All of the domains, numbering well over 300, included the New York clothing brand’s Supreme trademark along with generic terms, including ‘club’, ‘store’ and ‘sell’.
Supreme claimed that the domains were identical or confusingly similar to its trademarks Supreme and Sup, which it says are “strong source identifiers” of its goods and services.
Supreme claimed that the disputed domain names were used to intentional attract internet users for commercial gain to websites linked to the disputed domain names.
None of the domains original registrants responded to Supreme’s contentions.
Sole panellist Andrew Lothian concluded that none of the generic words, acronyms, country codes or geographic terms that were added to the trademark contained in the domains were sufficient enough to distinguish them.
He agreed that the domains were confusingly similar to the Supreme trademark and intended to attract visitors to the associated websites for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion.
Lothian said this was evidence of a bad faith registration and that the nature of the disputed domain names demonstrates “a pattern of conduct which constitutes bad faith”.
All of the disputed domains were transferred to Supreme