Yeti Cycling, LLC v Shuhua Zhao

WIPO Case No. D2022-2748

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Yeti Cycling, LLC v. Shuhua Zhao

Case No. D2022-2748

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Yeti Cycling, LLC, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Dorsey &

Whitney, LLP, United States.

The Respondent is Shuhua Zhao, China.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <yeticycleshop.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 July 26, 2022. On connection with the disputed domain name. On July 29, 2022, 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 July 29, 2022. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5,
the due date for Response was August 18, 2022. The Respondent did not submit any response.

Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 19, 2022.

The Center appointed Zoltán Takács as the sole panelist in this matter on August 23, 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.

page 2

4. Factual Background

The Complainant was founded in 1985 and is based in Colorado, United States.

The Complainant operates a mountain biking business that primarily sells mountain bikes, bike parts,
apparel and outdoor gear. The Complainant’s products are offered in all 50 states in the United States, as
well as in over 50 countries worldwide. The Complainant sells its products either directly to customers via its

e-commerce business or to its third party-retail partners as part of its wholesale business.

Among others, the Complainant is owner of the United States Trademark Registration No. 3323853 for the
word mark YETI, registered on October 30, 2007, for goods of class 12 and 25 of the Nice Agreement
Concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of
Marks, including bicycles, bicycle components and accessories.

Since December 6, 1995, the Complainant owns the domain name <yeticycles.com>, which links to its corporate website.

The disputed domain name was registered on December 13, 2021, and resolves a website that substantially copies the Complainant’s official website (including its trademarks, official logo and copyrighted images and texts) and purports to sell the Complainant’s products.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name, which incorporates the entirety of its YETI trademark is confusingly similar to it, because addition of the terms “cycle” and “shop” to the trademark does not sufficiently distinguish the disputed domain name.

The Complainant alleges that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed
domain name and is unable to rely on any of the circumstances set out in paragraphs 4(c)(i), (ii), or (iii) of the
Policy.

The Complainant claims that the Respondent’s copying of its official website is clear evidence of bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name.

The Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred from the Respondent to the

Complainant.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules requires that the Panel’s decision be made “on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable”.

It has been a consensus view in UDRP decisions that a respondent’s default (i.e., failure to submit a response) 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. See section 4.3 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”).

page 3

A complainant must evidence each of the three elements required by paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in order to succeed on the complaint, namely that;

(i)        the 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 domain name; and

(iii)      the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

Under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, there are two requirements which the Complainant must establish, first that it has rights in a trademark or service mark, and second that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark or service mark.

It has been a consensus view among UDRP panels that if the complainant owns a nationally or regionally registered trademark, then it generally satisfies the threshold requirement of having trademark rights.

The Complainant produced suitable evidence of having registered rights in the YETI trademark and for the
purpose of this proceeding the Panel establishes that the United States Trademark Registration No.
3323853 satisfies the requirement of having trademark rights for the purpose of the Policy.

Having determined the presence of the Complainant’s trademark rights, the Panel next assesses whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.

According to section 1.7 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, 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. This test typically involves a side-by-side comparison of the disputed domain name and the textual components of the relevant trademark to assess whether the mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name.

According to section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element.

According to section 1.11.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, the applicable Top-Level Domain (“TLD”) in a domain name (e.g., “.com”, “.club”, “.nyc”) is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is generally disregarded under the first element confusingly similar test.

The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s mark in its entirety. In view of the Panel, the addition of the terms “cycle” and “shop” to the Complainant’s trademark does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name.

The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is therefore confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark and that the first ground of the Policy is established.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Under paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, a respondent may demonstrate its rights or legitimate interests in a domain name by showing any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation:

(i) before any notice to it of the dispute, its use of, or demonstrable preparation to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services;

page 4

(ii)       it has been commonly known by the domain name;

(iii) it is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert customers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.

In the present case, the Complainant has submitted sufficient and uncontested evidence that it holds well-established rights in the YETI trademark.

The Complainant has never authorized the Respondent to use its trademark in any way, and its prior rights in the YETI trademark, which precedes the date of registration of the disputed domain name.

According to section 2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, while the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the often impossible 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 the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with the relevant evidence demonstrating its rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element.

The Respondent failed to respond, and by doing so failed to offer the Panel any type of evidence set forth in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, or otherwise counter the Complainant’s prima facie case.

The website at the disputed domain name effectively impersonates or falsely suggests endorsement by the images found in the Complainant’s official website.

UDRP panels have categorically held that use of a domain name for illegal activity, such as impersonation/passing of, or other types of fraud can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent (see section 2.13.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0).

The Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy lists a number of factors which, if found by the panel to be present, shall be evidence of registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. This non-exclusive list includes:

(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 online 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

page 5

service on your website or location.

The Complainant’s YETI trademark is inherently distinctive for the corresponding goods, namely bicycles, bicycle parts and accessories.

The Respondent reproduced the Complainant’s trademark in the disputed domain name and is using the Complainant’s signature logo and copyrighted materials at the website under the disputed domain name.

Thus, it is clear that the Respondent had full knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark and business when it registered the disputed domain name.

The use to which the Respondent has put the disputed domain name in view of the Panel amounts to bad faith registration and use within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. The Respondent is using the disputed domain name to direct Internet traffic to its website to gain illegitimate profit through false

association.

Moreover, the Respondent’s offering for sale of bicycles, bicycle parts and accessories bearing the customers do or would not actually receive any such products.
Complainant’s trademark at inconceivably discounted prices strongly suggest to this Panel that the

The Respondent chose not to respond to the Complaint and rebut the Complainant’s credible claims and assertions, which the Panel accepts and finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) 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 disputed domain name <yeticycleshop.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Zoltán Takács/
Zoltán Takács
Sole Panelist
Date: August 31, 2022