Shopozarktrail.com

The timeline behind shopozarktrail.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 Walmart Apollo, LLC v. zhong yu Claim Number: FA2508002170442 PARTIES Complainant is Walmart Apollo, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Fatima Y. Kassem of Brooks Kushman P.C., Michigan, USA. Respondent is zhong yu ("Respondent"), China. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <shopozarktrail.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 August 8, 2025; Forum received payment on August 8, 2025. On August 11, 2025, Name.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <shopozarktrail.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 August 12, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 2, 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@shopozarktrail.com. Also on August 12, 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 September 3, 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 Walmart is a multinational retail corporation operating a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and grocery stores. Walmart was founded in 1962 in Rogers, Arkansas. Each week, approximately 240 million customers and members visit more than 10,500 stores and numerous eCommerce websites in 20 countries. With fiscal year 2024 revenue of $648.1 billion, Walmart employs approximately 2.1 million associates worldwide; Walmart operates nearly 10,000 stores around the world, with over 4,000 stores in the United States. Complainant has been using its OZARK TRAIL trademark in United States commerce since at least as early as 1985, over 36 years. Complainant owns over 25 registrations in the United States that include its OZARK TRAIL trademark, covering a wide variety of outdoor consumer goods. Complainant owns the <walmart.com> domain name and maintains a website at Walmart.com since at least as early as 1995. Complainant also maintains a website for the Ozark Trail camping brand The at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's trademark. The at-issue domain name was initially registered long after Complainant had already established its rights in the OZARK TRAIL trademarks throughout the world. The at-issue domain name fully incorporates and is identical to the OZARK TRAIL trademarks. The addition of "shop" and ".com" in <shopozarktrail.com> do not remove any likelihood of confusion between the domain name and Complainant's OZARK TRAIL trademarks. The descriptive term "shop" does not distinguish the domain name in any way. Respondent's <shopozarktrail.com> website features numerous elements directly copied from Complainant's website. This includes images, artwork, and product listing information, all of which are protected under relevant trademark and copyright laws. Respondent's website falsely appears to associate itself with Complainant's OZARK TRAIL brand. The website advertises Complainant's OZARK TRAIL branded products and is being used for a fraudulent website that directs consumers to subscribe to the website with their full name, phone number, and email address. Respondent retains personal information of users presumably for commercial gain, suggesting a phishing scheme. Respondent's actions exploit the goodwill of the well-known OZARK TRAIL trademarks to divert Complainant's customers for commercial gain. These actions also create a likelihood of confusion regarding the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent's website and the goods promoted there. As a result, consumers who mistakenly believe that Respondent is affiliated with Walmart or OZARK TRAIL are likely to be diverted from Complainant's website. In addition to mimicking Complainant's branding, Respondent's website features content promoting both Complainant's OZARK TRAIL branded products and unrelated, competing third-party products via click-through advertisements that dominate the website. The site includes product images and descriptions sourced from Complainant's materials, alongside click-through advertisements and affiliate-style links to goods offered by other vendors. Respondent relies on users searching for information and materials related to Complainant's OZARK TRAIL products to mistakenly divert them to Respondent's website, which incorporates the OZARK TRAIL trademarks without authorization. Respondent's website advertises and features Complainant's OZARK TRAIL branded products without authorization. Respondent's actions exploit the goodwill of the well-known OZARK TRAIL trademarks to divert Complainant's customers for financial gain. These actions also create a likelihood of confusion regarding the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent's website and the goods promoted there. At the time Respondent registered <shopozarktrail.com>, Respondent had (at a minimum) constructive knowledge of the OZARK TRAIL Trademarks. Such knowledge may be inferred based on Complainant's registration of the OZARK TRAIL Trademarks with the United States Patent and Trademark Office and the well-known nature of the brand that has been in operation for over 36 years. At no time has Complainant authorized Respondent to use or register the <shopozarktrail.com>. Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the domain name. Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and Respondent's use of the OZARK TRAIL trademarks is unauthorized. The sole apparent use of the at-issue domain name is to attract users searching for OZARK TRAIL goods in order to trick and divert them to purchase competing goods from and subscribe to Respondent's website. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. The at-issue domain name points to a site that falsely associates itself with Complainant's OZARK TRAIL brand and products. This is not a legitimate interest. Respondent is clearly using the OZARK TRAIL trademarks and logos on its website to attract Complainant's customers to purchase competing products and solicit personal information from them. However, the website is fraudulent and is not authorized by Complainant. The domain name is being used for what appears to be a fraudulent website and phishing scheme that directs consumers to purchase goods from third-party sellers that compete with OZARK TRAIL branded goods. It is evident that Respondent intends to disrupt the Complainant's business. Respondent created a phishing scheme designed to mislead consumers into providing personal or account information to learn more about the OZARK TRAIL brand. Using a domain name incorporating Complainant's famous mark to induce users to provide sensitive data constitutes phishing and is per se evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). Respondent is not and has not been commonly known by the <shopozarktrail.com> and Complainant has not authorized or licensed Respondent to use any of its OZARK TRAIL Trademarks. Respondents' bad faith acts. Respondent's registration and use of <shopozarktrail.com> meets the bad faith element set forth in Section 4(b)(iv) of the UDRP. Specifically, Respondent uses the domain name to intentionally attract internet users, for commercial gain, to the website by taking advantage of users searching for Complainant on the internet, creating a likelihood of confusion with the OZARK TRAIL trademarks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, and endorsement of Respondent's website. Respondent's website replicates the content of the Complainant's legitimate site, further supporting the conclusion that the domain was registered and is being used in bad faith. The fact that Respondent uses false contact information on its website undermines the Respondent's claim to legitimate interests in the domain. Respondent is clearly acting in bad faith with the intention to mislead consumers. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the OZARK TRAIL trademark when Respondent registered <shopozarktrail.com>. This is evident given the OZARK TRAIL brand's notoriety and given Respondent's use of the trademark laden domain name to pass itself off as Complainant and offer merchandise for sale identical to Complainant's offering. Further, Respondent intentionally and willfully misrepresented to the Registrar that the registration of <shopozarktrail.com> did not interfere with or infringe upon the rights of any third parties. This type of misrepresentation has been held to constitute bad faith since under Policy ¶ 2, a domain name registrant represents and warrants to the domain name registrar that to the registrant's knowledge, "the registration of the domain name will not infringe upon or otherwise violate the rights of any third party." There is also legal presumption of bad faith when Respondent reasonably should have been aware of Complainant's trademarks, actually or constructively. Respondent's website links to competing products via click-through advertisements that dominate the website, aiming to divert consumers from Complainant's legitimate website. Respondent is likely profiting commercially by diverting internet users searching for Complainant's website, as these users may find Respondent's website due to its domain name's confusing similarity with Complainant's trademark. Respondent's website includes a disclaimer stating it is "an independent fan-created platform," but this does not cure the clear intent to mislead consumers. Panels have consistently held that disclaimers are insufficient to overcome bad faith where the overall presentation mimics the complainant's branding and voice. Respondent is using <shopozarktrail.com> for commercial gain, in violation of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant has trademark rights in the OZARK TRAIL mark. Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and had not been authorized to use Complainant's trademark in any capacity. Respondent registered the at‑issue domain name after Complainant acquired rights in the OZARK TRAIL trademark. Respondent's uses the at-issue domain name and its associated website to pass itself off as Complainant so as to direct internet traffic to Respondent's <shopozarktrail.com> website where, dressed as Complainant, Respondent purports to offer Complainant's merchandize for sale as well as links competing merchandise. 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 owns multiple USPTO registrations for its OZARK TRAIL trademark. Any of such registrations is sufficient to demonstrate Complainant's rights in a mark under the Policy. See BGK Trademark Holdings, LLC & Beyoncé Giselle Knowles-Carter v. Chanphut / Beyonce Shop, FA 1626334 (Forum Aug. 3, 2015) (asserting that Complainant's registration with the USPTO (or any other governmental authority) adequately proves its rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). Respondent's <shopozarktrail.com> domain name consists of Complainant's OZARK TRAIL trademark less its domain name impermissible space, preceded by the term "shop" and followed by the ".com" top-level domain name. The differences between Respondent's domain name and Complainant's trademark are insufficient to distinguish one from the other for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel concludes that <shopozarktrail.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant's OZARK TRAIL trademark. 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 <shopozarktrail.com>. 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 <shopozarktrail.com> identifies the domain name's registrant as "zhong yu" and the record before the Panel contains no evidence that tends to show that Respondent is commonly known by <shopozarktrail.com> or any relevant variation thereof. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). 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 mimics Complainant's genuine website. Complainant's OZARK TRAIL trademark is prominently displayed on Respondent's <shopozarktrail.com> website along with copyrighted images and content apparently lifted from Complainant's genuine website. There, Respondent purports to promote Complainant's OZARK TRAIL branded products and unrelated competing third-party products via click-through advertisements. Respondent thus attempts to pass itself off as being affiliated with Complainant so as to cause internet users to falsely believe that Respondent's domain name and its website are endorsed or sponsored by Complainant. Respondent's use of <shopozarktrail.com> to pose as Complainant and misdirect internet users to Respondent's imposter website is not indicative of 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 <shopozarktrail.com>. Registration and Use in Bad Faith As discussed below without being exhaustive, Respondent acted in bad faith. As mentioned above, Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to address a website that appears like it is sponsored or endorsed by Complainant. Respondent's use of <shopozarktrail.com> to pass itself off as Complainant is disruptive to Complainant's business and is intended to attract internet users looking for Complainant to Respondent's website so that Respondent might wrongfully capitalize on the confusion it created between its <shopozarktrail.com> domain name and Complainant's OZARK TRAIL trademark. Respondent's use of <shopozarktrail.com> thus demonstrates Respondent's bad faith registration or use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See 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."); see also, Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Domain ID Shield Service / Domain ID Shield Service CO., Limited, FA1905001841700 (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 between Respondent's domain names and Complainant");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).") Additionally, Respondent may also being using its <shopozarktrail.com> domain name and website to phish for personal information as the website directs consumers to subscribe to the website using their full name, phone number, and email address. Respondent's use of the at-issue domain name to facilitate the collection of personal data is indicative of phishing and is further evidence of Respondent's bad faith. See Morgan Stanley v. Bruce Pu, FA 1764120 (Forum Feb. 2, 2018) ("[T]he screenshot of the resolving webpage allows users to input their name and email address, which Complainant claims Respondent uses that to fraudulently phish for information. Thus, the Panel agrees that Respondent phishes for information and finds that Respondent does so in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).") Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant and its rights in the OZARK TRAIL mark when it registered <shopozarktrail.com> as a domain name. Respondent's prior knowledge is apparent given the notoriety of Complainant's trademark and given Respondent's use of the domain name to address a website displaying Complainant's trademark and logo, promoting Complainant's products for sale as well as competing products, and thus posing as if it is affiliated with Complainant. Respondent's actual knowledge of Complainant and its rights in OZARK TRAIL further demonstrates 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). 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 <shopozarktrail.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist Dated: September 4, 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.