Outletsafavieh.com

The timeline behind outletsafavieh.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 Safavieh Intl, LLC v. Wangcdf Yuhai Claim Number: FA2601002199446 PARTIES Complainant is Safavieh Intl, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Mark S. Kaufman of KAUFMAN & KAHN, LLP, New York, USA. Respondent is Wangcdf Yuhai ("Respondent"), China. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <outletsafavieh.com>, registered with Gname.com Pte. Ltd. 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. James Bridgeman SC, as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 13, 2026; Forum received payment on January 13, 2026. On January 14, 2026, Gname.com Pte. Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <outletsafavieh.com> domain name is registered with Gname.com Pte. Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Gname.com Pte. Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Gname.com Pte. Ltd. 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 16, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Chinese and English Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 5, 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@outletsafavieh.com. Also on January 16, 2026, the Chinese and English 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 in Chinese and English. On February 6, 2026 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed James Bridgeman SC 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 disputed domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PRELIMINARY ISSUE: LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDING Rule 11(a) of the Rules states that the default language of the administrative proceeding is the language of the domain name registration agreement. However, the Panel has discretion to determine otherwise, considering fairness, parties' language proficiency, cost, and potential delays due to translation. The Registrar has confirmed that the language of the registration agreement for the disputed domain name is Chinese. Complainant requests the Panel to direct that English be the language of the proceedings notwithstanding that language of the registration agreement for the disputed domain name is Chinese, for the following reasons: · the words "outlet" and "SAFAVIEH" are English language words, presented in the Roman alphabet and Respondent's ability to create a typographical variation of such words indicates the Respondent's facility with the English language; and · Complainant operates its global business in English and should not be put to the added expense of translating these pleadings if Respondent fails to participate in the dispute process, citing Radisson Hotels International, Inc. v. Yue Mei Wang / Wang Yue Mei aka Pei Jun Gan / Gan Pei Jun / Jun Yu He / He Jun Yu / denliyan, FA 1615349 (Forum June 1, 2015) (proceedings conducted in English where "[t]he relative time and expense in enforcing the Chinese language agreement may result in prejudice toward Complainant"). Complainant asserts that "SAFAVIEH" is a word in the English language, however, this is not correct. It is a trademark in the Latin alphabet. It is not an English language word, and if it were this Complaint might have a different outcome. However, given that the word "outlet" within the disputed domain name is in the English language and Complainant's SAFAVIEH mark is written in the Latin alphabet, and that · Complainant is established in New York State, USA; · Complainant's website to which the disputed domain name resolves is in the English language; · as is held below Respondent is using the disputed domain name to target the goodwill and reputation of, and pass itself off as Complainant; · there is no Chinese language content on the website to which the disputed domain name resolves; and · on January 16, 2026, the Chinese and English 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, but no Response has been received; this Panel finds that on the balance of probabilities Respondent is proficient in the English language whereas Complainant would be adversely prejudiced if the Panel did not exercise the discretion allowed in Rule 11(a). This Panel directs therefore, exercising its discretion, that the Complaint in the English language may be admitted and this proceeding is allowed to continue in the English language. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant claims rights in the SAFAVIEH trademark established by its ownership of the portfolio of registrations described below. Complainant firstly alleges that the disputed domain name <outletsafavieh.com> is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's SAFAVIEH trademark because the domain name incorporates the SAFAVIEH mark in its entirety. Complainant further asserts that the entirety of the domain name consists of the SAFAVIEH mark preceded only by the descriptive term "outlet," which does not change the overall meaning and impression of the domain name and serves to mislead Internet users into believing that Respondent uses Complainant's SAFAVIEH trademark with Complainant's authorization or consent. Complainant secondly alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name arguing that: · there is no evidence of Respondent's use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; · as shown in a screen capture as exhibited in an annex to the Complaint the disputed domain name <outletsafavieh.com> resolves to a website that appears to be copying the SAFAVIEH logo and is selling furniture, lamps, and lighting fixtures, which are the same goods as those sold by Complainant; · it appears from the available information that Respondent (as an individual, business, or other organization) has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name and has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; · Respondent is not making legitimate non‑commercial or fair use of the disputed domain name and that its sale of the same type of goods as Complainant indicates an intent for commercial gain misleadingly to divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark at issue. Thirdly, Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, arguing that by registering and using the disputed domain name as the address of a website, it is demonstrated that Respondent: (a) registered or acquired the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the disputed domain name registration to Complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of Respondent's documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the disputed domain name; and/or (b) intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent's web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent's web site or location or of a product or service on the Respondent's web site or location. Complainant submits by way of example, with respect to paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, the screen capture provided by Complainant, which is exhibited in an annex to the Complaint, shows that Respondent is purporting to sell products associated with the SAFAVIEH mark. Numerous panels have found that offering for sale goods or services associated with a trademark, where the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark, without permission from the trademark owner, creates a likelihood of confusion. See, for example, Arla Foods amba v. Jucco Holdings, WIPO Case D2006-0409 ("the practice of registering a domain name and using it to redirect a user to a website which is used for the sale of competing services constitutes evidence of registering and using a trademark in bad faith"). Therefore, the Panel should find that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant is a furniture, rugs, and home furnishings manufacturer and retailer and is the owner of the SAFAVIEH trademark for which it holds the following trademarks: · United States registered trademark SAFAVIEH, registration number 3,384,358, registered on the Principal Register on February 19, 2008, for goods in international classes 20 and 27; · United States registered trademark SAFAVIEH, registration number 4,371,983, registered on the Principal Register on July 23, 2013, for goods in international class 11; and · United States registered service mark SAFAVIEH, registration number 6,347,215, registered on the Principal Register on May 11, 2021, for services in international class 35. Complainant has also provided details of its trademark registrations in China, Benelux, France, Germany, Italy and the United Kingdom. The disputed domain name was registered on December 30, 2022 and resolves to a website that purports to offer domestic furniture for sale at hugely discounted prices; Respondent is not identified on the website, but Complainant's SAFAVIEH trademark appears in a prominent position at the top of the home page. The website to which the disputed domain name resolves appears to be a copy of Complainant's official website and displays the SAFAVIEH word and design trademark, together with photographs of furniture, lamps, and lighting fixtures, which are among the same types of goods sold by Complainant. The only information available to the Panel about Respondent is in the Complaint as amended, the Registrar's WhoIs, and the information provided by the Registrar in response to the request by Forum for details of the registration of the disputed domain name. 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 In a very brief Complaint, Complainant has provided uncontested evidence that it has rights in the SAFAVIEH mark established by its ownership of the trademark and service mark registrations described above. The disputed domain name <outletsafavieh.com> consists of Complainant's SAFAVIEH mark preceded by the word "outlet" in combination with the generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") extension <.com>. It is well established that a finding of confusing similarity is appropriate when, as in the present case, a domain name at issue contains the mark relied upon by the complainant in its entirety. Complainant's SAFAVIEH mark is contained in the disputed domain name as the dominant and only distinctive element. The word "outlet" is a generic term descriptive of a retail shop. The gTLD extension would be considered by Internet users as a necessary technical requirement for an Internet domain name and therefore does not prevent the finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and Complainant's mark. This Panel finds therefore that the disputed domain name is identical to the SAFAVIEH mark in which Complainant has rights and Complainant has therefore succeeded in the first element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant has made out an uncontested prima facie case that Respondent has no rights legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as set out in Complainant's detailed submissions above. In particular, the uncontested evidence is that Respondent is using the disputed domain name within the address of a website which prominently displays Complainant's SAFAVIEH mark and purports to offer domestic furniture for sale. Respondent does not in any way purport to distinguish itself from Complainant on its website and in fact purports to pass itself off as Complainant. It is well established that once a complainant makes out a prima facie case that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to prove its rights or legitimate interests. Respondent has failed to discharge that burden and therefore this Panel must find that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Complainant has therefore succeeded in the second element of the test in Policy paragraph 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith SAFAVIEH is a distinctive mark, and Complainant provided evidence that it is the owner of an international portfolio of trademark registrations for the mark dating back to February 19, 2008. In a very brief Complaint, it has been shown in a screen capture of the website to which the disputed domain name resolves, that Respondent is using the disputed domain name to resolve to a website on which it prominently uses Complainant's SAFAVIEW trademark and purports to offer furniture for sale. While Complainant has claimed international use of the SAFAVIEH mark, it has failed to provide any evidence whatsoever of its use of the SAFAVIEH mark on a website or otherwise. Nonetheless given the distinctive character of the SAFAVIEH mark in which Complainant has rights, and the use of the disputed domain name to resolve to a website prominently displaying Complainant's mark, it is most improbable that the registrant of the disputed domain name was unaware of Complainant and its furniture, rugs and furnishing business when the disputed domain name was registered. There appears to be no plausible reason as to why the disputed domain name might be registered other than to create an association with Complainant. On the balance of probabilities, therefore, and noting that Respondent has failed to file any Response, notwithstanding that it has been served with the Complaint, both in English and Chinese, this Panel finds that the disputed domain name was in fact chosen and registered with the Complainant's mark in mind with the intention of taking predatory advantage of the Complainant's rights and goodwill in Complainant's SAFAVIEH mark. The uncontested evidence in the form of screen capture which is exhibited in an annex to the Complaint illustrates that the disputed domain name resolves to a website purporting to offer furniture for sale to the public, prominently using Complainant's trademark without license or authority, and with no suggestion on the website that Respondent is not the same entity as Complainant. Such use not only indicates that the registrant of the disputed domain name was aware of Complainant's mark when the disputed domain name was registered but that it was registered and is being used to specifically target Complainant and its business. On the balance of probabilities such use is intended to attract and confuse Internet users who are seeking the Complainant's website and cause them to divert their Internet traffic and misdirect it to the Respondent's website. In addition, Respondent's use of the mark is intended to create an initial interest confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent's website. Such use of the Complainant's trademark within the address of the Respondent's website constitutes use in bad faith for the purposes of the Policy. As this Panel has found that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, the Complainant has succeeded in the third element of the test in Policy paragraph 4(a)(iii). 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 <outletsafavieh.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. __________________________________________ James Bridgeman SC, Panelist Dated: February 9, 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.