Complainant has continuously used the trademark SPYDERCO in the United States in connection with knives in commerce and owns trademark and service mark registrations worldwide, covering a wide variety of goods and services, all of which are generally related to knives, knife accessories, and retail store services featuring knives and knife accessories. Complainant has expended substantial time, money, and effort to promote and advertise its goods and services under its SPYDERCO mark. As a result, Complainant is the owner of substantial goodwill and consumer recognition in the SPYDERCO mark. The Panel agrees and infers, due to the manner of use of the disputed domain name, as well as the notoriety of Complainant's mark, that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the SPYDERCO mark at the time of registering the disputed domain name, and thus the Panel finds the bad faith registration of 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 <spy-derco.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist Dated: July 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.