Howieshockeytapes.com

The timeline behind howieshockeytapes.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 Howie's Hockey Inc. v. Jackson Ortiz Claim Number: FA2608002240200 PARTIES Complainant is Howie's Hockey Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Brian D. Wassom of Warner Norcross + Judd LLP, Michigan, USA. Respondent is Jackson Ortiz ("Respondent"), California, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <howieshockeytapes.com>, registered with Gname.com Pte. Ltd. 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. James Bridgeman SC as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on August 17, 2026; Forum received payment on August 17, 2026. On August 18, 2026, Gname.com Pte. Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <howieshockeytapes.com> domain name is registered with Gname.com Pte. Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Gname.com Pte. Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Gname.com Pte. Ltd. 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 26, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 15, 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@howieshockeytapes.com. Also on August 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 September 16, 2027, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed James Bridgeman SC 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 disputed domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant claims statutory rights in the HOWIES mark through its ownership of the trademark registrations described below and submits that its USPTO registrations are sufficient to establish rights under the Policy, relying on the decision of the panel in Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Khalid Ait El Maati / Balleyltduk, FA 1946028 (Forum June 17, 2021), in which a USPTO registration was held sufficient to demonstrate rights in the GOODREADS mark. In addition, Complainant claims ownership of a further registered trademark HOWIES HOCKEY & Design together with strong common-law rights and substantial goodwill arising from more than twenty years of continuous use of HOWIES mark since its foundation. Complainant submits that it has continuously and exclusively expanded use of HOWIES and various HOWIES-formative marks in connection with its domain names, sports tape, related products, product packaging, and promotional items, including T-shirts, hats, and other clothing; and in support of its submissions refers to the exhibits in the annexes to the Complaint. Complainant furthermore submits that it has an extensive goodwill with sales to customers throughout all 50 United States and shipments to customers across six continents and that HOWIES is the preferred brand of thousands of customers who order its merchandise through Complainant's websites. Additionally, Complainant claims that it supplies 31 of the 32 National Hockey League teams and most college hockey programs with products from its range including poly-cotton hockey tape, skate laces, sports-medicine items, athletic tape, hockey tape, and related supplies. Complainant adds that it has an established Internet market for decades with websites at <www.howiesathletictape.com> for athletic tape and <www.howieshockeytape.com> for hockey tape and supplies. Complainant also claims substantial sales of HOWIES-themed merchandise through <howieshockeytape.com/collections/all>. It states that this merchandise features its federally protected trademarks and trade dress and is sold to consumers to promote loyalty to the HOWIES brand. Supporting evidence is exhibited in an annex to the Complaint. Firstly, Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name, is almost identical and unquestionably confusingly similar to Complainant's federally registered HOWIES mark. The disputed domain name incorporates the HOWIES mark in its entirety and differs from Complainant's established domain name, <howieshockeytape.com>, only by the addition of the letter "s" at the end of the element "tape." Complainant submits that the addition of the plural "s" does not distinguish the disputed domain name from the HOWIES mark or dispel confusion as to whether the goods and services offered under the disputed domain name are sponsored by, affiliated with, or authorized by Complainant. Complainant relies on AbbVie Inc. v. Domain Administrator / Sugarcane Internet Nigeria Limited, FA 2104538 (Forum July 25, 2024), where the addition of "my," an extra "i," and a generic top-level domain to the ABBVIE mark did not distinguish the disputed domain name from the complainant's mark for the purposes of Policy paragraph 4(a)(i). Secondly, Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name arguing that · Respondent has never been affiliated with, or authorized by, Complainant or its predecessors to sell or market Complainant's products or to act as a service provider, distributor, marketing partner, or other authorized partner; · Respondent was never authorized to use the HOWIES mark in any domain name; · Respondent can have no basis for claiming to have ever been commonly known by the disputed domain name; · Respondent is neither a subsidiary nor an affiliate, authorized distributor, service provider, or marketing partner of Complainant; · even if Respondent claimed to be a distributor, service provider, marketing partner, or reseller of Complainant's products, that status would not confer a right or legitimate interest in registering a domain name containing the HOWIES mark without a specific agreement, citing Herbalife Int'l Inc. v. SHOPHERBALIFE.COM a/k/a Cleverson Ezora, FA 281593 (Forum July 19, 2004), which states that a distributor does not necessarily have the right to use a supplier's mark in a confusingly similar domain name without a contrary agreement; · Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering or legitimate noncommercial or fair use because, as shown in the screen captures exhibited in the annexes to the Complaint, Respondent is using the disputed domain name to operate a commercial website purporting to offer hockey tape and other products that are identical or substantially similar to, and directly compete with, Complainant's products; · the screen captures show that Respondent's website prominently uses the HOWIES mark, offers apparel bearing the HOWIES mark, and was deliberately designed to imitate Complainant's official HOWIES website; it copies the HOWIES logo and adopts the same or substantially the same overall layout and menu order as Complainant's website; · the content of Respondent's website has not merely a similarity arising from the hockey-related subject matter, but is a calculated replication of the distinctive elements of Complainant's website that presents Respondent's site as an official, sponsored, or authorized HOWIES website; · Respondent is not operating an independent retail business with a legitimate interest in the disputed domain name, but rather is using Complainant's established trademark and goodwill to attract consumers seeking HOWIES products and to sell products commercially, citing the decision in Name Acquisition Co. v. Derick Mohan, FA 1662120 (Forum Mar. 31, 2016), where the panel found no legitimate noncommercial interest or bona fide offering where the respondent's website was almost a mirror copy of the complainant's site and sold similar products. Thirdly Complainant submits that Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith on May 18, 2026, by which date Complainant had owned and used the HOWIES mark for more than two decades. Furthermore, Complainant contends that its long-standing rights, together with the asserted fame and widespread recognition of HOWIES, exclude any plausible innocent or coincidental explanation for Respondent's selection of a domain name incorporating that mark. Complainant alleges that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant and its trademark rights when it registered the disputed domain name. It submits that Respondent did not merely select a similar expression but deliberately adopted Complainant's HOWIES trademark in a domain name directed to the same hockey-tape market in which Complainant had established substantial goodwill. In this regard, Complainant relies on the decision in Google LLC v. A M, FA 1943916 (Forum June 9, 2021), where the panel inferred actual knowledge from the notoriety of the YOUTUBE mark and the manner of the respondent's conduct, holding that registration with such knowledge constituted bad faith under Policy paragraph 4(a)(iii). Complainant submits that the same inference arises from Respondent's deliberate selection of the HOWIES mark after Complainant's extensive and longstanding use for more than 20 years before the disputed domain name was chosen and registered. Complainant also relies on the asserted prominence of the HOWIES mark. It submits that HOWIES is a famous mark, having been used nationwide and worldwide for more than twenty years. Complainant therefore contends that Respondent's registration of a confusingly similar domain name is itself strong evidence of bad faith. Complainant relies on numerous decisions of panels established under the Policy, including Household Int'l, Inc. v. Cyntom Enterprises, FA 95784 (Forum Nov. 7, 2002), which recognizes that use of a well-known business name without a legitimate reason may support an inference that the registrant intended to harass or exploit the name's legitimate owner. Also, Complainant alleges that Respondent is using the disputed domain name in bad faith intentionally seeking to attract Internet users for commercial gain through a likelihood of confusion with the HOWIES mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the associated website and the goods offered through it. Complainant relies on Policy paragraph 4(b)(iv). Referring to the screen capture exhibited in the annexes to the Complaint, Complainant alleges that Respondent's website closely imitates Complainant's official HOWIES website, including use of the HOWIES logo and replication of the website's overall layout and menu structure. It further alleges that the website offers products competing with those of Complainant, together with apparel bearing the HOWIES mark. The exhibited screen capture shows that Respondent has not presented itself as an independent and unaffiliated business. Rather, it asserts that Respondent has copied Complainant's branding while giving contact information tied to an apparently unrelated New York location, as exhibited in an annex to the Complaint. In conclusion Complainant submits that Respondent's imitation of its branding and website, coupled with the sale of competing or similar products, likewise creates a false appearance of affiliation for commercial benefit. In this regard Complainant cites the decision of the panel in David Yurman IP LLC v. Davi Newman, FA 2018938 (Forum Dec. 3, 2022), which found bad faith where copying of the complainant's mark and website, together with use of the domain name to sell competing goods, created a false impression of affiliation. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant is a producer of hockey tape on which it uses the HOWIES for which it holds the following trademark registration: · United States registered trademark HOWIES, registration number 5,354,806, registered on the Principal Register on December 12, 2017 for goods in international class 28. Complainant has an established Internet presence and maintains websites at <www.howiesathletictape.com> for athletic tape and <www.howieshockeytape.com> for hockey tape and supplies. The disputed domain name, <howieshockeytapes.com>, was registered on May 18, 2026, and resolves to a website that is similar in appearance to Complainant's official website and purports to offer hockey tape and apparel bearing Complainant's mark. There is no information available about Respondent except for that provided in the Complaint as amended, the Registrar's WhoIs, and the information provided by the Registrar in response to the request by Forum for details of the registration of the disputed domain name. 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 has provided uncontested evidence to prove that it has rights in the HOWIES trademark established by its ownership of the trademark registration described above and extensive use of the mark in its business as a manufacturer of hockey tapes and certain hockey related products sold throughout all 50 United States and shipped to customers across six continents. Complainant's HOWIES mark is contained in its entirety in the disputed domain name <howieshockeytapes.com>, and it is well established that a panel may make a finding of confusing similarity in such circumstances. The elements "hockey" and "tapes" in the disputed domain name is descriptive of Complainant's products sold under the HOWIES mark and does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. Neither does the gTLD extension <.com> prevent a finding of confusing similarity as it would be considered by Internet users as a necessary technical requirement for a domain name. This Panel finds therefore that the disputed domain name <howieshockeytapes.com> is confusingly similar to the HOWIES trademark in which Complainant has rights and Complainant has therefore succeeded in the first element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant has made out a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights legitimate interests in the disputed domain names as set out in Complainant's detailed submissions above. In particular, the uncontested evidence in the screen capture exhibited in the annex to the Complaint shows that Respondent is using the disputed domain name to resolve to a website which prominently displays Complainant's mark and logo and purports to sell Complainant's goods, giving the impression that an Internet user engaging with Respondent's website would be purchasing from Complainant. Such use does not establish rights in the disputed domain name and Respondent cannot claim that it is using the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering or legitimate noncommercial or fair use It is well established that once a complainant makes out a prima facie case that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to prove its rights or legitimate interests. Respondent has failed to discharge that burden and therefore this Panel must find that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Complainant has therefore succeeded in the second element of the test in Policy paragraph 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith The disputed domain name was registered on May 18, 2026, by which date Complainant had already established a substantial reputation in the use of the HOWIES mark in the United States and other jurisdictions and had been the registered owner of the HOWIES mark in the USA since December 12, 2017. HOWIES is a distinctive mark, and the disputed domain name contains the mark in its entirety as the initial and dominant element. Furthermore, the other elements in the disputed domain name "hockey" and "tapes" are descriptive of Complainants business. Additionally, the disputed domain name is almost identical to Complainant's own domain name <howieshockeytape.com> which it uses to market its hockey tapes products. The Panel finds therefore that on the balance of probabilities the disputed domain name was chosen and registered in bad faith with actual knowledge of Complainant's business, to target and take predatory advantage of the Complainant's goodwill and reputation in the HOWIE mark. The uncontested evidence in the form of a screen capture exhibited in an annex to the Complaint, is that disputed domain name resolves to a website at <howieshockeytapes.com> on which Respondent purports to offer Complainant's products at a 10% discount. Respondent's website prominently displays Complainant's mark and logo, and images of Complainant's products. There is nothing on the website to show that Respondent is not associated with Complainant. Rather, the website gives a strong impression that it is owned or controlled by Complainant, when in fact Respondent is impersonating Complainant. The Panel finds therefore on the evidence adduced that Respondent is using Complainant's mark within the disputed domain name, without license or authority, intending to attract and confuse Internet users and cause them to divert their Internet traffic intended for Complainant and misdirect it to Respondent's website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent's website. Such use constitutes use of the disputed domain name in bad faith. As this Panel has found that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, Complainant has therefore succeeded in the third element of the test in Policy ¶ 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 <howieshockeytapes.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. James Bridgeman SC Panelist Dated: September 21, 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.