Davidgogginsmerch.com

The timeline behind davidgogginsmerch.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 Goggins, LLC v. Prodip Mondal Claim Number: FA2601002199715 PARTIES Complainant is Goggins, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Lindsay M.R. Jones of Merchant & Gould, P.C., Minnesota, USA. Respondent is ("Respondent"), India. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <davidgogginsmerch.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 January 14, 2026; Forum received payment on January 14, 2026. On January 15, 2026, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <davidgogginsmerch.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 January 16, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a 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@davidgogginsmerch.com. Also on January 16, 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 February 6, 2026, 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 is the business entity owned by famous veteran, athlete, and motivational speaker, David Goggins, who is a famous motivational speaker, author, and retired United States Navy SEAL. Complainant first adopted the DAVID GOGGINS marks in the United States in connection with apparel products and accessories on or before 2020. Complainant has established rights in, inter alia, the DAVID GOGGINS mark through its registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 6,708,371, registered April 19, 2022). The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark as it incorporates the DAVID GOGGINS mark in its entirety, merely with the addition of the descriptive term "merch" and the ".com" gTLD. ii) Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant authorized or licensed Respondent to use the DAVID GOGGINS mark in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not using the domain name in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services, or for a legitimate non-commercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to impersonate Complainant. The disputed domain name resolves to a website offering competitive goods for sale. The use of a confusingly similar domain name to attract Internet traffic to a commercial website is not a use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor is it a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. iii) Respondent's diversion of traffic to competitive product offerings also shows bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). Respondent intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the disputed domain name, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent's website, thereby disrupting Complainant's business, in violation of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). Complainant established rights in its famous DAVID GOGGINS marks before Respondent registered the disputed domain name. Respondent is found to have had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights prior to registration due to the longstanding use, registration, and fame of the DAVID GOGGINS marks. B. Respondent Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS 1. The disputed domain name was registered on December 7, 2023. 2. Complainant has established rights in the DAVID GOGGINS mark through its registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 6,708,371, registered April 19, 2022). 3. The website to which the disputed domain name resolves mimics Complainant's website by prominently featuring Complainant's DAVID GOGGINS mark, DAVID GOGGINS's photo, and displaying product images and offering for sale apparel and accessory products under the DAVID GOGGINS marks. 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 the DAVID GOGGINS mark through its registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 6,708,371, registered April 19, 2022). Registration with the USPTO is generally sufficient to establish rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). As Complainant has submitted evidence of such registration, the Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in the DAVID GOGGINS mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Complainant contends that the disputed domain name, <davidgogginsmerch.com>, is confusingly similar to Complainant's DAVID GOGGINS mark. The disputed domain name incorporates the DAVID GOGGINS mark in its entirety, merely with the addition of the descriptive term "merch" and the ".com" gTLD. The Panel finds that the addition of the term "merch" does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. The term "merch" is a common abbreviation for "merchandise" and is widely used as a descriptive term to designate branded goods or fan-related products. Thus, appending this descriptive term and the ".com" gTLD to Complainant's mark merely suggests to Internet users that the disputed domain name is related to an online store selling Complainant's products, thereby reinforcing the likelihood of confusion. Therefore, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark under 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 claims Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant's DAVID GOGGINS mark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Where a response is lacking, WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). The unmasked WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as "Prodip Mondal." The Panel finds that there is nothing in the records to suggest that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Complainant argues that Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services, or for a legitimate non-commercial or fair use, because Respondent attempts to pass itself off as Complainant. Impersonating Complainant on the website associated with the disputed domain name does not qualify as either a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Am. Int'l Group, Inc. v. Busby, FA 156251 (Forum May 30, 2003) (finding that the respondent attempts to pass itself off as the complainant online, which is blatant unauthorized use of the complainant's mark and is evidence that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name). Complainant has submitted a screenshot of the website resolving from the disputed domain name, which mimics Complainant's own website by prominently featuring Complainant's DAVID GOGGINS mark, DAVID GOGGINS's photo, and displaying product images and offering for sale apparel and accessory products under the DAVID GOGGINS marks. The Panel finds that Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services, or for any legitimate non-commercial or fair use, as Respondent uses the disputed domain name to offer products competing with those of Complainant while impersonating Complainant. The Panel finds that Complainant has established a prima facie case based on the considerations above. As Respondent has not filed a Response or attempted 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 contends that Respondent's diversion of traffic to competitive product offerings disrupts Complainant's business, which constitutes bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). Further, Respondent intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the disputed domain name, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent's website, in violation of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). The Panel observes that capitalizing on the confusing similarity of a domain name to exploit the valuable goodwill of a protected mark and to mislead Internet users as to the source of the domain name is evidence of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Am. Univ. v. Cook, FA 208629 (Forum Dec. 22, 2003) ("Registration and use of a domain name that incorporates another's mark with the intent to deceive Internet users in regard to the source or affiliation of the domain name is evidence of bad faith."). Further, the use of the disputed domain name to impersonate Complainant may demonstrate Respondent's bad faith registration and use. 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."). The Panel notes that the screenshot of the website to which the disputed domain name resolves mimics Complainant's website by prominently featuring Complainant's DAVID GOGGINS mark, DAVID GOGGINS's photo, and displaying product images and offering for sale apparel and accessory products under the DAVID GOGGINS marks. The Panel finds that Respondent attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the disputed domain name, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent's website, by diverting Internet users seeking Complainant to Respondent's website, thereby disrupting Complainant's business for commercial benefit. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) & (iv). Complainant further contends that Respondent's registration of the disputed domain name with knowledge of Complainant's rights in its well-known DAVID GOGGINS mark constitutes evidence of bad faith registration and use. The Panel finds that Complainant has established substantial rights and reputation in the DAVID GOGGINS marks. As the business entity for the renowned veteran, ultra-athlete, and author of the New York Times Best Seller Can't Hurt Me, Complainant has continuously used the marks since at least 2020 in connection with apparel and professional services. The Panel accepts that, through significant promotion, the DAVID GOGGINS marks have acquired substantial goodwill and widespread consumer recognition as an identifier of Complainant's goods and services prior to the registration of the disputed domain name. The Panel infers from the fame of the DAVID GOGGINS mark and the manner in which the disputed domain name is used to mimic Complainant's website that Respondent had knowledge of Complainant's rights in the DAVID GOGGINS mark at the time of registering the disputed domain name. The Panel therefore finds that Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 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 <davidgogginsmerch.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist Dated: February 6, 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.