Commedesgarconnn.com

The timeline behind commedesgarconnn.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 Comme Des Garcons, Ltd. and Comme Des Garcons Co., Ltd. v. Muhammad Qasim / 16301594 Claim Number: FA2602002206248 PARTIES Complainant is Comme Des Garcons, Ltd. and Comme Des Garcons Co., Ltd. ("Complainant"), represented by Alexa Sussmane of McCue Sussmane Zapfel & Cohen P.C., New York, USA. Respondent is Muhammad Qasim / 16301594 ("Respondent"), Great Britain. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <commedesgarconnn.com>, registered with Cloudflare, Inc. PANEL The undersigned certifies that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 19, 2026; Forum received payment on February 19, 2026. On February 20, 2026, Cloudflare, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <commedesgarconnn.com> domain name is registered with Cloudflare, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Cloudflare, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Cloudflare, 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 23, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 16, 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@commedesgarconnn.com. Also on February 23, 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 March 17, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin 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. PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE COMPLAINANTS The relevant rules governing multiple complainants are UDRP Rule 3(a) and Forum's Supplemental Rule 1(e). UDRP Rule 3(a) states, "Any person or entity may initiate an administrative proceeding by submitting a complaint." Forum's Supplemental Rule 1(e) defines "The Party Initiating a Complaint Concerning a Domain Name Registration" as a "single person or entity claiming to have rights in the domain name, or multiple persons or entities who have a sufficient nexus who can each claim to have rights to all domain names listed in the Complaint." In Tasty Baking, Co. & Tastykake Invs., Inc. v. Quality Hosting, FA 208854 (Forum Dec. 28, 2003), the panel treated the two complainants as a single entity where both parties held rights in trademarks contained in the disputed domain names. Likewise, in Am. Family Health Srvs. Group, LLC v. Logan, FA 220049 (Forum Feb. 6, 2004), the panel found a sufficient link between the complainants where there was a license between the parties regarding use of the TOUGHLOVE mark. There are two Complainants in this matter: Comme Des Garcons, Ltd. and Comme Des Garcons Co., Ltd. The business names are almost identical and represent offices in New York and Tokyo. Complainant refers to the entities as "Complainant", indicating both entities have trademark rights in COMME DES GARCONS, a part of both business names. In the absence of any argument to the contrary, the Panel accepts Complainant's designation and elects to treat them as a single entity in this proceeding, collectively referred to as "Complainant." PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant 1. Respondent's <commedesgarconnn.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's COMMES DES CARCONS marks. 2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <commedesgarconnn.com> domain name. 3. Respondent registered and uses the <commedesgarconnn.com> domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent did not file a Response. FINDINGS Complainant holds registrations for its fashion brand/COMMES DES GARCONS marks with various trademark authorities, including the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (e.g., Reg. No 1,941,624, registered on December 12, 1995). Respondent registered the <commedesgarconnn.com> domain name and uses it to sell counterfeit COMMES DES GARCONS goods. 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 Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the COMMES DES GARCONS marks through registration with multiple trademark agencies, including the USPTO. See Red Hat, Inc. v. Muhammad Shahzad, FA 1787738 (Forum June 19, 2018) ("Registration of a mark with multiple trademark agencies is sufficient to demonstrate rights to a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)."). Respondent's <commedesgarconnn.com> domain name uses the dominant portion of Complainant's registered marks, COMMES DES GARCONS, and adds "nn" and the ".com" gTLD. These changes do not sufficiently distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant's marks. See Victoria's Secret et al. v. Zuccarini, FA95762 (Forum Nov. 18, 2000) (finding that misspelling words and adding letters does not create a distinct mark and is instead confusingly similar to the complainant's marks). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent's <commedesgarconnn.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant's COMMES DES GARCONS marks. The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Once Complainant makes a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) ("Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests."). Complainant argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <commedesgarconnn.com> domain name, as Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name, and is not authorized to use the COMMES DES GARCONS marks. The WHOIS information identifies Respondent as "Muhammad Qasim / 16301594". Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and thus has no rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Navistar International Corporation v. N Rahmany, FA 1620789 (Forum June 8, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name where the complainant had never authorized the respondent to incorporate its NAVISTAR mark in any domain name registration). Complainant also contends that Respondent does not use the <commedesgarconnn.com> domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use by using it to divert users to Respondent's competing website. Under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii), using a disputed domain name to divert internet users does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Bank of Am. Corp. v. Nw. Free Cmty. Access, FA 180704 (Forum Sept. 30, 2003) ("Respondent's demonstrated intent to divert Internet users seeking Complainant's website to a website of Respondent and for Respondent's benefit is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)."). Complainant provides screenshots of the website at <commedesgarconnn.com>, which displays Complainant's mark, logo, and products. The Panel finds that this is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, and thus Respondent has no rights under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See eLuxury.com Inc. v. WangJunJie, FA 1075554 (Forum Nov. 30, 2007) (concluding that the sale of counterfeit products is evidence that the respondent does not make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of a disputed domain name). The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant contends that Respondent registered and uses the <commedesgarconnn.com> domain name in bad faith because Respondent disrupts Complainant's business by selling counterfeit items. Using a disputed domain name to sell counterfeit versions of complainant's products is a disruption of its business and thus evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See H-D U.S.A., LLC v. Linchunming / linchunming, FA 1589214 (Forum Dec. 22, 2014) ("As mentioned above, Respondent uses the domain name to promote counterfeit goods like those offered by Complainant. Doing so disrupts Complainant's business and demonstrates Respondent's bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)."). Accordingly, the Panel finds bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). Complainant also argues that Respondent registered and uses the <commedesgarconnn.com> domain name in bad faith by diverting internet users for commercial gain. Using a disputed domain name to divert users for a respondent's commercial gain is evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Drs. Foster & Smith, Inc. v. Lalli, FA 95284 (Forum Aug. 21, 2000) (finding bad faith where the respondent directed Internet users seeking the complainant's site to its own website for commercial gain). The Panel thus finds further bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). Complainant contends that Respondent registered the <commedesgarconnn.com> domain name with knowledge of Complainant's rights in the COMMES DES GARCONS marks. The Panel agrees, noting that Respondent uses the disputed domain name to sell counterfeit COMMES DES GARCONS goods, and finds that this also constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied 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 <commedesgarconnn.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist Dated: March 18, 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.