Oofos, Inc. v Mayandican

WIPO Case No. D2022-1459

ARBITRATION

AND

MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Oofos, Inc. v. Mayandican

Case No. D2022-1459

1. The Parties

Complainant is Oofos, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Sunstein LLP.,

United States.

Respondent is Mayandican, United States.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <oofossale.com> (the “Domain Name”) 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 April 22, 2022.

On April 25, 2022, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On April 26, 2022, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on April 26, 2002, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on April 29, 2022.

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 Respondent of the Complaint,
and the proceedings commenced on May 10, 2022. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due

date for Response was May 30, 2022. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center

notified Respondent’s default on May 31, 2022.

page 2

The Center appointed Kimberley Chen Nobles as the sole panelist in this matter on June 13, 2022. 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

Complainant, Oofos, Inc., headquartered in Massachusetts, United States, is a footwear manufacturer recognized in the field of comfortable recovery footwear.

Complainant has used its OOFOS mark in connection with footwear since at least as early as December 16, 2011. Complainant is the owner of numerous trademark registrations worldwide for the mark OOFOS, including the following two trademark registrations for the mark OOFOS in the United States, the home jurisdiction of Respondent:

- United States registered trademark number 4,140,410 for OOFOS word mark registered on May 8,
2002, in Class 25 for footwear; and

- United States registered trademark number 5,576,699 for OOFOS word mark registered on October 2,
2018, in Class 25 for clothing and apparel, namely, shirts, pullover and hats.

Respondent registered the Domain Name registered on March 17, 2022. The Domain Name reverts to an error page.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

Complainant contends that (i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s

trademarks; (ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name; and (iii) Respondent
registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith.

In particular, Complainant contends that it has trademark registrations for OOFOS and that Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name with the intention to confuse Internet users looking for bona fide and well-known OOFOS products and services.

Complainant notes that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the registration and use of the Domain Name. Rather, Complainant contends that Respondent has acted in bad faith in registering and

using the Domain Name, when Respondent clearly knew of Complainant’s rights.

B. Respondent

Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, to succeed Complainant must satisfy the Panel that:

(i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant

has rights; and

(ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and

page 3

(iii) the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

Section 4.3 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition

(“WIPO Overview 3.0”) states that failure to respond to the complainant’s contentions would not by itself

mean that the complainant is deemed to have prevailed; a respondent’s default is not necessarily an

admission that the complainant’s claims are true.

Thus, although in this case Respondent has failed to respond to the Complaint, the burden remains with evidence. See, e.g., The Knot, Inc. v. In Knot We Trust LTD, WIPO Case No. D2006-0340.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

Ownership of a trademark registration is generally sufficient evidence that a complainant has the requisite rights in a mark for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1. Complainant provided evidence of its rights in the OOFOS trademarks, as noted above. Complainant has also submitted evidence, which supports that the OOFOS trademarks are widely known and a distinctive

identifier of Complainant’s products and services. Complainant has therefore proven that it has the requisite

rights in the OOFOS trademarks.

With Complainant’s rights in the OOFOS trademark established, the remaining question under the first

element of the Policy is whether the Domain Name, typically disregarding the generic Top-Level Domain

(“gTLD”) in which it is registered (in this case, “.com”), is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s

trademark. See, e.g., B & H Foto & Electronics Corp. v. Domains by Proxy, Inc. / Joseph Gross, WIPO Case

No. D2010-0842.

Here, the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s OOFOS trademarks. These trademarks,

which are fanciful and inherently distinctive, are recognizable in the Domain Name. In particular, the Domain

Name includes Complainant’s trademark OOFOS in its entirety, followed by the term “sale”. The addition of

the term “sale” after the OOFOS trademark in the Domain Name does not prevent a finding of confusing

similarity between the Domain Name and the OOFOS trademarks.

Thus, the Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied the first element of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, a complainant must make a prima facie showing that a respondent possesses no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. See, e.g., Malayan Banking Berhad v. Beauty, Success & Truth International, WIPO Case No. D2008-1393. Once a complainant makes such a prima facie showing, the burden of production shifts to the respondent, though the burden of proof always remains on the complainant. If the respondent fails to come forward with relevant evidence showing rights or legitimate interests, the complainant will have sustained its burden under the second element of the UDRP.

From the record in this case, it is evident that Respondent was, and is, aware of Complainant and the
OOFOS trademarks, and does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.

Respondent has not used the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, the evidence demonstrates that the Domain Name resolves to an error page. Such use does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate

noncommercial or fair use and cannot under the circumstances confer on Respondent any rights or
legitimate interests in the Domain Name. See, e.g., Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A. v. Charles Duke / Oneandone
Private Registration, WIPO Case No. D2013-0875. Moreover, there is no evidence showing that
Respondent has been commonly known by the Domain Name.

page 4

In addition, the Panel finds that the Domain Name carries a risk of implied affiliation with Complainant. See
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1.

Accordingly, Complainant has provided evidence supporting its prima facie claim that Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. Respondent has failed to produce countervailing evidence of any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. Thus, the Panel concludes that Respondent does

not have any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name and Complainant has met its burden under

paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel finds that Respondent’s actions indicate that Respondent registered and is using the Domain

Name in bad faith.

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides a non-exhaustive list of circumstances indicating bad faith registration and use on the part of a domain name registrant, namely:

“(i) circumstances indicating that you have registered or you have acquired the domain name primarily

for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the
complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant,
for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the

domain name; or

(ii) you have registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service
mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that you have engaged in a

pattern of such conduct; or

(iii) you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a

competitor; or

(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 web site or

location or of a product or service on your web site or location.”

The Panel finds that Complainant provided ample evidence to show that registration and use of the OOFOS trademarks long predate the registration of the Domain Name. Complainant is also well established and

known. Indeed, the record shows that Complainant’s OOFOS trademarks and related services are widely

known and recognized. Therefore, Respondent was likely aware of the OOFOS trademarks when it
registered the Domain Name, or knew or should have known that the Domain Name was confusingly similar

to Complainant’s trademarks. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.2; see also TTT Moneycorp Limited v.

Privacy Gods / Privacy Gods Limited, WIPO Case No. D2016-1973.

The Panel therefore finds that Respondent’s awareness of Complainant’s trademark rights at the time of

registration suggests bad faith. See Red Bull GmbH v. Credit du Léman SA, Jean-Denis Deletraz, WIPO Case No. D2011-2209; Nintendo of America Inc v. Marco Beijen, Beijen Consulting, Pokemon Fan Clubs Org., and Pokemon Fans Unite, WIPO Case No. D2001-1070; BellSouth Intellectual Property Corporation v.

Serena, Axel, WIPO Case No. D2006-0007.

Further, the registration of the Domain Name incorporating Complainant’s OOFOS trademark in its entirety

suggests Respondent’s actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the OOFOS trademarks at the time of

registration of the Domain Name and its effort to opportunistically capitalize on the registration and use of the
Domain Name.

page 5

In addition, Respondent has not used the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, the evidence demonstrates that the Domain Name resolves to an error page. From the inception of the UDRP, panels have found that the non-use of a domain name would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. See section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0. In the present circumstances, considering the distinctiveness and reputation of the OOFOS trademarks, the failure of Respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good faith use, and the implausibility of any good faith use to which the Domain Name may be put, the Panel finds that the non-use of the Domain Name supports a finding of bad faith.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent has registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith and

Complainant succeeds under the third element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.

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 Domain Name, <oofossale.com>, be transferred to Complainant.

/Kimberley Chen Nobles/

Kimberley Chen Nobles

Sole Panelist
Date: June 20, 2022