Thunderpps.com

The timeline behind thunderpps.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 3M Company v. Wan Yongsen Claim Number: FA2602002206812 PARTIES Complainant is 3M Company ("Complainant"), represented by Wendy C. Larson of Pirkey Barber PLLC, Texas, USA. Respondent is Wan Yongsen ("Respondent"), China. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <thunderpps.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC. 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 February 23, 2026; Forum received payment on February 23, 2026. On February 24, 2026, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <thunderpps.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, LLC 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 26, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 18, 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@thunderpps.com. Also on February 26, 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 19, 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 one of the world's most diversified companies, offering more than 50,000 types of products, including industrial, safety, and consumer products. In particular, Complainant supplies a variety of products used in the automotive industry, including paint spray guns for use in collision repair. The 3M spray guns employ an industry-leading disposable spray cup system, offered under the mark PPS. Complainant has long used the PPS mark in connection with its highly successful spray cup system. In addition to strong common law rights in the PPS mark, Complainant also owns a number of trademark registrations for the PPS mark worldwide, including in China, inter alia, U.S. Reg. Nos. 4156991, 4156990, 5723038; and China Reg. Nos. 4321597, 9879338, 29280134 and 4321608. The disputed domain name incorporates the mark PPS in its entirety, tacking on the term "THUNDER," which is apparently a name used by Respondent or an entity associated with Respondent. ii) Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor authorized by Complainant to use the PPS mark. Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial purpose. Instead, the disputed domain name directs to a website presenting itself as offering Complainant's PPS branded cups, when it does not. Use of the disputed domain name to offer products that compete with Complainant's business and claiming to manufacture PPS cups when Respondent does not, does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Respondent's inclusion of "PPS" in the domain name is not a nominative fair use, but instead, the domain name falsely conveys that the goods and services are offered by Complainant. Complainant sued a party potentially related to Respondent, THUNDER FINISH, relating to the PPS mark, among other issues, in 2017. iii) Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Not only is the disputed domain name itself highly likely to cause confusion, but it is being used for a website that attempts to deceive consumers into thinking that Respondent is offering genuine PPS spray cups when it is not. Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent's website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's PPS mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent's website. Respondent is using a proxy service to conceal its identity. B. Respondent Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS 1. The disputed domain name was registered on April 22, 2021. 2. Complainant has established rights in the PPS mark worldwide, including in China, inter alia, U.S. Reg. No. 4156991 registered June 12, 2012. 3. The disputed domain name directs to a website presenting itself as offering Complainant's PPS branded cups, when in fact it does not. 4. The resolving website of the disputed domain name prominently displays the term "PPS CUP" as the most conspicuous wording on the page, accompanied by a prominent description stating, "TPS FINISH CO.,LTD is a PPS CUP manufacturer in China," among other misleading descriptions. 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 PPS mark worldwide, including in China, inter alia, U.S. Reg. No. 4156991 registered June 12, 2012. As Complainant has submitted proof of the USPTO registration for the PPS mark, the Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Complainant contends that the disputed domain name, <thunderpps.com>, is confusingly similar to its PPS mark insofar as it wholly incorporates the PPS mark, tacking on the term "THUNDER," which is apparently a name used by Respondent or an entity associated with Respondent. The Panel agrees and finds 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 Overview 3.1 ("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 argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Respondent been authorized by Complainant to use Complainant's mark, and Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant. Relevant information, such as WHOIS information, can be used as evidence to show a respondent is or is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). The Panel notes that the unmasked WHOIS data lists "Wan Yongsen" as the registrant, and there is no evidence in the record to suggest Respondent was authorized to use the mark. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Complainant argues Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor any noncommercial or fair use, because the disputed domain name redirects to a website attempting to present itself as offering Complainant's PPS branded cups, when in fact it does not. The Panel observes that when a respondent uses a disputed domain name to pass itself off as a complainant or an authorized manufacturer, the Panel may find that the respondent has failed to demonstrate a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Ripple Labs Inc. v. Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund, FA 1790949 (Forum July 9, 2018) (holding that the respondent's use of the domain name to feature the complainant's mark and related content did not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)). Complainant has provided a screenshot of the website associated with the disputed domain name, demonstrating that the home page prominently displays the term "PPS CUP" as the largest wording on the page, along with the prominent description, "A Professional Paint Cups Manufacturer In China TPS1.0 TPS2.0 TPS3.0 and related products for auto refinishing." Respondent's site also states, "TPS FINISH CO.,LTD is a PPS CUP manufacturer in China. We have three complete PPS paint preparation system production lines, which include PPS LIDS, LINERS, CAPS, HARD CUPS, BLACK COLLARS, ADAPTERS, and can produce 25,000 sets of paint spray cups every day." The Panel finds that Respondent's unauthorized manufacturing and offering of Complainant's PPS branded cups constitute an infringement of Complainant's trademark rights in the PPS mark. Accordingly, the Panel concludes that Respondent's infringing activities and impersonation do not constitute a use of the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). The Panel finds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case that arises from the considerations above. All of these matters establish the prima facie case against Respondent. As Respondent has not filed a Response or attempted by any other means to rebut the prima facie case, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant argues that not only is the disputed domain name itself highly likely to cause confusion, but the disputed domain name is being used for a website that attempts to deceive consumers into thinking that Respondent is offering genuine PPS spray cups when it is not. Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent's website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's PPS mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent's website. As previously noted, Respondent's unauthorized manufacturing and offering of Complainant's PPS branded cups constitute an infringement of Complainant's trademark rights in the PPS mark. The Panel notes that passing off as Complainant while manufacturing and selling counterfeit or competing products without the right holder's authorization demonstrates bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). See Ontel Products Corporation v. waweru njoroge, FA 1762229 (Forum Dec. 22, 2017) ("Respondent's primary offering seem to be counterfeits of Complainant's products...disruptive to Complainant's business per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)."); see also Russell & Bromley Limited v. Li Wei Wei, FA 1752021 (Forum Nov. 17, 2017) (finding bad faith where the respondent used a similar domain to offer competing, counterfeit goods). The Panel concludes that such use of the disputed domain name, which infringes upon the rights in Complainant's mark, disrupts Complainant's business for commercial gain. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). 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 <thunderpps.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist Dated: March 19, 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.