Essentialsclothstore.com, Essentialhoodieoutlet.com

The timeline behind essentialsclothstore.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

How each disputed name was decided in this proceeding.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION Fear of God, LLC v. SHAHBAZ BUTT Claim Number: FA2607002230542 PARTIES Complainant is Fear of God, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Jessica Sganga of Baker & Hostetler LLP, California, USA. Respondent is SHAHBAZ BUTT ("Respondent"), United Kingdom. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES The domain names at issue are <essentialsclothstore.com> and <essentialhoodieoutlet.com>, registered with Godaddy.Com, Llc. 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. Steven M. Levy as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on July 1, 2026; Forum received payment on July 1, 2026. On July 6, 2026, Godaddy.Com, Llc confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <essentialsclothstore.com> and <essentialhoodieoutlet.com> domain names are registered with Godaddy.Com, Llc and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. 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 July 14, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 3, 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@essentialsclothstore.com and postmaster@essentialhoodieoutlet.com. Also on July 14, 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 August 4, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Steven M. Levy 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant, founded in 2013 by designer Jerry Lorenzo, is a global apparel company known for high-end streetwear that has collaborated with brands such as Adidas, Nike, and Converse and enjoys a substantial celebrity following. Complainant has used its ESSENTIALS mark in commerce since at least 2017 and holds registered trademark rights in multiple countries for the terms ESSENTIALS and ESSENTIALS FEAR OF GOD. Complainant's social media accounts related to its brand and the ESSENTIALS line have millions of followers, and Complainant and its ESSENTIALS products have received substantial global press coverage. The disputed domain names, registered on November 14, 2025 and December 9, 2025 respectively, are confusingly similar to Complainant's ESSENTIALS mark because they incorporate the mark in its entirety (in one instance deleting the letter "s") and merely append the descriptive terms "clothstore" or "hoodieoutlet," together with the ".com" top-level domain. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names where it is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant's marks, it is not commonly known by the disputed domain names, and it uses the disputed domain names to resolve to websites that display Complainant's registered trademarks, in a font matching that used by Complainant, alongside Complainant's copyrighted photographs, purporting to sell ESSENTIALS-branded clothing at discounted prices. Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith where it has prior knowledge of Complainant's mark and its websites reproduce Complainant's trademarks and copyrighted images to create a false impression of affiliation with Complainant, deceive consumers into believing they are purchasing genuine Complainant products, and disrupt Complainant's business, all for Respondent's commercial gain. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS - Complainant holds registered trademark rights in the ESSENTIALS and ESSENTIALS FEAR OF GOD marks, and the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the marks; - Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names as it is not commonly known by them and uses them to pass off its retail apparel sale websites as those of Complainant; and - Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith to disrupt and compete with Complainant's business and to attract, for commercial gain, internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's marks. 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 3.1 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 ESSENTIALS mark, standing alone and in combination as ESSENTIALS FEAR OF GOD, based on registrations with various national and international trademark offices. In support, Complainant submits copies of certain trademark registration certificates and screenshots from official trademark office websites (including United States Reg. No. 7422375 dated June 18, 2024; Japan Reg. No. 1774059 dated November 28, 2025; Canada Reg. No. TMA1286414 dated January 24, 2025; and WIPO Madrid Protocol International Reg. No. 1722095 dated December 6, 2022).1 Registration of a mark with a national or international trademark authority, evidenced by an actual registration certificate, is sufficient to demonstrate rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). 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).") The Panel thus finds that Complainant has demonstrated rights in its ESSENTIALS and ESSENTIALS FEAR OF GOD marks under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Next, Complainant argues that the <essentialsclothstore.com> and <essentialhoodieoutlet.com> domain names are confusingly similar to the ESSENTIALS and ESSENTIALS FEAR OF GOD marks because they incorporate the terms "essential" or "essentials" and add only the descriptive terms "clothstore" and "hoodieoutlet," respectively, together with the ".com" TLD. The addition of a descriptive term to a mark typically does not negate confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) and may even enhance it where the added term directly relates to the complainant's business. See 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."); see also Vance Int'l, Inc. v. Abend, FA 970871 (Forum June 8, 2007) (finding that adding a term describing the complainant's business "very significantly increased" the likelihood of confusion). It is also well established that the addition of a TLD is most often irrelevant to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis. See Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association v. Shi Lei aka Shilei, FA 1784643 (Forum June 18, 2018). Here, the terms "clothstore" and "hoodieoutlet" directly relate to Complainant's clothing business and thus enhance, rather than diminish, the likelihood of confusion. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant's ESSENTIALS and ESSENTIALS FEAR OF GOD marks 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 names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Should it succeed in this effort, the burden then shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011); 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 first contends that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names because Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names and Complainant has not authorized or licensed to Respondent any rights in the ESSENTIALS or ESSENTIALS FEAR OF GOD marks. It has become well accepted that the information set out in a disputed domain name's WHOIS record may inform consideration of whether a respondent is commonly known by a disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Bittrex, Inc. v. Operi Manaha, FA 1815225 (Forum Dec. 10, 2018) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <appbittrex.com> domain name where the WHOIS information lists Respondent as "Operi Manaha," and nothing else in the record suggested Respondent was authorized to use the BITTREX mark.). In addition, a lack of authorization to use a complainant's mark may indicate that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) ("lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant's mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)"). The WHOIS information for the disputed domain names, as revealed by the concerned Registrar, identifies the Registrant as "Shahbaz Butt", a name bearing no resemblance to the disputed domain names, and there is no evidence that Respondent is known otherwise. Further, the fact that Complainant's marks appear on Respondent's websites does not, itself, indicate that Respondent is commonly known by the domain names where such use appears intended to create consumer confusion. Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and "Madonna.com", D2000-0847 (WIPO Oct. 16, 2000) ("use which intentionally trades on the fame of another cannot constitute a 'bona fide' offering of goods or services. To conclude otherwise would mean that a Respondent could rely on intentional infringement to demonstrate a legitimate interest, an interpretation that is obviously contrary to the intent of the Policy.") Complainant also asserts that it "has not authorized or licensed Respondent to use Complainant's ESSENTIALS Mark, or anything confusingly similar thereto, for any purpose." This is not contested by Respondent who has not filed a Response or made any other submission in this case. Therefore, the Panel finds no grounds upon which to conclude that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain names per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Complainant further asserts that Respondent uses the disputed domain names to operate websites that prominently display Complainant's registered ESSENTIALS and FEAR OF GOD trademarks in a font matching Complainant's own branding, together with Complainant's copyrighted product photography, purporting to sell Complainant's clothing at marked-down prices. Passing oneself off as a complainant in this manner and thereby diverting internet users to a respondent's own webpage, is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iv). See Guess? IP Holder L.P. and Guess?, Inc. v. Kathrin Gerste / Martin Engel / Ulrike Schreiner / Juliane Scherer / Barbara Blau, FA 2080822 (Forum Feb. 23, 2024) ("Respondent's website purports to offer counterfeit clothing, apparel, and accessories for sale, while displaying Complainant's trademark and copyrighted images owned by Complainant. Respondent's use of the at-issue domain names to pass off in this manner constitutes neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)."); see also Juicy Couture, Inc. v. Francisco Gibbs, FA 1296086 (Forum Jan. 13, 2009) ("the <juicycouturewholesale.com> domain name is being used in association with a website that offers counterfeits of Complainant's products for sale without authorization. Such use for the purpose of benefiting from the goodwill associated with Complainant's JUICY COUTURE mark does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i).") In support of its contentions Complainant provides screenshots of Respondent's websites which prominently feature the ESSENTIALS graphic logo and a marquis image showing a model wearing Complainant's clothing showing the words FEAR OF GOD and ESSENTIALS next to a button labeled "Shop Now". Also appearing are images of various sweatshirts, jackets, shorts, and other clothing items and below each item is a price displayed in a strike-through grey font followed by a significantly lower price shown in a gold font. The sites also include the message "Hi there, sign up and connect" followed by a link titled "Newsletter Subscribe". Finally, the footers of the sites display the notice "Copyright © 2026 Essentials Hoodie" and there is no statement or other indication that the sites do not originate with Complainant. Based upon the submitted evidence, the Panel agrees with Complainant's contention that Respondent impersonates Complainant or at a minimum creates a false impression that its site is affiliated with Complaint and that it is deceiving potential customers. Respondent has not participated in this proceeding and has therefore offered no explanation or evidence of any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Considering all of the above, the Panel finds that Complainant has made a prima facie case which Respondent has failed to rebut, and that the disputed domain names are not being used for a bona fide offering of goods or services or in a legitimate noncommercial or fair manner under either Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant asserts that Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in its ESSENTIALS and ESSENTIALS FEAR OF GOD marks. Actual knowledge can provide a solid foundation upon which to build an argument of bad faith registration under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) and this can be demonstrated based on the use to which a disputed domain name is put. See WordPress Foundation v. mich delorme / mich d dots tlds, FA 1584295 (Forum Nov. 25, 2014) ("Because Respondent here relies on the WORDPRESS mark in the disputed domain name and also makes use of Complainant's services at the resolving page, the Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark, and that such knowledge evidences Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith.") Also UDRP Perspectives on Recent Jurisprudence, § 3.4 (updated Jan. 15, 2025), available at https://udrpperspectives.org) ("For bad faith to be present, the Respondent must have actual knowledge of the existence of the Complainant, the trademark owner.") Complainant asserts that its marks are well known and that Respondent knew of Complainant and its trademarks prior to registering the disputed domain names. Submitted into evidence are screenshots from Complainant's own <fearofgod.com> website showing its use of the ESSENTIALS and ESSENTIALS FEAR OF GOD marks as well as a screenshot of its Instagram page and copies of news articles about Complainant and its marks from such publications as GQ, Feature.com, Bazaar, and Business Insider. This evidence shows that Complainant's mark has achieved some measure of customer reputation. The Panel also finds convincing the content of Respondent's websites which display Complainant's mark and logo and numerous images of Complainant's products. Upon a review of the websites that resolve from the disputed domain names, the Panel finds that Respondent is passing itself off as Complainant and this supports the conclusion that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's marks at the time that it registered the disputed domain names and that it did so in bad faith. Next, Complainant argues that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith because Respondent passes itself off as Complainant by confusing and deceiving consumers into thinking that they are dealing with websites that originate with Complainant and are a genuine source for its products. Such conduct is indicative of bad faith per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). See Tesla Inc. v. Ultimate / Jonathan Littlewood, FA 2052426 (Forum Aug. 2, 2023) (finding bad faith where "Respondent has attempted to commercially gain or otherwise benefit by fraudulently impersonating Complainant to entice shoppers to purchase on Respondent's website.") The Panel references the screenshots of the sites resolving from the disputed domain names as described in detail in the previous section. These show Respondent's abundant use of Complainant's graphic logos and its marks as well as copyrighted images of Complainant's clothing supposedly offered for sale at deeply discounted prices. This gives the clear impression that Respondent's websites originate with Complainant and are improperly disrupting Complainant's business through competition and seeking commercial gain based on confusion with its marks. Based on a preponderance of the presented evidence, the Panel agrees with Complainant's assertion that Respondent is targeting the ESSENTIALS and ESSENTIALS FEAR OF GOD marks and is seeking to impersonate and compete with Complainant and obtain commercial gain through customer confusion. As such, the Panel finds that Respondent both registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv) and thus under ¶ 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 <essentialsclothstore.com> and <essentialhoodieoutlet.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Steven M. Levy Panelist Dated: August 6, 2026 [1] In support of its claim of registered trademark rights Complainant also submits a table listing certain registration numbers, countries, dates, and related information. However, a mere textual recitation of trademark registration data is not evidence of trademark rights. As no trademark registration certificates or screenshots from the listed trademark offices are submitted for certain items in Complainant's submitted list, and as this informational table is not, itself, evidence of Complainant's claimed trademark rights, the Panel declines to consider it. 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.