Thredupfashion.store

The timeline behind thredupfashion.store

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 THREDUP INC. v. Ricalyn Caguiat / Thred Up Claim Number: FA2508002172192 PARTIES Complainant is THREDUP INC. ("Complainant"), represented by Sophie Edbrooke of Gerben Perrott, PLLC, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Ricalyn Caguiat / Thred Up ("Respondent"), California, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <thredupfashion.store>, 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. Debrett G. Lyons as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on August 18, 2025; Forum received payment on August 19, 2025. On August 19, 2025, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <thredupfashion.store> 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 August 20, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 9, 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@thredupfashion.store. Also on August 20, 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 10, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Debrett G. Lyons 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 asserts trademark rights in THREDUP and submits that the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark. Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Complainant alleges that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. Complainant submits that Respondent uses the disputed domain name to perpetuate a phishing scheme by way of emails linked to the domain name which purport to offer employment opportunities with Complainant. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS The factual findings pertinent to the decision in this case are that: 1. Complainant provides clothing resale services by reference to the trademark, THREDUP; 2. Complainant owns, inter alia, United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") Reg. No. 3,791,488, registered May 18, 2010, for the trademark, THREDUP; and 3. the disputed domain name was registered on July 18, 2025, and have been used to send emails which pose as having originated from Complainant. DISCUSSION Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable." Moving on to the substantive issues, 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. Identical and/or Confusingly Similar Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires a two-fold enquiry—a threshold investigation into whether a complainant has rights in a trademark, followed by an assessment of whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark. It is well established by decisions under this Policy that a trademark registered with a national authority is evidence of trademark rights (see, for example, Mothers Against Drunk Driving v. phix, FA 174052 (Forum Sept. 25, 2003)). Complainant therefore has rights since it provides proof of its registration of the trademark THREDUP with the USPTO, a national trademark authority. Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark. The Panel agrees. For the purposes of comparison, the gTLD, ".store", can be disregarded. Thereafter, the domain name merely adds a descriptive word of no distinguishing value - "fashion" - to the trademark (see, for example, Dell Inc. v. Protection of Private Person / Privacy Protection, FA1681432 (Forum Aug. 1, 2016) ("A TLD (whether a gTLD, sTLD or ccTLD) is disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax requires TLDs. Likewise, the absence of spaces must be disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax prohibits them."); Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA1804001782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) holding: "Where a relevant trademark is recognisable 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."; Modernizing Medicine, Inc. v. jaswant singh / maha, FA2146893 (Forum Apr. 23, 2025) ("The Panel finds Respondent's <modmedcareer.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to Complainant's MODMED mark, only differing by the addition of the word 'career' which is insufficient to distinguish the domain name from Complainant's mark and instead evokes Complainant's business. The inconsequential '.com' generic top-level domain ('gTLD') may be ignored under this element."); THREDUP INC. v. Andrew lawson, FA2060278 (Forum Sept. 27, 2023) finding <thredupjobs.store> confusingly similar to Complainant's trademark). The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy states that any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate rights or legitimate interests to a domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy: (i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or (ii) you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue. Complainant need only make out a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, after which the onus shifts to Respondent to rebut that case by demonstrating those rights or interests (see, for example, Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000‑0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000)). Complainant submits that it did not authorize Respondent to register or use its trademark, and that Respondent is not affiliated with, associated with, or otherwise endorsed by Complainant. The Panel accepts the veracity of that submission. There is no evidence that Respondent has any trademark rights of its own. Complainant provides evidence that Respondent has used the domain name in connection with emails which falsely promote job opportunities at Complainant's company where none exist. The fraud is furthered by the use of Respondent's name in the body of the emails, that name being a deliberate misspelling of the actual name of Complainant's Human Resource Manager. The Panel finds that none of the paragraph 4(c) circumstances aid Respondent who has clearly acted in bad faith. A prima facie case has been made (see, for example, Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Shirley T. Barnes / malca-mit, FA1723479 (Forum May 10, 2017) ("The Panel notes that Complainant included an email sent from Respondent falsely representing itself as 'Morris Fillon', a fictional employee of Complainant, to a third party. . . . As such, the Panel finds as a result of this evidence that Respondent has not made a bona fide offering of goods under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).")). The onus shifts to Respondent and, absent a Response, the Panel finds that Respondent has not discharged that onus and so finds the Respondent has no rights or interests. Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant must prove on the balance of probabilities both that the disputed domain names were registered in bad faith and used in bad faith. Further guidance on that requirement is found in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy, which sets out four circumstances, any one of which is taken to be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith if established. The four specified circumstances are: (i) circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the respondent's documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or (ii) the respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) by using the domain name, respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, internet users to respondent's website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the respondent's website or location or of a product or service on the site or location.' The Panel finds that Respondent's conduct falls under paragraph 4(b)(iv). The Panel has found the domain name to be confusingly similar to the trademark. The use of the domain name is for commercial gain in one form or another, the exact more being unimportant. In terms of the Policy, the Panel finds that Respondent has used the disputed domain name to attract, for commercial gain, internet users to an online location by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source of that location (see, for example, BBY Solutions, Inc. v. geeks squad, FA 1920588 (Forum, Dec. 14, 2020) finding bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy where respondent used the domain name to attempt to trick victims by creating a likelihood of confusion with complainant's mark, of either being the complainant or having an affiliation with the complainant; Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Sam Kadosh, FA1751762 (Forum Nov. 2, 2017) ("Use of a disputed domain name to impersonate a complainant and send fraudulent emails demonstrates bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).")). The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied the third and final element of the Policy. 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 <thredupfashion.store> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Debrett G Lyons, Panelist Dated: September 11, 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.