FLRT, Inc. v tian tao

WIPO Case No. D2024-4813

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

FLRT, Inc. v. tian tao

Case No. D2024-4813

1. The Parties

The Complainant is FLRT, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Silverstein Legal,

United States.

The Respondent is tian tao, China.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <feetfinderpic.com> is registered with Dynadot Inc (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 21, 2024. On November 22, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 23, 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 (Redacted for Privacy, Super Privacy Service Ltd c/o Dynadot) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on November 25, 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 November 25, 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 November 27, 2024. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 17, 2024. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 18, 2024.

page 2

The Center appointed Andrea Mondini as the sole panelist in this matter on December 24, 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 provides a social media platform that allows users to post and subscribe to online foot fetish content.

The Complainant owns the domain name <feetfinder.com> which hosts its main website.

The Complainant owns several trademark registrations, including:

TRADEMARK	JURISDICTION	REGISTRATION	REGISTRATION	INTERNATIONAL
NUMBER	DATE	CLASS
FEETFINDER	United Kingdom	UK00003951117	November 24, 2023	35
FEETFINDER	European Union	018918577	December 8, 2023	35

Because the Respondent did not file a Response, not much is known about the Respondent.

The disputed domain name was registered on October 7, 2024.

According to the evidence submitted with the Complaint, the website posted under the disputed domain name offers the same type of services as provided by the Complainant and includes links directing Internet users to adult entertainment services in direct competition with the Complainant’s services.

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 as follows:

The Complainant alleges that since June 2019 it has been operating a social media platform which has become the most popular website in the world to view, buy and sell foot fetish content.

The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the FEETFINDER trademark in which the Complainant has rights, because it incorporates this trademark in its entirety, and the addition of the term “pic” is not sufficient to avoid confusing similarity because it is a direct reference to the pictures that may be purchased using the Complainant’s services.

The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The
trademark FEETFINDER has been extensively used to identify the Complainant’s services. The Respondent
has not been authorized by the Complainant to use this trademark and is not commonly known by the
disputed domain name. The Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona
fide offering of goods and services because the disputed domain name is redirected to a website
impersonating the Complainant and offering content in direct competition with the Complainant’s services.

page 3

The disputed domain name was registered in bad faith because it is obvious that the Respondent had knowledge of both the Complainant and its trademark FEETFINDER at the time it registered the disputed domain name.

The Respondent is using the disputed domain name in bad faith, by redirecting Internet users to a website offering services competing with those offered by the Complainant.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, in order to succeed, a complainant must establish each of the following elements:

(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark or service mark in which the
complainant has rights;
(ii) the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and

(iii) the disputed 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 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.

The Panel finds the entirety of the mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name.

Although the addition of other terms such as here “pic” may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds that in the present case the addition of such terms does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8.

The addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” in the disputed domain name is a standard registration requirement and as such may be disregarded under the confusing similarity test under the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i). See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.1.

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 a disputed domain name.

Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that for a complainant to prove that 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. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that

page 4

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 (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). 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 Panel notes the disputed domain name resolves to a website with a look and feel similar to the
Complainant’s website, reproducing the Complainant’s logo in a prominent manner, allowing Internet users
to “register” and “sign up”, and displaying an email address “[…]@feetfinder.com” at the bottom of the page.
Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity such as here impersonating the
Complainant can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.0, section
2.13.1.

Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has 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 such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. Moreover, the Panel notes the Complainant’s unrebutted claim that the website at the disputed domain name includes links to websites competing with the Complainant, which affirms the Panel’s finding that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

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.

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances may be relevant in assessing whether a respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1.

In the view of the Panel, noting that that the Complainant’s trademark predates the registration of the disputed domain name and considering that the disputed domain name resolves to a website featuring the Complainant’s trademark and offering competing products, it is inconceivable that the Respondent could have registered the disputed domain name without knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark. In the circumstances of this case, this is evidence of registration in bad faith.

The impression given by this website posted under the disputed domain name would cause Internet users to believe that the Respondent is somehow associated with the Complainant when, in fact, it is not. The Panel holds that by using the disputed domain name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for

commercial gain, Internet users to its website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's
mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website in the sense of Policy,

paragraph 4(b)(iv).

Based on the available record, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element of the
Policy with regard to the disputed domain name.

page 5

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 <feetfinderpic.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Andrea Mondini/
Andrea Mondini
Sole Panelist
Date: January 7, 2025