Beararcherystoreusa.com

The timeline behind beararcherystoreusa.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 Bear Archery, Inc. v. Mason Green / CEO Claim Number: FA2601002202458 PARTIES Complainant is Bear Archery, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Charles J. Meyer of Woodard, Emhardt, Henry, Reeves & Wagner LLP, Indiana, USA. Respondent is Mason Green / CEO ("Respondent"), California, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <beararcherystoreusa.com> ("Disputed Domain Name"), registered with Cosmotown, Inc. PANEL The undersigned certifies that I have acted independently and impartially and to the best of my knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. David L. Kreider, Chartered Arbitrator (UK), as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 29, 2026; Forum received payment on January 29, 2026. On January 31, 2026, Cosmotown, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <beararcherystoreusa.com> domain name is registered with Cosmotown, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Cosmotown, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Cosmotown, 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 February 3, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 23, 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@beararcherystoreusa.com. Also on February 3, 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 24, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed David L. Kreider 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 is the owner of the trademarks BEAR ARCHERY and BEAR ("the Marks") for use in connection with various goods and services, including the sale of archery bows, crossbows, targets, quivers, apparel, equipment and accessories. The Complaint alleges that Respondent is using the Disputed Domain Name to divert Internet users to a commercial website ("Respondent's Website") that directly competes with Complainant's services and is nearly identical to Complainant's website. Respondent's Website displays the BEAR ARCHERY Marks and provides links where members of the public can purchase goods that purport to be Complainant's products. Given the identical nature of the goods identified on Respondent's Website, as well as Respondent's wholesale copying of various descriptions of said goods, including images, there can be no doubt that Respondent willfully seeks to trade on the goodwill of Complainant's well-known BEAR ARCHERY and BEAR Marks. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS 1. Complainant, Bear Archery, Inc., is the owner of the BEAR ARCHERY and BEAR trademarks, including U.S. Registration Number 6021733 registered on March 31, 2020 (for its BEAR ARCHERY Mark), and U.S. Registration Number 691222 registered on January 12, 1960 (for its Bear Mark). 2. Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name on October 11, 2025. 3. Although the WHOIS information does not identify the registrant by name, the Registrar has disclosed that Mason Green / CEO, who has no demonstrated connection to the Disputed Domain Name and is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name or any similar name as required under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), is the owner of the Disputed Domain Name. 4. Respondent is using the Disputed Domain Name, without authorization, to divert Internet users to Respondent's Website, a commercial website that purports to offer the same goods in direct competition with Complainant and is indistinguishable with Complainant's website. Such use does not qualify as a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). 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 Disputed Domain Name incorporates Complainant's BEAR ARCHERY Mark in its entirety and merely adds the generic terms "store" and "usa" at the end of "beararchery". As Complainant sells goods at retail locations throughout the United States, the Panel finds that the addition of the descriptive terms "store" and "usa" to the BEAR ARCHERY mark enhances the confusing similarity between the Disputed Domain Name and Complainant's registered Marks, as these terms reinforce the commercial nature of the website rather than differentiating it from Complainant's business. Accordingly, the Panel finds that this element of the Policy has been met. Rights or Legitimate Interests As noted in Finding ¶ 4 above, Respondent is using the Disputed Domain Name, without authorization, to divert Internet users to Respondent's Website, a commercial website that purports to offer the same goods in direct competition with Complainant, and is indistinguishable from Complainant's website. Such use does not qualify as a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name and that the second Policy element is satisfied. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Respondent's Website extensively copies content from Complainant's website, including text, images, and product descriptions, and provides links to directly purchase competing goods. Given the identical nature of the goods offered for sale on Respondent's Website, combined with the extensive copying of Complainant's website content, it is apparent to this Panel that Respondent willfully seeks to trade on the goodwill of Complainant's well-known BEAR ARCHERY Marks. For these reasons, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith. DECISION Having established that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights, that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name, and that the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <beararcherystoreusa.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. David L. Kreider, Panelist Dated: February 25, 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.