ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Matinkim Inc. v. Jon som Case No. D2025-2815 1. The Parties The Complainant is Matinkim Inc., Republic of Korea, represented by Marq Vision, Inc., United States of America. The Respondent is Jon som, Singapore. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar The disputed domain names , and are registered with INTERNETX GMBH (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 17, 2025. On July 17, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On July 18, 2025, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain names which differed from the named Respondent (Unknown) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on August 4, 2025, 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 amendment to the Complaint on August 5, 2025. 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 August 5, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 25, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 28, 2025.
page 2 The Center appointed Johan Sjöbeck as the sole panelist in this matter on September 11, 2025. 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 has submitted evidence that it is the owner of the following trademark registrations: MATIN KIM, Korean trademark registration number 4021706830000, and registration date March 19, 2024. MATIN KIM, Australian trademark registration number 2454219 and registration date September 25, 2023. MATIN KIM, international trademark registration number 1791432 and registration date September 25, 2023. The Respondent registered the disputed domain names , and on March 16, 2025. The disputed domain names resolve to websites that display the Complainant’s MATIN KIM trademark and images of the Complainant’s products. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant, Matinkim Inc., contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain names. The Complainant is a renowned fashion brand that produces and distributes a wide range of products, including women’s apparel, bags, and fashion accessories under the brand name MATIN KIM. The Complainant has earned substantial recognition and acclaim for its modern, minimalist designs and high-quality products. The Complainant holds registered trademarks for MATIN KIM in Republic of Korea, Australia, and other jurisdictions worldwide, including an international registration under the Madrid System. These trademarks are inherently distinctive, widely recognized by consumers, and carry no common or generic meaning. The Complainant actively promotes its trademarks through its official website “www.matinkim.com”. The disputed domain names , , and , all registered on March 16, 2025, wholly incorporate the Complainant’s trademark MATIN KIM. The addition of the letters “xc” within the mark, along with the numbers “58” or “76” and the “.com” Top-Level Domain, does nothing to lessen the confusing similarity to the Complainant’s trademark. On the contrary, the overall impression created by these domain names, particularly when viewed alongside the content of the associated websites, closely mimics the Complainant’s trademark and brand identity, thereby increasing the likelihood of consumer confusion. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The Complainant has never licensed or otherwise authorized the Respondent to use its trademarks or to register any domain name incorporating the Complainant’s trademark. The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names, has no relationship with the Complainant, and holds no prior rights or legitimate interests that would justify the use of the Complainant’s well-known trademarks and domain names. Furthermore, the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names appears to impersonate the Complainant and does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services. According to section 2.13.1 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), it is well established that the use of a domain name for illegal activities, such as selling counterfeit goods, phishing, distributing malware, unauthorized account access or hacking, impersonation or passing off, or other types of fraud, can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent.
page 3 The disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith. Given the renowned and distinctive nature of the Complainant’s MATIN KIM trademarks, along with the prominence of the brand on the Complainant’s official website, it is evident that the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant and its trademark rights at the time of registration. Moreover, even a basic trademark search or Internet query would have readily revealed the Complainant’s rights. As detailed further below, the evidence clearly demonstrates that these disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. First, the mere registration of the disputed domain names constitutes compelling evidence of bad faith. The Complainant is a globally recognized fashion brand known for its contemporary women’s apparel, bags, and accessories under the MATIN KIM trademark. The brand enjoys substantial recognition from both domestic and international consumers, particularly due to its distinctive minimalist aesthetic and high-quality products. As the exclusive owner of the trademark, the Complainant’s rights predate the registrations of the disputed domain names. Each disputed domain name wholly incorporates the Complainant’s trademark, adding only the arbitrary letters “xc” and the numbers “58” or “76”, which do nothing to distinguish the disputed domain names from the Complainant’s mark. This deliberate construction indicates an intention to exploit the goodwill associated with the Complainant’s brand and to mislead consumers into believing the disputed domain names are authorized or endorsed by the Complainant. Second, the Respondent is using the Complainant’s trademark on the websites linked to the disputed domain names in a manner designed to falsely suggest an affiliation with the Complainant’s official website, thereby deceiving consumers. The disputed domain names resolve to websites that prominently display the Complainant’s MATIN KIM trademark. By purporting to offer the same or similar products as the Complainant and deliberately using images of the Complainant’s goods, the Respondent creates a false impression of affiliation or authorization, seeking to benefit commercially from the Complainant’s established reputation. Third, the Respondent’s websites encourage users to sign up under false pretenses, further illustrating bad faith in both the registration and use of the disputed domain names. The Respondent clearly seeks to attract Internet users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the sites. By leveraging the Complainant’s reputation and goodwill for unauthorized activities such as impersonation, passing off, and phishing, the Respondent’s actions pose substantial risks to both the Complainant and unsuspecting consumers. Additionally, the Respondent’s use of privacy protection services to conceal its contact details in the WhoIs records underscores its bad faith. While privacy shields can serve legitimate purposes, in this case it appears designed to frustrate the purpose of the Policy and impede the Complainant’s efforts to protect its trademark rights against infringement, dilution, and cybersquatting. On July 10, 2025, detailed reports concerning the disputed domain names and their infringing activities were submitted to the relevant Registrar. Despite these reports, the Respondent has failed to respond or comply with the Complainant’s requests to transfer or cancel the disputed domain names. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove each of the following: (i) that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
page 4 (ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names; and (iii) that the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The 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. According to the submitted evidence, the Complainant is the owner of the registered trademark MATIN KIM. The disputed domain names , and incorporate the trademark in its entirety with the addition of the arbitrary letters “xc” and the numbers “58” and “76” respectively. The Complainant’s trademark is readily recognizable in the disputed domain names, despite the additions of the arbitrary letters and numbers. It is standard practice to disregard the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) under the confusingly similar test. Having the above in mind, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark and that the Complainant has proven the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant must show, at least prima facie, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the disputed domain names. The Respondent may establish a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain names by demonstrating any of the following non-exhaustive circumstances listed in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy: (i) that it has made preparations to use the disputed domain names or a name corresponding to the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services prior to any notice of the dispute; or (ii) that it is commonly known by the disputed domain names, even if it has not acquired any trademark rights; or (iii) that it is making a legitimate, noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark. The Complainant’s trademark registrations for MATIN KIM predate the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain names. The Complainant has not licensed, approved or in any way consented to the Respondent’s registration and use of the trademarks in the disputed domain names. The evidence in the case indicates that the Respondent has attempted to create an impression of websites created by, belonging to, or endorsed by the Complainant. The Respondent’s websites, to which the disputed domain names resolve, not only display the Complainant’s trademark but also images of the Complainant’s goods. Consequently, consumers may falsely believe that the disputed domain names belong to, or are endorsed by the Complainant. Given the above, the Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark.
page 5 Although given the opportunity, the Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie case. The Respondent has not submitted any Response or any evidence in this case to demonstrate that the Respondent is the owner of any trademark rights similar to the disputed domain names or that the Respondent is or has been commonly known by the disputed domain names. By not submitting a response, the Respondent has failed to invoke any circumstances which could demonstrate, pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names. Thus, there is no evidence in the case that refutes the Complainant’s submissions, and the Panel concludes that the Complainant has also proved the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Under paragraph 4(b) of the Policy, evidence of bad faith registration and use include without limitation: (i) circumstances indicating the disputed domain names were registered or acquired primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the disputed domain name registrations to the owner of a trademark or to a competitor of the trademark owner, for valuable consideration in excess of the documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the disputed domain names; or (ii) circumstances indicating that the disputed domain names were registered in order to prevent the owner of a trademark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided there is a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) circumstances indicating that the disputed domain names were registered primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) circumstances indicating that the disputed domain names have intentionally been used in an attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to a website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website or location or of a product or service on that website or location. The Complainant has provided evidence demonstrating that the Respondent is using the disputed domain names to create a false impression of affiliation. The websites, to which the disputed domain names resolve, imply Complainant’s endorsement, as the websites display not only the Complainant’s trademark but also images of the Complainant’s products. Hence, there is an increased risk of confusion as Internet users may more easily be confused or misled into believing that the disputed domain names belong to, or are in some way associated with or endorsed by the Complainant. Bearing in mind that the Respondent is reproducing the Complainant’s trademark without permission on the websites to which the disputed domain names resolve, the Panel finds, in the absence of contrary evidence, that the Respondent knew or should have known of the Complainant’s trademark and business when registering and using the disputed domain names. Thus, the evidence in the case before the Panel indicates that the disputed domain names have intentionally been used in an attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s websites by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the websites or of a product or service on the websites. There is no evidence in the case that refutes the Complainant’s submissions. The Panel concludes that the Complainant has proved the requirements under paragraph 4(b) of the Policy and that the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.
page 6 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 names , and shall be transferred to the Complainant. /Johan Sjöbeck/ Johan Sjöbeck Sole Panelist Date: September 17, 2025
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy