Hunterfansofficial.com

The timeline behind hunterfansofficial.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.

UDRP Decision: Claim Number FA2608002240809 DECISION Hunter Fan Company v. guo tian tian Claim Number: FA2608002240809 PARTIES Complainant is Hunter Fan Company ("Complainant"), represented by Adam S. Baldridge of BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC, Tennessee, USA. Respondent is guo tian tian ("Respondent"), China. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <hunterfansofficial.com> (the "Disputed Domain Name"), registered with Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn). 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. David L. Kreider, Chartered Arbitrator (UK), as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum on August 20, 2026; Forum received payment on August 20, 2026. On August 20, 2026, Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn) confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <hunterfansofficial.com> domain name is registered with Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn) and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn) has verified that Respondent is bound by the Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn) 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"). Complainant submitted an Amended Complaint on August 28, 2026, following the Registrar's disclosure of the underlying registrant information. On August 31, 2026, Forum served the Amended Complaint and all Annexes, including a Chinese and English Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 21, 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@hunterfansofficial.com. Also on August 31, 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 22, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed David L. Kreider 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. Preliminary Issue: Language of the Proceeding The Registrar has confirmed that the language of the registration agreement for the Disputed Domain Name is Chinese. Under Rule 11(a), that is the language of the proceeding unless the parties agree otherwise, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise having regard to the circumstances of the case. Complainant filed the Complaint and the Amended Complaint in English, without a Chinese translation, and submits that Respondent understands English because the entire content of the website resolving from the Disputed Domain Name is in English. In deciding whether to proceed in English, as Complainant asks, the Panel weighs fairness to both parties against the desirability of an efficient proceeding, having regard to the respondent's apparent ability to understand the language of the complaint, the language of the domain name and of any resolving website, and the cost and delay of translation. See WIPO Overview 3.1 at ¶ 4.5. The Disputed Domain Name is composed of Latin characters and joins the English-language mark of a United States company to the English words "fans" and "official," closely tracking the address of Complainant's own website at <hunterfan.com>; the screenshots in the record show that the website to which it resolves is written entirely in English; Forum served the Written Notice in both Chinese and English, so that Respondent was informed of the proceeding in the language of its registration agreement; and Respondent neither responded nor objected. Translation into Chinese would impose cost and delay on Complainant with no corresponding benefit to a defaulting Respondent who has published a multi-page website in English. See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. İsa Tanıtmış, FA 2020270 (Forum Dec. 17, 2022) (English adopted over a Turkish registration agreement where the domain name, in English words, mirrored the address of the complainant's English-language website); Home Depot Product Authority, LLC v. guoxing, FA 2225929 (Forum July 9, 2026) (English adopted over a Chinese registration agreement where the domain name used Latin characters and an English word and the resolving website was wholly in English). The Panel therefore determines pursuant to Rule 11(a) that English shall be the language of this proceeding and renders this decision in English. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant alleges: That it has made and sold ceiling fans and lighting fixtures since 1886, and now sells them through its own website at <hunterfan.com>, registered in 1995, and through retailers such as Amazon, Home Depot, and Lowe's. It owns United States and international trademark registrations for HUNTER, which it has used for fans since 1962, and United States registrations for several product-line marks. Its brand recognition is shown by its advertising, social media pages with over 100,000 followers, thousands of positive online reviews, third-party news coverage, and its acquisition for $845 million. That the Disputed Domain Name <hunterfansofficial.com> is confusingly similar to the HUNTER marks and to its <hunterfan.com> domain name, differing only by the pluralization of "fan" and the addition of "official," a term which, paired with a word describing Complainant's business, increases rather than reduces the likelihood of confusion; and that prior panels have found <hunterfanshops.com> and <casablancafans.com> confusingly similar to Complainant's marks. That Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. Complainant has never authorized Respondent to use its marks, and Respondent is not an authorized reseller of, or otherwise affiliated with, Complainant. The website resolving from the Disputed Domain Name displays the HUNTER marks and Complainant's logo on every page, refers to itself as Hunter Fan, mirrors Complainant's own website, gives Complainant's real address and telephone number, and lists Complainant's products beneath photographs that do not depict them, so that it appears to be offered by Complainant. Its product links lead to Complainant's genuine goods at Amazon, Walmart, and other sellers, or to placeholders, which suggests a pay-per-click arrangement under which Respondent is paid for purchases made through its links; and neither passing off nor pay-per-click use is a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. That Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith. Respondent registered it in July 2026, decades after Complainant's marks were registered, and had actual knowledge of them, as its website reproduces a stylized version of the HUNTER mark, appends the registered trademark symbol to HUNTER, and asserts in its own terms and conditions that the Hunter Fan name and logos are trademarks of Hunter Fan Company. By impersonating Complainant, Respondent disrupts Complainant's business by routing users seeking Complainant's website to its own, within Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii), and intentionally attracts Internet users for commercial gain through a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's marks, using Complainant's copyrighted photographs and trademarked product names, within Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). Respondent's use of a privacy shield to mask its identity is further indicative of bad faith. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS The Panel finds the following: Complainant, of Memphis, Tennessee, makes and sells ceiling fans and lighting fixtures. The registration records in evidence show that it owns United States trademark registrations for HUNTER, including No. 1,507,014, registered October 4, 1988, for lighting fixtures, and No. 6,616,765, registered January 11, 2022, for a HUNTER design mark covering ceiling fans, together with registrations for HUNTER in the United Kingdom and the European Union; each predates the Disputed Domain Name. The WHOIS record for <hunterfan.com> shows that Complainant registered its domain name on August 24, 1995. Press and social media materials in the record report Complainant's acquisition in December 2021 for $845 million and a Facebook following of 71,000, and on this evidence the Panel accepts that the HUNTER mark is widely known for ceiling fans. The WHOIS record in evidence, retrieved on August 18, 2026, shows that the Disputed Domain Name was created on July 8, 2026, with the registrant's name withheld. The Registrar's verification disclosed the registrant as guo tian tian of Jingmen, Hubei, China, and confirmed that the language of the registration agreement is Chinese. Nothing in the record suggests that Respondent is commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name or by the name HUNTER, and Complainant's statement that it has never authorized Respondent to use its marks stands uncontested. Screenshots in the record, captured on July 30, 2026, show that the Disputed Domain Name resolves to an English-language website (the "Respondent's Website") presented as Complainant's own. Its page titles describe it as an "Official Website" of "Hunter® Fans"; each page is headed by the script "Hunter" logo that heads Complainant's own website, as the screenshots of <hunterfan.com> in the record show; and its product pages list Complainant's fans under Complainant's product names, with "Buy on" links to Amazon, Walmart, and other retailers or, in one instance, to a placeholder reading "Buy on Example." An "About Us" page recounts Complainant's founding in 1886 in the first person; the "Contact Us" page gives Complainant's actual street address and telephone number; the terms and conditions claim the Hunter Fan name and logos as "trademarks or service marks of Hunter Fan Company"; and each page ends "© 2026 Hunter Fan Company. All rights reserved." No page discloses that the Respondent's Website is not Complainant's. Two of Complainant's characterizations are not adopted. The record shows the outbound retailer links but no affiliate identifier, disclosure, or other evidence that Respondent is paid for referrals; the Panel infers from the composition of the Respondent's Website that it is operated for commercial purposes, but makes no finding of a pay-per-click scheme. Nor does the record establish that the photographs on the Respondent's Website are Complainant's copyrighted images; on Complainant's own uncontested comparison, the photographs under the five Dempsey fan listings depict fans other than the Dempsey fan shown on Complainant's site, and the Panel makes no finding on the point beyond that. 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 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's rights in the HUNTER mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) rest on the United States registrations found above, the earliest HUNTER registration in the record having issued in 1988. A nationally registered trademark prima facie satisfies the threshold requirement of trademark rights under the first element. See WIPO Overview 3.1, ¶ 1.2.1. The Disputed Domain Name <hunterfansofficial.com> reproduces the HUNTER mark in full as its first and dominant element and adds the words "fans" and "official." Neither addition distinguishes the Disputed Domain Name from the mark: "fans" names the very goods for which the mark is registered, and "official" asserts an authorized connection with the mark owner that, if anything, strengthens the association. See WIPO Overview 3.1, ¶ 1.8; Hunter Fan Company v. Michael Oliver, FA 2216968 (Forum May 14, 2026) (<hunterfanshops.com> confusingly similar to Complainant's registered HUNTER trademarks). The ".com" gTLD is a technical requirement of registration and is disregarded in the confusing similarity analysis. See WIPO Overview 3.1, ¶ 1.11.1. The Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's HUNTER mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name, whereupon the burden of production shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of such rights or interests. See WIPO Overview 3.1, ¶ 2.1. The registrant disclosed by the Registrar is "guo tian tian," a name bearing no relation to the Disputed Domain Name; the record shows no use by Respondent of "Hunter" as a name of its own, other than in impersonation of Complainant; and Complainant has never authorized Respondent to use its marks. Respondent is therefore not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Novo Nordisk A/S v. aditi sharma, FA 2227366 (Forum July 9, 2026) (respondent not commonly known by the disputed domain name where the WHOIS information listed an unrelated personal name and use of the mark was unauthorized). Nor does Respondent's use confer rights or legitimate interests. As found above, the Respondent's Website holds itself out as Complainant's official site and nowhere discloses that it is operated by someone else. That is impersonation, and the use of a domain name to pass oneself off as the trademark owner cannot confer rights or legitimate interests, whatever is sold or promoted through it. See WIPO Overview 3.1, ¶¶ 2.5.1 and 2.13.1; Steak N Shake, LLC v. Salim Akhtar / iskills, FA 2223818 (Forum June 26, 2026) (prima facie case made out where the website mimicked the complainant's site, offered its products, and carried a copyright notice in the complainant's name). That the purchase links on the Respondent's Website lead, in part, to Complainant's genuine goods does not alter the analysis: the diversion of Internet users through a site that misrepresents its own source is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), and a site that presents itself as the trademark owner's is neither noncommercial nor fair under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). Complainant has made out its prima facie case, and Respondent, having filed no Response, has come forward with nothing to rebut it. The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name on July 8, 2026, decades after Complainant's earliest HUNTER registration issued and more than thirty years after Complainant registered <hunterfan.com>. The content of the Respondent's Website found above, from Complainant's logo and the ® symbol on HUNTER to the recital of Complainant's history, address, telephone number, and trademark ownership as Respondent's own, shows what Respondent knew. The Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's HUNTER mark when it registered the Disputed Domain Name and chose the name, with the word "official," for the association with Complainant it would carry. See WIPO Overview 3.1, ¶ 3.1.4; Kylie Jenner, Inc. v. TrafficDomains INC / John Deecon, FA 2195489 (Forum Jan. 13, 2026) (resolving website impersonating the complainant showed actual knowledge of its rights at registration). On the findings above, Respondent's use is an intentional attempt to attract Internet users to the Respondent's Website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the HUNTER mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website and the products promoted on it, within Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). The confusion is not incidental but the design: the Disputed Domain Name calls the site official, and the site answers by calling itself Hunter Fan Company. See Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum Dec. 27, 2017) (bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the domain name directed Internet users to a website mimicking the complainant's own to confuse them into believing that the respondent was the complainant or affiliated with it). Commercial gain is inferred, under Rule 14(b), from a website built as a retail catalog of Complainant's products with purchase links on its listings; the Policy does not require Complainant to prove the mechanism by which Respondent is remunerated. Complainant also invokes Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). A website that intercepts users seeking Complainant's own site and presents Complainant's products under Complainant's name is capable of disrupting Complainant's business; but the circumstances listed in Policy ¶ 4(b) are illustrative, bad faith is established under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), and the Panel rests its finding there without deciding whether Respondent is a "competitor" within Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). Complainant's reliance on the withholding of the registrant's name from the WHOIS record, which it calls a privacy shield, adds little. The use of a privacy or proxy service is not in itself evidence of bad faith, and the Registrar disclosed the registrant on Forum's request; in the context of the impersonation found above it is at most corroborative, and the Panel's finding does not rest on it. See WIPO Overview 3.1, ¶ 3.6. The Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith under 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 <hunterfansofficial.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. David L. Kreider, Panelist Dated: September 22, 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.