ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Goop Inc. v. ChenGu Case No. D2023-3874 1. The Parties The Complainant is Goop Inc., United States of America, represented by Frost Brown Todd LLC, United States of America ("United States"). The Respondent is ChenGu, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name is registered with OwnRegistrar, Inc. (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on September 15, 2023. On September 18, 2023, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 19, 2023, 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 (WhoisSecure) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on September 21, 2023, 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 amended Complaint on September 25, 2023. 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 October 3, 2023. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 23, 2023. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on October 19, 2023. page 2 The Center appointed Kaya Köklü as the sole panelist in this matter on November 1, 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. 4. Factual Background The Complainant is a company registered in the United States and founded in 2008 by the widely known actress and entrepreneur Gwyneth Paltrow. It is providing a wide range of lifestyle products to customers around the world, including fashion, beauty, wellness, home décor and jewelry products (Annex D to the Complaint). The Complainant is the owner of the GOOP trademark, which is protected by various United States trademark registrations. Among others, the Complainant is the owner of the United States Trademark No. 4946429, registered on April 26, 2016, for GOOP, covering protection for various retail store and online services, as well as United States Trademark No. 5232763, registered on June 27, 2017, for GOOP, covering protection for a large variety of goods including perfume, knives, jewelry, handbags, pillows, pots and kitchen linens (Annex C to the Complaint). In addition, the Complainant owns and operates its official website at "www.goop.com" (Annex D to the Complaint). The Respondent is reportedly located in China. The disputed domain name was registered on March 21, 2023. As evidenced by screenshots in the Complaint, the disputed domain name resolved to a website that purports offering products prominently advertised and branded with the Complainant's GOOP trademark, without providing for a visible disclaimer describing the (lack of) relationship between the Parties (Annex E to the Complaint). A test purchase at the Respondent's website revealed that the ordered product never arrived, and the payment was indicated as a donation (Annex F to the Complaint). At the time of the Decision, the disputed domain name does no longer resolve to an active website. 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. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings According to paragraph 15(a) of the Rules, the Panel shall decide the Complaint in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable. page 3 In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that each of the three following elements is satisfied: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark 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. Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy states that the Complainant bears the burden of proving that all these requirements are fulfilled, even if the Respondent has not replied to the Complainant's contentions. Stanworth Development Limited v. E Net Marketing Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2007-1228. However, concerning the uncontested information provided by the Complainant, the Panel might, where relevant, accept the provided reasonable factual allegations in the Complaint as true. See section 4.3 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Overview 3.0"). It is further noted that the Panel has taken note of the WIPO Overview 3.0 and, where appropriate, will decide consistent with the consensus views stated therein. 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 3.0, section 1.7. Based on the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has shown rights in respect of the GOOP trademark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1. The Panel finds the entirety of the GOOP mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the GOOP mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. While the addition of other terms, here "the" and "us" may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such terms does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the GOOP mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8. Based on the available record, 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. 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 relevant evidence demonstrating 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. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1. page 4 Having reviewed the 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. On the contrary and bearing in mind that the Respondent apparently tries to impersonate the Complainant by prominently using the GOOP trademark at the associated website without actually offering any goods, and noting also the composition of the confusingly similar disputed domain name, the Panel finds it likely (at least cannot exclude) that the disputed domain name might have been used or will be used in connection with possibly fraudulent or illegitimate activities by the Respondent. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity (e.g., the sale of counterfeit goods, impersonation or other types of fraud) can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1. 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 present case, the Panel notes that the Respondent must have had the Complainant and its GOOP trademark in mind when registering the disputed domain name. It is obvious to the Panel, that the Respondent has deliberately chosen the disputed domain name to target and mislead Internet users searching for the Complainant and its products. Consequently, the Panel is convinced that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in bad faith. With respect to the use of the disputed domain name in bad faith, the Panel finds that the Respondent used the disputed domain name in order to generate traffic to its own website by deliberately misleading third parties in a false belief that the associated website is either operated or at least authorized by the Complainant, apparently for fraudulent purposes. The Panel particularly notes that a test purchase carried out on behalf of the Complainant revealed that the ordered product never arrived and the payment was incorrectly and illegally shown as a donation (which it was not) (Annex F to the Complaint). Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity (e.g., impersonation and other types of fraud) constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4. Based on the available record, the Panel finds the Respondent's registration and use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith under the Policy. The Panel concludes that the third element of the Policy has been established. 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 be transferred to the Complainant. /Kaya Köklü/ Kaya Köklü Sole Panelist Date: November 15, 2023
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy