Hill House Home, Inc. v Scarl Di

WIPO Case No. D2023-2252

ARBITRATION

AND

MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Hill House Home, Inc. v. Scarl Di

Case No. D2023-2252

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Hill House Home, Inc., United States of America, represented by Fixer Advisory Group,

United States of America.

The Respondent is Scarl Di, United States of America.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name, <hillhousehomeoutlet.shop>, is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the

“Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 24, 2023.

On May 24, 2023, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On May 24, 2023, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details and contact information in the Complaint.

The Center verified that 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 the due date for Response was June 27, 2023. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly,

the Center notified the Respondent’s default on June 29, 2023.

The Center appointed Dennis A. Foster as the sole panelist in this matter on July 10, 2023. 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.

page 2

4. Factual Background

Since 2013, the Complainant has operated an on-line sales service offering a variety of clothing, accessories and home furnishings at the domain name <hillhousehome.com>. The Complainant obtained a trademark for HILL HOUSE HOME from the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) on March 8, 2016, no. 86677364.

The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on March 10, 2023. The Respondent’s website at

the disputed domain name offers for sale goods that appear to be identical to the goods for sale on the

Complainant’s website.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

-	The Complainant has run an on-line shopping service on its website at “
since 2013.
-	On March 10, 2023, the Respondent registered the disputed domain name and began offering for sale
items that were identical to the items for sale on the Complainant’s website.
-	The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s HILL HOUSE HOME
trademark.
-	The Respondent has no relationship with the Complainant, has received no permission to use the
Complainant’s HILL HOUSE HOME trademark, and has no rights or legitimate interests in the
disputed domain name.
-	The Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith per paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy in that the Respondent has registered a domain name confusingly similar to the
Complainant’s trademark for financial gain.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

Under paragraph 4(a)(i-iii) of the Policy, the Complainant may prevail in this proceeding and obtain a transfer of the disputed domain name if it can prove that:

- the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a name in which the Complainant has trademark
rights; and

- the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name; and

- the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant has provided a copy of its HILL HOUSE HOME trademark registration as registered with the USPTO, no. 86677364 dated March 8, 2016, classes 24, 25, covering clothing, bed linen and similar goods. The Panel finds this is proof that the Complainant has trademark rights over HILL HOUSE HOME

page 3

(See WIPO Overview 3, section 1.2.1: “Where the complainant holds a nationally or regionally registered

trademark or service mark, this prima facie satisfies the threshold requirement of having trademark rights for

purposes of standing to file a UDRP case.”).

The disputed domain name is not identical to the Complainant’s trademark because the Respondent has added the word “outlet”. However, the Panel finds that “outlet” is a logical add-on to the Complainant’s HILL

HOUSE HOME trademark, and the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s

trademark.

The general top level domain (gTLD) “.shop” is not taken into consideration for determining identity or

confusing similarity because all domain names must have a gTLD (See WIPO Overview 3, section 1.1:

“The applicable Top Level Domain (“TLD”) in a domain name (e.g., .com) is viewed as a standard

registration requirement and as such is disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test.”).

The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has carried its burden of proof under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the

Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Owing to the difficulty of proving the negative proposition that a respondent does not have rights or legitimate
interests in a disputed domain name, it is now the consensus in Policy decisions that it is sufficient for a
complainant to put forth a prima facie case, and then the burden of production shifts to the respondent. In

the case at hand, the Complainant states that the Respondent has no relationship with the Complainant, and

that the Complainant has given no permission to the Respondent to use the Complainant’s HILL HOUSE

HOME trademark in the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that this constitutes a prima facie case on

the Complainant’s behalf. (See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1)

The Respondent has not filed a response in this proceeding, but the Panel will nonetheless look at the

record to see whether there might be evidence of the Respondent’s rights and legitimate interests per Policy

paragraph 4(c)(i-iii).

The Respondent is using the website at the disputed domain name to offer for sale goods that are identical to the goods on the Complainant’s website. The Panel finds this is not a bona fide offering of goods and

services per paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy as will be discussed further below in the Bad Faith section of this

Decision. (See, for example, xHamster IP Holdings Ltd v. Hadu, [email protected], WIPO Case No.

D2019-3142 where the Respondent’s bad faith use of the disputed domain name could not qualify as a
“bona fide offering of goods and services” under Policy paragraph 4(c)(i).)

Nor is there any indication in the case file that the Respondent has been known by the disputed domain name per Policy paragraph 4(c)(ii).

And finally, it is nowhere apparent that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name for

noncommercial or fair use purposes per Policy paragraph 4(c)(iii). On the contrary, the Complainant’s use of

the disputed domain name to sell goods at its website is eminently commercial.

The Panel thus finds that the Complainant has carried its burden of proof to show that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Since the Respondent registered the disputed domain name on March 10, 2023, no doubt fully aware of the

Complainant’s pre-existing trademark and website sales business, the Respondent has used it to copy the

Complainant’s website and to offer some of the same goods for sale. The Panel agrees with the

Complainant that this is a direct violation of the bad faith provisions at Policy paragraph 4(b)(iv):

page 4

“(iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet

users to your website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's

mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your website or location or of a product or

service on your website or location.”

The Panel thus finds that the Complainant has sustained its burden of proof under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the

Policy to show that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain in bad faith.

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, <hillhousehomeoutlet.shop>, be transferred to the Complainant.

/Dennis A. Foster/

Dennis A. Foster

Sole Panelist
Date: July 24, 2023