Cavender Stores, L.P. v caokai

WIPO Case No. D2023-5408

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Cavender Stores, L.P. v. caokai

Case No. D2023-5408

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Cavender Stores, L.P., United States of America (“United States”), represented by

Holland & Knight LLP, United States.

The Respondent is caokai, China.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <stannness.com> is registered with Alibaba.com Singapore E-Commerce

Private Limited (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 29,
2023. On January 2, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar
verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 3, 2024, 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 (Registrant of stannness.com) and contact
information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on January 5,
2024, 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 amendment to the

Complaint on January 8, 2024.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to the 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 January 16, 2024. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph
5, the due date for Response was February 5, 2024. The Respondent sent an email communication to the
Center on January 6, 2024.

page 2

The Center appointed Jeremy Speres as the sole panelist in this matter on February 12, 2024. The Panel
finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and
Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the

Rules, paragraph 7.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant operates CAVENDER’S, a western apparel retailer founded in 1965, and presently headquartered in Tyler, Texas, United States. The Complainant’s CAVENDER’S trademark is registered in the United States in various forms, including United States Trademark Registration No. 3209219 for CAVENDER’S (design mark) in class 35, having a registration date of February 13, 2007.

The disputed domain name was registered on November 16, 2023, and currently does not resolve to any website. The Complainant’s evidence establishes that the disputed domain name previously resolved to a website ostensibly selling western apparel, featuring the Complainant’s logo and banner advertising sourced from the Complainant’s website.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name. Notably, the Complainant contends that the Respondent sought to impersonate the Complainant and benefit financially by deceiving consumers into believing that the Respondent’s website is associated with the Complainant, misleading consumers to purchase goods held out as being those of the Complainant that are never delivered.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

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

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. However, the Complainant has not attempted to show why it considers the disputed domain name identical or confusingly similar to its trademark. The CAVENDER’S mark is very different to the relevant part of the disputed domain name - “stannness” - and neither the mark nor any substantial part of it is recognizable within the disputed domain name.

The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has not been established, and there is thus no need to consider the second and third elements of the Policy.

page 3

7. Decision

For the foregoing reasons, the Complaint is denied.

/Jeremy Speres/
Jeremy Speres
Sole Panelist
Date: February 24, 2024