Black Diamond Equipment, Ltd v Kncjd Omxw

WIPO Case No. D2023-1201

ARBITRATION

AND

MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Black Diamond Equipment, Ltd v. Kncjd Omxw

Case No. D2023-1201

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Black Diamond Equipment, Ltd, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Kane Kessler, PC, United States.

The Respondent is Kncjd Omxw, China.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <usblackdiamond.com> is registered with Name.com, Inc. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 17, 2023.
On March 20, 2023, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in
connection with the disputed domain name. On March 20, 2023, the Registrar transmitted by email to the
Center its verification response, disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name
which differed from the named Respondent (Whois Agent, Domain Protection Services, Inc.) and contact
information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on March 24,
2023, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the
Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on

March 27, 2023.

The Center verified that the Complaint, together with the amended Complaint, satisfied the formal
requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for
Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for

Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the
Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 30, 2023. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph
5, the due date for Response was April 19, 2023. The Respondent did not submit any response.
Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 20, 2023.

The Center appointed Pablo A. Palazzi as the sole panelist in this matter on May 1, 2023. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of

page 2

Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant has, since 1992 been selling sports clothing, equipment, and accessories under its BLACK
DIAMOND trademark, and is the proprietor of numerous registrations of its BLACK DIAMOND trademark,
including United States registration, No. 1576481, registered on January 9, 1990; United States registration,
No. 1669513, registered on December 24, 1991; United States registration, No.1686547, registered on May
12, 1992; United States registration, No. 3812723, registered on July 6, 2010; United States registration,
No. 3895591, registered on December 21, 2010; and, United States registration, No. 4313399, registered on

April 2, 2013.

The Complainant conducts business on the Internet at “blackdiamondequipment.com”.

The disputed domain name was registered on September 23, 2022, and is being used in connection with a website allegedly offering for sale counterfeit goods at discounted prices falsely identified and labeled as BLACK DIAMOND goods. The Respondent is also falsely holding itself out as the Complainant and/or affiliated with and/or an authorized distributor of the Complainant.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name.

The Complainant is of the opinion that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademarks.

Furthermore, the Complainant argues that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. It is rather argued that the disputed domain name falsely suggests that there is some official or authorized link between the Complainant and the Respondent.

Finally, it is argued that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists three elements, which a complainant must satisfy in order to succeed. The
Complainant must satisfy that:

(i)        the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and

(ii)       the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of such domain name; and

(iii)      the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or

page 3

threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between
the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on
Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7.

Based on the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1.

The disputed domain name contain the mark of the Complainant with the addition of the geographical term
“us”. The Panel finds the entirety of the mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name. Accordingly,

the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy.

Based on the available record, the Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

While 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 often impossible task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, 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 relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1.

The Complainant has claimed, that at the time of filing the Complaint, the disputed domain name resolved to a website purporting to be an authorized distributor of the Complainant’s by using the Complainant’s trademarks in the disputed domain name together with the geographical term “us”. In addition, allegedly counterfeited products were offered for sale at discounted prices. Under these circumstances, it is reasonable to infer that the products offered on the website at the disputed domain name are counterfeit of the Complainant’s products. The Panel finds that the Complainant has therefore established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

The Panel considers that the record of this case reflects that:

- before any notice to the Respondent of the dispute, the Respondent did not use, nor made
demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the
disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Paragraph 4(c)(i)
of the Policy, and WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.2.

- the Respondent (as an individual, business, or other organization) has not been commonly known by
the disputed domain name. Paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy, and WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.3.

- the Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name,
without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or
service mark at issue. Paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy, and WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.4.

- the record contains no other factors demonstrating rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent in
the disputed domain name.

page 4

As stated above, the disputed domain name is being used in connection with a website allegedly offering for sale counterfeit goods falsely identified and labeled as BLACK DIAMOND goods.

Furthermore, the composition of the disputed domain name, comprising the Complainant’s trademarks in their entirety and the geographical term “us”, together with the content of the website at the disputed domain name carries a risk of Internet user confusion.

Based on the available record, the Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel notes that for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular but without limitation, that if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith.

The Panel considers that the record of this case reflects that:

The disputed domain name is being used in connection with a website allegedly offering for sale counterfeit goods falsely identified and labeled as BLACK DIAMOND goods. The Respondent is also falsely holding itself out as the Complainant and/or affiliated with and/or an authorized distributor of the Complainant.

The Respondent never answered the cease and desist letter and then defaulted.

As a result, there is no doubt that the Respondent knew about the existence of the Complainant and its trademarks. In the circumstances, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith.

The Panel concludes that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain,
Internet users to its website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the
Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website
or location or of a product or service on the Respondent’s website or location. Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the

Policy, and WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4.

Based on the available record, the Panel finds the third element of the Policy has been established.

7. Decision

For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name <usblackdiamond.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Pablo A. Palazzi/
Pablo A. Palazzi
Sole Panelist
Date: May 15, 2023