Revolutiondanceshop.com

The timeline behind revolutiondanceshop.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 Revolution Dancewear LLC v. Tayler Khan Claim Number: FA2606002229601 PARTIES Complainant is Revolution Dancewear LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Anessa Owen Kramer of Honigman LLP, Michigan, USA. Respondent is Tayler Khan ("Respondent"), Oklahoma, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <revolutiondanceshop.com>, registered with TuringSign Inc. d/b/a Cosmotown. 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. The Honorable Neil Anthony Brown KC as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 26, 2026; Forum received payment on June 26, 2026. On June 30, 2026, TuringSign Inc. d/b/a Cosmotown confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <revolutiondanceshop.com> domain name is registered with TuringSign Inc. d/b/a Cosmotown and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. TuringSign Inc. d/b/a Cosmotown has verified that Respondent is bound by the TuringSign Inc. d/b/a Cosmotown 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 July 6, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 27, 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@revolutiondanceshop.com. Also on July 6, 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 July 28, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed The Honorable Neil Anthony Brown KC 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 made the following contentions. 1. The Complainant is a United States company engaged in the provision and retail supply of dance costumes, dancewear and related goods and services and has been so engaged since 1996. 2. The Complainant provides its aforesaid goods and services under the trademark for REVOLUTION DANCEWEAR & Design. 3. The Complainant acquired its registered trademark rights by its registration of the REVOLUTION DANCEWEAR & Design trademark in the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO"), registration number 3,286,361, registered by the Complainant on August 28, 2007 ("the REVOLUTION DANCEWEAR trademark"). 4. The REVOLUTION DANCEWEAR trademark has attracted substantial goodwill and is uniquely associated with the Complainant's goods and services and with the Complainant as its owner. 5. In addition to the REVOLUTION DANCEWEAR trademark, the Complainant has registered the domain name <revolutiondance.com> which it uses in its business and in particular for its website at www.revolutiondance.com which the Complainant has owned and used since 1996 and which contains detailed information on the Complainant's REVOLUTION DANCEWEAR products ( "the Complainant's official website") and offers them for sale. 6. The Respondent registered the <revolutiondanceshop.com> domain name on December 12, 2025 ("the disputed domain name"). 7. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the REVOLUTION DANCEWEAR trademark. 8. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as: (a) the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii); (b) the Respondent is not a licensee, authorized retailer, associate or distributor of the Complainant and the Complainant has not given any authority or permission to the Respondent to use the REVOLUTION DANCEWEAR trademark in a domain name or in any other manner; (c) the Respondent has not used the domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i); (d) the Respondent has not used the domain name for a legitimate, noncommercial or fair use within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii); (e) the Respondent has taken the substance and dominant portion of the Complainant's REVOLUTION DANCEWEAR trademark without permission and has incorporated it in the disputed domain name which it has used to resolve to a website where it impersonates and passes itself off as the Complainant, purports to offer for sale the Complainant's REVOLUTION DANCEWEAR products, does not offer any genuine products of its own and for phishing; (f) the Respondent is a serial offender and has a history of the impermissible use of other parties' trademarks in domain names and using them to engage in illegal activities of the same sort as that demonstrated by the evidence in this proceeding; (g) by its aforesaid conduct, the Respondent has sought to mislead and deceive internet users and divert them from the Complainant's official website to the Respondent's offending website with the intention of confusing them and disrupting the Complainant 's business; and (h) there is no other ground on which it could conceivably be contended that the Respondent has a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. 9. The Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith as: (a) the aforesaid conduct of the Respondent shows that it registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith; (b) in particular, the Respondent's aforesaid conduct shows that it has taken and used the Complainant's trademark to hold itself out as and impersonate the Complainant, deceive and mislead internet users, compete with the Complainant, misappropriate the contents and presentation of the Complainant's official website and divert internet users from the Complainant's official website to the Respondent's offending website; (c) the disputed domain name has been used by the Respondent to trade on the goodwill of the Complainant in the REVOLUTION DANCEWEAR trademark and the recognition of the Complainant's name, to lure internet users to the Respondent's offending website, to pass itself off as and impersonate the Complainant and to attempt to induce internet users to buy products promoted on its website under the belief that they are genuine and official products of the Complainant; (d) the Respondent had actual knowledge of the Complainant, its name and trademark and the goodwill and renown associated with the trademark at the time that it, the Respondent, registered the disputed domain name; (e) the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name to engage in phishing; and (f) there is no plausible circumstance tending to suggest that the Respondent could have registered and used the disputed domain name other than in bad faith. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS 1. The Complainant is a United States company engaged in the provision and retail supply of dance costumes, dancewear and related goods and services and has been so engaged since 1996. 2. The Complainant provides its aforesaid goods and services under the trademark for REVOLUTION DANCEWEAR & Design. 3. The Complainant acquired its registered trademark rights by the registration of the REVOLUTION DANCEWEAR & Design trademark in the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO"), registration number 3,286,361, registered by the Complainant on August 28,2007 ("the REVOLUTION DANCEWEAR trademark"). 4. The Respondent registered the <revolutiondanceshop.com> domain name on December 12, 2025 ("the disputed domain name"). 5. The Respondent has used the domain name to pass itself off as and impersonate the Complainant, to mislead and deceive internet users into believing that it was lawfully offering the Complainant's REVOLUTION DANCEWEAR products for sale, to compete with the Complainant and for phishing. 6. By reason of the matters aforesaid, and as established by the evidence, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's REVOLUTION DANCEWEAR trademark, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. 7. Accordingly, the disputed domain name should be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant. 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: 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 first question that arises is whether the Complainant has rights in a trademark or service mark on which it may rely in this proceeding. The evidence is that the Complainant provides its goods and services under the REVOLUTION DANCEWEAR & Design trademark. The evidence is also that the Complainant acquired its registered trademark rights by the registration of the REVOLUTION DANCEWEAR & Design trademark in the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO"), registration number 3,286,361, registered by the Complainant on August 28, 2007 ("the REVOLUTION DANCEWEAR trademark"). All of the aforesaid facts have been established by documentary evidence that the Complainant has examined and finds to be in order, including that the REVOLUTION DANCEWEAR trademark is registered in the name of the Complainant and that it is current. The Complainant has therefore established its trademark rights and hence its standing to institute this proceeding. The next question that arises is whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's REVOLUTION DANCEWEAR trademark. In that regard, it is well-established that in undertaking this exercise, a panel should have regard only to the strict wording of the relevant trademark and domain name and not to any other evidence that might emerge when dealing with other issues such as the conduct of the parties as shown by the contents of any website to which the disputed domain name resolves. The Panel finds that the domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's REVOLUTION DANCEWEAR trademark. That is so, as the domain name incorporates the substance and dominant portion of the REVOLUTION DANCEWEAR trademark, namely, in the format of the domain name, "revolution dance", merely omitting, in the format of the trademark, the word "WEAR" and replacing it with the word "shop" in the domain name. Internet users would therefore naturally assume that it is a domain name of the Complainant or one authorized by it, that it is a domain name reflecting and associated with the REVOLUTION DANCEWEAR trademark and that it can be used to acquire at a physical or online shop, the goods and services of the Complainant offered for sale under the REVOLUTION DANCEWEAR trademark. Internet users would not be deterred in reaching that conclusion, and would probably be confirmed in it, by the omission of "WEAR" and the inclusion of "shop". It is also well-established that a panel should not have regard to a domain name having been registered in a Top level Domain, such as ".com" in the present case, as all domain names must have some such extension. In substance, an internet user would conclude that the disputed domain name is similar to the trademark and confusingly so because the domain name is invoking the trademark. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the REVOLUTION DANCEWEAR trademark. The Complainant has thus made out the first of the three elements that it must establish as provided in Policy ¶4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests It is now well established that the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) and that, if the prima facie case is made out, the burden then shifts to the Respondent to show that it does have such rights or legitimate interests. The Panel finds on the evidence that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case that arises from the following considerations. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name on all of the grounds relied on by the Complainant, namely: (a) the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii); the evidence is that the Respondent is not known by the domain name commonly or otherwise and there is no evidence that it is known by any name other than its own, which is Tayler Khan; (b) the Respondent is not a licensee, authorized retailer, associate or distributor of the Complainant and the Complainant has not given any authority or permission to the Respondent to use the REVOLUTION DANCEWEAR trademark in a domain name or in any other manner; thus, there is no way in which the Respondent could claim that it had any right to use the Complainant's trademark and no ground for concluding that the domain name had been registered with any sort of consent of the Complainant; (c) the Respondent has not used the domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i); the evidence is that the Respondent has used the domain name to resolve to its website which is shown at Exhibit F to the Complaint; this shows that the Respondent has made extensive use of the word REVOLUTION which the consumer would obviously associate with REVOLUTION DANCEWEAR as it is juxtaposed with the prominent and unique design element of the trademark and illustrations of extensive items of the dance wear collection known to be sold by the Complainant under its REVOLUTION DANCEWEAR trademark; it also uses the words "Shop Now", showing conclusively that the site is intended to be used by the Respondent to encourage internet users to buy the products on display; moreover, those products are the Complainant's products that have been copied from its official website; the website also includes a section headed "About Revolution", leaving no doubt that the intention is to pass the Respondent off as, and impersonate, the Complainant; the Panel can also see from the version of the offending website on the Wayback Machine at www.archive.org, that it has been used to lure internet users to the site and encourage them to buy the extensive range products on display; it is apparent from the same source that the website carries "Checkout" and "View Cart" facilities which must mean that the Respondent is seeking personal and financial information from potential purchasers and is hence engaging in a phishing expedition; the evidence is also that the aforementioned products being offered for sale are exact copies of the Complainant's genuine products and that the photographs and color scheme that the Complainant has used to illustrate its official website have been copied to the Respondent's website; the evidence in Exhibit F shows that the intention and conduct of the Respondent has been not only to steal the Complainant's trademark including its design element but to pretend that it is offering for sale genuine products of the Complainant supported by the Complainant's genuine illustrations; moreover, the evidence in Exhibits G1, G2 and G3 shows that with respect to 3 examples of dancewear, the Respondent has helped itself to photographs and product listings taken from the Complainant's official website; none of this conduct by the Respondent could conceivably be said to be bona fide and would be more accurately described as mala fide; (d) the Respondent has not used the domain name for a legitimate, noncommercial or fair use within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii); there is no evidence to suggest that the domain name has been used legitimately as it uses the Complainant's trademark, which is an illegitimate use; there is no evidence that the domain name is used for a non-commercial purpose and there is no evidence that constructing a domain name based on another party's trademark could possibly be fair, either to the Complainant or internet users in general; (e) the Respondent has taken the substance and dominant portion of the Complainant's REVOLUTION DANCEWEAR trademark without permission and has incorporated it in the disputed domain name which it has used to resolve to a website where it impersonates and passes itself off as the Complainant, purports to offer for sale the Complainant's REVOLUTION DANCEWEAR products, does not offer any genuine products of its own and for phishing; this has been established by the evidence already referred to and it is not necessary to repeat it; as such, that evidence could not give rise to a right or legitimate interest in the domain name on the part of the Respondent; (f) the Respondent is a serial offender and has a history of the impermissible use of other parties' trademarks in domain names and using them to engage in illegal activities of the same sort as those demonstrated by the evidence in this proceeding; it has been shown by the Complainant's meticulous work that the Respondent has been engaged in a prior subterfuge recorded in the decision in Mason Companies, Inc. v. Tayler Khan FA 2212526 (Forum Apr. 24, 2026), in which the Respondent perpetrated improper actions involving copying a trademark, adding the word "shop" to the trademark of the Complainant in that proceeding and using it to divert internet users to its website; the Respondent was held to be liable for the improper use of the Complainant's trademark, which is the basis of the Complaint in the present case; by its aforesaid conduct, the Respondent has sought to mislead and deceive internet users and divert them from the Complainant's official website to the Respondent's offending website with the intention of confusing them and disrupting the Complainant 's business; and (g) there is no other ground on which it could conceivably be contended that the Respondent has a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. All of these matters make out the prima facie case against the Respondent. The Respondent is in default and has not advanced any evidence or submissions to show that it could rebut the Complainant's contentions. The Complainant has therefore made out the second of the three elements it must establish under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith It is clear that to establish bad faith for the purposes of the Policy, the Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith. It is also clear that the criteria set out in Policy ¶ 4(b), described in that provision as being "without limitation", are not exclusive but that domain name proceedings may also rely on conduct that is bad faith within the generally accepted meaning of that expression. In view of the evidence discussed above, which evidence is equally as applicable to bad faith as it is to rights and legitimate interests and which it is not necessary to repeat, it is clear that the Complainant has made out all of the grounds relied on. The Respondent has clearly been motivated by bad faith in the registration of the domain name, which it clearly did to mislead and deceive internet users and it has continued in that conduct after its registration, showing bad faith use. Thus, the Complainant has established that the registration was in bad faith and also that it is being used in bad faith, thereby satisfying the foregoing requirement. The registration of the domain name was in bad faith because it gave the false impression to internet users that it was a domain name of or associated with the Complainant, which it was not and that it had been registered by the Complainant or was authorised by it, which it also was not; the evidence also shows that the Respondent was intending to pass itself off as and impersonate the Complainant, an intention that was subsequently borne out by the evidence of the way in which the Respondent has used the domain name. The evidence in that regard has already been shown to establish that the Respondent has used the domain name to purport to sell the Complainant's genuine REVOLUTION DANCEWEAR products to potential customers. The Respondent therefore acted dishonestly and misleadingly in both its registration and use of the domain name. It is therefore clear from the evidence that, as the Complainant has submitted: (a) the evidence of the Respondent's aforesaid conduct shows that it registered and has used the disputed domain name in bad faith; (b) in particular, the evidence shows that the Respondent has taken and used the Complainant's trademark in its domain name to hold itself out as, pass itself off as and impersonate the Complainant, and deceive and mislead internet users, compete with the Complainant, misappropriate the contents and presentation of the Complainant's official website and divert internet users from the Complainant's official website to the Respondent's offending website; (c) the evidence shows that the disputed domain name has been used by the Respondent to trade on the goodwill of the Complainant in the REVOLUTION DANCEWEAR trademark and the recognition of the Complainant's name, to lure internet users to the Respondent's offending website, to pass itself off as and impersonate the Complainant and to attempt to induce internet users to buy products promoted on its website under the belief that they are genuine and official products of the Complainant; (d) the Respondent had actual knowledge of the Complainant, its name and trademark and the goodwill and renown associated with the trademark at the time that it, the Respondent, registered the disputed domain name; it is clear from the contents of the website that the Respondent had an intricate knowledge of the products of the Complainant offered under the trademark and that it therefore had actual knowledge of the trademark; indeed, it could not have carried out its subterfuge without having such actual knowledge; (e) the evidence of the contents of the offending website showing that the Respondent included in it sections entitled "Checkout" and "View Cart" establishes that the Respondent has attempted to obtain personal and financial information from potential purchasers and that it is hence using the domain name to engage in a phishing expedition; (f) the evidence shows that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to generate confusion within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv); the Respondent clearly intended to confuse internet users into believing that it was the Complainant or was authorized by it and that it was lawfully able to sell the Complainant's products, which it was not; and (g) there is no plausible circumstance shown by the evidence that tends to suggest that the Respondent could have registered and used the disputed domain name other than in bad faith. The Complainant has thus made out the third of the three elements that it must establish under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii), namely that the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant has presented a detailed and persuasive case consisting of evidence that has established all of the constituent elements that must be proved under the Policy and has cited prior UDRP decisions that support its contentions. It is therefore entitled to the relief it seeks, namely transfer of the disputed domain name. 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 <revolutiondanceshop.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. The Honorable Neil Anthony Brown KC Panelist Dated: July 29, 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.