Vex Clothing, Inc. v Xiurong Fu

WIPO Case No. D2023-0451

ARBITRATION

AND

MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Vex Clothing, Inc. v. Xiurong Fu

Case No. D2023-0451

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Vex Clothing, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Dunn

DeSantis Walt & Kendrick, LLP, United States.

The Respondent is Xiurong Fu, China.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <vexdiscount.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 February 1, 2023. connection with the disputed domain name. On February 2, 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.

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
Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on February 13, 2023. In accordance with the Rules,
paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 5, 2023. The Respondent did not submit any response.

Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 6, 2023.

The Center appointed Edoardo Fano as the sole panelist in this matter on March 14, 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

The Panel has not received any requests from the Complainant or the Respondent regarding further submissions, waivers or extensions of deadlines, and the Panel has not found it necessary to request any further information from the Parties.

Having reviewed the communication records in the case file provided by the Center, the Panel finds that the Center has discharged its responsibility under the Rules, paragraph 2(a), “to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent”. Therefore, the Panel shall issue its Decision based upon the Complaint, the Policy, the Rules, and the Supplemental Rules, and without the benefit of a response from the Respondent.

The language of the proceeding is English, being the language of the Registration Agreement, as per paragraph 11(a) of the Rules.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is Vex Clothing, Inc., a United States company operating in the field of latex clothing and accessories and owning the following trademark registrations for VEX and VEX LATEX:

- United States Trademark Registration No. 6,966,558 for VEX, applied for on June 14, 2021, registered
on January 31, 2023, and claiming first use in commerce December 31, 2000;

- United States Trademark Registration No. 6,966,559 for VEX LATEX, applied for on June 14, 2021,
registered on January 31, 2023, and claiming first use in commerce December 31, 2017.

The Complainant also operates on the Internet, its website being “

The Complainant provided evidence in support of the above.

According to the WhoIs records, the disputed domain name was registered on July 11, 2022, and it resolves to a website where latex clothing and accessories are offered for sale and the Complainant’s trademark VEX LATEX is reproduced.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark VEX, as the disputed domain name wholly incorporates the Complainant’s trademark.

Moreover, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name since it has not been authorized by the Complainant to register the disputed domain name or to use its trademark within the disputed domain name, it is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and it is not making either a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name is used by the Respondent to redirect Internet users to its website in which the same products as the Complainant are offered for sale.

The Complainant submits that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in bad faith, since
the Complainant’s trademark VEX is well known. Therefore, the Respondent targeted the Complainant’s
trademark at the time of registration of the disputed domain name and the Complainant contends that the
use of the disputed domain name with the purpose to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users by creating
a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as the source of the Respondent’s website or of a
product on that website, attempting to capitalize on consumer recognition of the Complainant’s trademark,
qualifies as bad faith registration and use.

page 3

B. Respondent

The Respondent has made no reply to the Complainant’s contentions and is in default. In reference to paragraphs 5(f) and 14 of the Rules, no exceptional circumstances explaining the default have been put forward or are apparent from the record.

A respondent is not obliged to participate in a proceeding under the Policy, but if it fails to do so, reasonable facts asserted by a complainant may be taken as true, and appropriate inferences, in accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, may be drawn. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.3.

6. Discussion and Findings

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

(i) the disputed 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 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

The Panel finds that the Complainant is the owner of the trademark VEX and that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark VEX.

Regarding the addition of the term “discount”, the Panel notes that it is now well established that the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical terms, letters, or otherwise) to a domain name does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the trademark. The addition of the term “discount” does not therefore prevent the disputed domain name from being confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8.

It is also well accepted that a generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”), in this case “.com”, is typically ignored
when assessing the similarity between a trademark and a domain name. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section
1.11.1.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has therefore met its burden of proving that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i).

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy requires the Complainant to prove that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

The Respondent may establish rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name by demonstrating in accordance with paragraph 4(c) of the Policy any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation:

“(i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain
name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or
services; or
(ii) you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name,
even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial
gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.”

page 4

According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant has the burden of proving the three elements of the Policy. However, satisfying the burden of proving a lack of the Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name according to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy is potentially quite difficult, since proving a negative circumstance is generally more complicated than establishing a positive one. As such, it is well accepted that it is sufficient for the Complainant to make a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name in order to shift the burden of production to the Respondent. If the Respondent fails to demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name in accordance with paragraph 4(c) of the Policy or on any other basis, the Complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

The Complainant in its Complaint, and as set out above, has established a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. It asserts that the Respondent, who is not currently associated with the Complainant in any way, is not using the disputed domain name for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use or in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The disputed domain name is used for a website where the same products as the Complainant, namely latex clothing and accessories, are offered for sale and the Complainant’s trademark VEX LATEX is reproduced.

The prima facie case presented by the Complainant is enough to shift the burden of production to the Respondent to demonstrate that it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. However, the Respondent has not presented any evidence of any rights or legitimate interests it may have in the disputed domain name.

Should the products sold on the website to which the disputed domain name is directing Internet users be the Complainant’s genuine products, legitimately acquired by the Respondent, the question that would arise is whether the Respondent would therefore have a legitimate interest in using the disputed domain name that is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark in circumstances that are likely to give rise to confusion.

According to the current state of UDRP decisions in relation to the issue of resellers as summarized in the

WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.8.1:

“[...] resellers, distributors, or service providers using a domain name containing the complainant’s trademark
to undertake sales or repairs related to the complainant’s goods or services may be making a bona fide
offering of goods and services and thus have a legitimate interest in such domain name. Outlined in the “Oki
Data test”, the following cumulative requirements will be applied in the specific conditions of a UDRP case:

(i)        the respondent must actually be offering the goods or services at issue;

(ii)       the respondent must use the site to sell only the trademarked goods or services;

(iii)      the site must accurately and prominently disclose the registrant’s relationship with the trademark

holder; and

(iv)      the respondent must not try to “corner the market” in domain names that reflect the trademark.”

This summary is based on the UDRP decision in Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc., WIPO Case No.
D2001-0903.

Even if the products sold by the Respondent were the Complainant’s genuine products, from inspection of the Respondent’s website, in addition to the composition of the disputed domain name itself which give an impression of being affiliated with the Complainant, the Panel finds that the use of the Complainant’s

trademark in its identical typography and very prominently on the top of the homepage and the lack of any
disclaimer would falsely suggest to Internet users, under the Oki Data principles (see above), that the
website to which the disputed domain name resolves is owned by the Complainant or at least affiliated to the
Complainant.

page 5

The Panel therefore concludes that the disputed domain name is not being used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.

Moreover, the Panel finds that the composition of the disputed domain name carries a risk of implied affiliation (as well as the Respondent’s intention of taking unfair advantage of the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant). See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1.

Based on the facts of this case, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

The Panel therefore finds that paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy has been satisfied.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides that “[f]or the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, the following
circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of
the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith:

(i)        circumstances indicating that [the respondent has] registered or [has] 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 the complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of [its] documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name;
or

(ii) [the respondent has] 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 [the respondent has]
engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

(iii)      [the respondent has] registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business

of a competitor; or

(iv)      by using the domain name, [the respondent has] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial

gain, Internet users to [the respondent’s] 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 [the
respondent’s] web site or location or of a product or service on [the respondent’s] web site or location”.

Regarding the registration in bad faith of the disputed domain name, the reputation of the Complainant’s trademark VEX in the field of latex clothing and accessories is clearly established. The Complaint claims, and as evidenced by the VEX trademark registration, that the mark has been put to use in commerce since 2000, over a decade before the registration of the disputed domain name in 2022 by the Respondent. Further, the Panel finds that the Respondent likely knew of the Complainant, and deliberately targeted the Complainant and its VEX trademark when registering the disputed domain name, especially because the content of the website to which the disputed domain name resolves consists of purportedly offering for sale the same products as the Complainant.

The Panel further notes that the disputed domain name is also used in bad faith since on the relevant
website the same products as the Complainant’s are offered for sale in an attempt to pass off as the
Complainant, an activity clearly detrimental to the Complainant’s business.

The above suggests to the Panel that the Respondent intentionally registered and is using the disputed domain name in order both to disrupt the Complainant’s business, in accordance with paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy, and to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website in accordance with paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.

page 6

Furthermore, the Panel considers that the nature of the inherently misleading disputed domain name, which includes the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety with the addition of the term “discount”, further supports a finding of bad faith. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has presented evidence to satisfy its burden of proof with respect to the issue of whether the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith, and the Panel notes that the Respondent did not participate in this proceeding.

The Panel therefore finds that paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy has been satisfied.

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 <vexdiscount.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Edoardo Fano/
Edoardo Fano
Sole Panelist
Date: March 24, 2023