Bandolierus.com

The timeline behind bandolierus.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 Karis & Drake, LLC v. liangxuan zhang Claim Number: FA2604002215878 PARTIES Complainant is Karis & Drake, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by RiKaleigh Omosheyin of K&L Gates LLP, Illinois, USA. Respondent is liangxuan zhang ("Respondent"), China. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <bandolierus.com>, registered with Name.com, 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. Debrett G. Lyons as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on April 14, 2026; Forum received payment on April 14, 2026. On April 15, 2026, Name.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <bandolierus.com> domain name is registered with Name.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Name.com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Name.com, 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 April 15, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 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@bandolierus.com. Also on April 15, 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 May 6, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Debrett G. Lyons 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 asserts trademark rights in BANDOLIER which it uses in connection with phone cases, bags, and accessories. Complainant submits that the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark. Complainant further submits that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name because it has not been authorized to use the trademark; there is no evidence that Respondent is commonly known by the domain name; and Respondent does not use the domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate non-commercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent has used the domain name in connection with a website using the trademark and advertising for sale counterfeit goods appearing identical to those sold by Complainant. Complainant finally submits that Respondent registered the domain name in bad faith with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights and used it in bad faith to unfairly capitalize on Complainant's rights for Respondent's commercial gain. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a formal Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS The factual findings pertinent to the decision in this case are that: 1. Complainant owns, inter alia, United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") Reg. No. 4,577,346, registered on July 29, 2014, for BANDOLIER; 2. Respondent registered the domain name on September 1, 2022; and 3. the domain name resolves to a website advertising phone cases, bags, and accessories, all showing the trademark. 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. Identical and/or Confusingly Similar Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires a two-fold enquiry—a threshold investigation into whether a complainant has rights in a trademark, followed by an assessment of whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark. It is well established by decisions under this Policy that a trademark registered with a national authority is evidence of trademark rights (see, for example, Mothers Against Drunk Driving v. phix, FA 174052 (Forum Sept. 25, 2003)). Complainant provides evidence of its registration of BANDOLIER with the USPTO, a national trademark authority, and so has shown trademark rights. The Panel finds the domain name confusing similar to the trademark. Addition of the country name abbreviation, "US", and the gTLD, ".com", is insufficient to create a point of distinction from the trademark. (see, for example, Rollerblade, Inc. v. McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000) finding that the gTLD can be disregarded for the purposes of comparison; Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognisable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element."); Wirtgen Group Zweigniederlassung Der John Deere GmbH & Co. KG v. John Scott, FA 2172278 (Forum Sept. 15, 2025) finding <us-wirtgen-group.com> confusingly similar to the WIRTGEN mark; Smith & Wesson Inc. v. Lucas Customer / CEO /Customer Sales, FA 2182722 (Forum Nov. 11, 2025) finding <smithwessonusa.com> confusingly similar to SMITH & WESSON). The Panel accordingly finds that Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy states that any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate rights or legitimate interests to a domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy: (i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or (ii) you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue. Complainant need only make out a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, after which the onus shifts to Respondent to rebut that case by demonstrating those rights or interests (see, for example, Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, WIPO Case No. D2000‑0624). There is no suggestion that Respondent might be commonly known by the disputed domain name, or that Respondent has any trademark rights. The Panel accepts Complainant's assertion that Respondent has no authority to use the trademark. The use of the domain name, as described above, is clearly not a bona fide offering of goods or services or fair use of the name. The evidence shows that the product images on the resolving website are copied directly from Complainant's website. The Panel finds no evidence of rights or legitimate interest and a prima facie case has been made (see, for example, Caterpillar Inc. v. Carlos Remy, FA 1825645 (Forum Feb. 18, 2019) ("Use of a domain name to pass itself off as a complainant in order to sell competing goods is not a use indicative of rights or legitimate interests per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii)."); Wolverine World Wide, Inc. v. Fergus Knox, FA 1627751 (Forum Aug. 19, 2015) finding no bona fide offering of goods or legitimate noncommercial or fair use where Respondent used the resolving website to sell products branded with Complainant's MERRELL mark, which were either counterfeit products or legitimate products of Complainant being resold without authorization). The onus shifts to Respondent and in the absence of a Response, Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or interests and so finds that Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out four illustrative circumstances, which, though not exclusive, shall be evidence of the registration and use of the domain name in bad faith for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, including: 4(b)(iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location. The circumstances set out above in relation to the second element satisfy the Panel that Respondent was aware of Complainant and its trademarks when it created the disputed domain name. The Panel has already found the terms to be confusingly similar. The resolving website clearly exists for commercial gain. In terms of the Policy, the Panel finds that Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of that website and the products promoted there (see, for example, Oura Health Oy v. Andreas Neunhaeuserer / Label Products BV, FA 2155522 (Forum June 6, 2025)). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has established the third and final element of the Policy. 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 <bandolierus.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Debrett G. Lyons, Panelist Dated: May 7, 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.