Gldgood.com

The timeline behind gldgood.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 GLD, LLC v. zhang feng Claim Number: FA2601002197980 PARTIES Complainant is GLD, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Michael A. Marrero of UB Greensfelder LLP, Ohio, USA. Respondent is zhang feng ("Respondent"), China. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <gldgood.com>, registered with HOSTINGER operations, UAB. 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 January 5, 2026; Forum received payment on January 5, 2026. On January 6, 2026, HOSTINGER operations, UAB confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <gldgood.com> domain name is registered with HOSTINGER operations, UAB and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. HOSTINGER operations, UAB has verified that Respondent is bound by the HOSTINGER operations, UAB 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 January 6, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 26, 2026 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@gldgood.com. Also on January 6, 2026, 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 January 27, 2026, 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 owns trademark registrations for GLD and submits that the domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark. Complainant submits that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name because it has not been authorized to use the trademark and there is no evidence that Respondent is commonly known by the domain name. Respondent does not use the domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate non-commercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent has used the domain name to advertise and sell essentially the same goods as those sold by Complainant under its trademark. Complainant asserts that Respondent registered the domain name in bad faith with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights and used it with bad faith intent to unfairly capitalize on Complainant's rights for Respondent's commercial gain by selling identical goods at a website and via a TikTok account. 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 uses the trademark, GLD, in connection with the manufacture and sale of jewelry, apparel, wallets and similar goods; 2. Complainant owns, inter alia, United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") Reg. No. 6,733,620, registered on May 24, 2022, for GLD; 3. Respondent registered the domain name on December 14, 2025; and 4. the domain name has been used in connection with a TikTok account which advertises jewelry for sale. 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. 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 provides evidence of its registration of GLD with the USPTO, a national trademark authority, and so has shown trademark rights. The Panel finds the domain name confusing similar to the trademark. Addition of the generic/descriptive word, "good", and the gTLD is insufficient to create a point of distinction from the trademark (see, for example, Rollerblade, Inc. v. McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000) finding that the gTLD can be disregarded for the purposes of comparison; Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("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."). The Panel accordingly 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 name, 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, WIPO Case No. D2000‑0624). There is no suggestion that Respondent might be commonly known by the disputed domain name, or that Respondent has any trademark rights. The Panel accepts Complainant's assertion that Respondent has no authority to use the trademark. A pre-Complaint letter of demand states that "[i]t has come to our client's attention that you are displaying GLD LLC's GLD trademark not only on your website at <gldgood.com> but also on the attached TikTok page. Further, the Complaint asserts that: "Respondent takes copyrighted images and webpage layouts to imitate Complainant's authentic website. A screen-shot of the "shopping cart" webpage of this site, which shows identical use of images, similar language, [and trademark]. There is no evidence of a unique website resolving from the disputed domain name. The single piece of evidence is a screenshot of the shopping cart page from a TikTok account which (i) shows the domain name, (ii) shows an item of gold jewelry, and (iii) shows a stylised version of the GLD mark which the Panel notes from the evidence is also registered to Complainant with the USPTO. This use of the domain name is clearly not a bona fide offering of goods or services or fair use of the name. The Panel finds no evidence of rights or legitimate interest and a prima facie case has been made (see, for example, Caterpillar Inc. v. Carlos Remy, FA 1825645 (Forum Feb. 18, 2019) ("Use of a domain name to pass itself off as a complainant in order to sell competing goods is not a use indicative of rights or legitimate interests per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).")). The onus shifts to Respondent and in the absence of a Response, Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or interests and so finds that Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out four illustrative circumstances, which, though not exclusive, shall be evidence of the registration and use of the domain name in bad faith for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, including: 4(b)(iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site 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 your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location. The Panel has already found the terms to be confusingly similar. An online location associated with the domain name exists for commercial gain. In terms of the Policy, the Panel finds that Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent's online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of that location and the products promoted there (see, for example, Oura Health Oy v. Andreas Neunhaeuserer / Label Products BV, FA 2155522 (Forum June 6, 2025)). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has established 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 <gldgood.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Debrett G. Lyons, Panelist Dated: January 27, 2026 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.