Everstartco.com

The timeline behind everstartco.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 Walmart Apollo, LLC v. guo qiang Claim Number: FA2608002239752 PARTIES Complainant is Walmart Apollo, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Fatima Y. Kassem of Brooks Kushman P.C., Michigan, USA. Respondent is guo qiang ("Respondent"), China. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <everstartco.com>, registered with DNSPod, 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. Charles A. Kuechenmeister, Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on August 14, 2026; Forum received payment on August 14, 2026. On August 18, 2026, DNSPod, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <everstartco.com> domain name is registered with DNSPod, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. DNSPod, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the DNSPod, 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 August 21, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Chinese and English Written Notice of the Complaint setting a deadline of September 10, 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@everstartco.com. Also on August 21, 2026, the Chinese and English 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 in Chinese and English. On September 11, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Charles A. Kuechenmeister 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 a Response or any other submittal from Respondent. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PRELIMINARY ISSUE: Language of Proceeding According to the registrar, the registration agreement is written in Chinese. Rule 11(a) provides that the language of the proceedings is the language of the registration agreement, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the case. Complainant filed its Amended Complaint in English and requests that these proceedings be conducted in English. Factors which previous panels have seen as important include potential unfairness or unwarranted delay in ordering translation of the pleadings and the Decision, and evidence showing that the respondent can understand the language of the complaint, the language of the domain name, the content on any web pages resolving from the domain name, and prior correspondence between the parties. In this case, the domain name is written in English. The website to which the domain name points is extensive and is written entirely in English (screenshot submitted as Complaint Exhibit 10). This demonstrates that the Respondent is sufficiently proficient in English to participate effectively in this proceeding. Further, the Written Notice of the Complaint, written in both Chinese and English, was served upon Respondent in accordance with Rules 1 and 2. Respondent has not submitted a Response or any indication that it desires to participate in this proceeding, in Chinese or otherwise. Neither the Complainant nor the Panel is proficient in Chinese. Under these circumstances the Panel finds that the additional time and expense of proceeding in Chinese would be unwarranted inasmuch as the only party who might benefit from that has declined to participate. These proceedings will be conducted in English. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant owns and operates a world-wide chain of retail stores. It has rights in the EVERSTART mark based upon its registration of that mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Respondent's <everstartco.com> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the EVERSTART mark. It fully incorporates the mark, merely adding the letters "co" and a generic top-level domain (gTLD). Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. It is not affiliated with Complainant and Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its mark, it is not using the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate non-commercial or fair use but instead is using it to impersonate, pass off as and compete with Complainant, and it has not been commonly known by the domain name. Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith. It is using the domain name to attract for commercial gain Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of its website, it is passing off as Complainant, and it registered the domain name with actual or constructive knowledge of Complainant and its mark. B. Respondent Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted 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 a complainant to prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order cancelling or transferring a domain name: (1) the domain name registered by the respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and (2) the 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, pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules the Panel will decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations 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. Nevertheless, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory allegations unsupported by competent evidence. The Panel finds as follows with respect to the matters at issue in this proceeding: Identical and/or Confusingly Similar The EVERSTART mark was registered to Complainant with the USPTO (Reg. No 6,181,454) on October 20, 2020 (USPTO registration certificate included in Complaint Exhibit 6). Complainant's registration of its EVERSTART mark with the USPTO establishes its rights in that mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Respondent's <everstartco.com> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the EVERSTART mark. It fully incorporates the mark, merely adding the letters "co" and the ".com" gTLD. Complainant's mark is clearly recognizable within the domain name. Adding letters and a gTLD does not distinguish the domain name from Complainant's mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). For the reasons set forth above, the Panel finds that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the EVERSTART mark, in which Complainant has substantial and demonstrated rights. Rights or Legitimate Interests Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult task of "proving a negative," requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. Accordingly, 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 competent, relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. At all times, the burden of proof remains on the complainant. Guggenheim Capital, LLC v. John Hawkins, Louvre Abu Dhabi Museum Case No. DAI2026-0035 Policy ¶ 4(c) lists the following three nonexclusive circumstances, any one of which if proven can demonstrate a respondent's rights or legitimate interests in a domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii): (i) The respondent has used or has made 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) the respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if the respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) the respondent is 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 asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name because (i) is not affiliated with Complainant and Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its mark, (ii) it is not using the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate non-commercial or fair use but instead is using it to impersonate, pass off as and compete with Complainant, and (iv) it has not been commonly known by the domain name. These allegations are addressed as follows: Complainant states that it has not authorized or licensed Respondent to use its mark. Complainant has specific competence to make this statement, it is unchallenged by any evidence before the Panel and is taken as true. While evidence that a respondent is not authorized to use a complainant's mark is not dispositive, it is relevant to the circumstances listed in Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii) and supports a finding that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. Complaint Exhibit 10 contains a screenshot of the website to which the domain name resolves. It prominently displays the EVERSTART mark and features photos of products branded as Complainant's, a number of which are exact duplicates of photos appearing on Complainant's website for its EVERSTART brand (screenshots submitted as Complaint Exhibit 8). Nowhere does Respondent's site state or even suggest that it is not sponsored by Complainant. The site unquestionably represents itself and passes off as that of Complainant. Passing off as a complainant and offering to sell the complainant's products does not qualify as a bona fide offering of goods or services within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or as a legitimate noncommercial or fair use within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). Ripple Labs Inc. v. NGYEN NGOC PHUONG THAO, FA 1741737 (Forum Aug. 21, 2017) ("Respondent uses the [disputed] domain name to divert Internet users to Respondent's website… confusing them into believing that some sort of affiliation exists between it and Complainant… [which] is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)."); Yahoo Assets LLC v. Zanybh Solutions, FA 2022077 (Forum Dec. 12, 2022) ("As the Panel agrees that Respondent appears to be passing off as Complainant to draw Internet traffic, the Panel finds that Respondent lacks any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii)."). The information furnished to Forum by the registrar lists the named Respondent as the registrant of the domain name. This name bears no resemblance to the domain name. Evidence could, of course, in a given case demonstrate that the respondent is commonly known by a domain name different from the name in which it registered the domain name, e.g., the case of a domain name incorporating the brand name of a specific product offered by and associated with the respondent. In the absence of any such evidence, however, UDRP panels have consistently held that WHOIS evidence of a registrant name which does not correspond with the domain name is sufficient to prove that the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name. Respondent has not been commonly known by the domain name. Complainant has made its prima facie case. On the evidence discussed above, and in the absence of any evidence from Respondent, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) requires Complainant to prove that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Policy ¶ 4(b) sets forth a nonexclusive list of four circumstances, any one of which if proven would be evidence of bad faith use and registration of a domain name. They are as follows: (i) circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant which is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the respondent's documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or (ii) the respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) by using the domain name, the respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the respondent's 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 the respondent's web site or location or of a product of service on the respondent 's web site or location. The concept of bad faith as illustrated in the above four subparagraphs necessarily involves a subjective intent on the part of a respondent knowingly to trade upon the goodwill of the complainant. The respondent must intentionally have targeted the complainant's mark. Such subjective intent would in turn require that the respondent actually knew of the complainant or its rights in the relevant mark when it registered the domain name. Constructive notice does not suffice. In attempting to discern actual knowledge and a subjective bad faith intent, panels have looked at many different types of evidence, including but not limited to use of a domain name in direct competition with a trademark owner, impersonation, the parties operating in the same market segment, the parties being physically located in the same general geographic area, a pattern of bad faith conduct, actual prior association between or among the parties, the distinctive nature of the trademark, and the extent to which the trademark has been publicized and is known as a source indicator for the complainant. Unsupported allegations about a respondent's subjective intent are not evidence in this regard. The evidence in this case conclusively demonstrates that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant when it registered the domain name in April of 2026 (WHOIS printout submitted as Complaint Exhibit 1 shows registration date). Complainant or its predecessor in interest had by then been using the EVERSTART mark at least since the 1989 first use date shown on the USPTO registration certificate for the EVERSTART mark included in Complaint Exhibit 6. More tellingly, Respondent had to have had actual knowledge of Complainant and its mark in order to impersonate it with the domain name and the resolving website. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant when it registered the domain name and selected it with the intent to target this Complainant. It registered the domain name in bad faith. The evidence of Respondent's conduct discussed above in the rights or legitimate interests analysis supports a finding of bad faith registration and use based upon the grounds articulated in the Policy and upon additional grounds adopted by UDRP panels over the years. First, by passing off as Complainant and offering to sell products advertised as those of Complainant, Respondent is using the confusingly similar domain name to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its web site by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of that website. Commercial gain is intended or results from the sale of goods from the website. Respondent's conduct fits squarely within the circumstances described in Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) and is manifest evidence of bad faith registration and use. Xylem Inc. and Xylem IP Holdings LLC v. YinSi BaoHu YiKaiQi, FA 1612750 (Forum May 13, 2015) ("The Panel agrees that Respondent's use of the website to display products similar to Complainant's, imputes intent to attract Internet users for commercial gain, and finds bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)."). Next, as discussed above, Respondent is using the domain name to pass off as Complainant. This does not fit precisely within any of the scenarios listed in Policy ¶ 4(b) but that paragraph recognizes that mischief can manifest in many different forms and takes an open-ended approach to bad faith, listing some examples without attempting to enumerate all its varieties. The non-exclusive nature of Policy ¶ 4(b) allows for consideration of additional factors in an analysis for bad faith, and passing off as a complainant, in and of itself, is evidence of bad faith. Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum Dec. 27, 2017) (finding bad faith where "Respondent registered and uses the <lbittrex.com> domain name in bad faith by directing Internet users to a website that mimics Complainant's own website in order to confuse users into believing that Respondent is Complainant or is otherwise affiliated or associated with Complainant."). For the reasons first set forth above, the Panel finds that Respondent registered or is using the domain name in bad faith within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). DECISION Complainant having established all three elements required under the Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <everstartco.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Charles A. Kuechenmeister, Panelist September 14, 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.