WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Thinx, Inc. v. Weldon Love Case No. D2019-0527 1. The Parties

The Complainant is Thinx, Inc. of New York, New York, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Sills Cummis & Gross P.C., United States.

The Respondent is Weldon Love of Many Farms, Arizona, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name is registered with GoD, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 7, 2019. On March 8, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 8, 2019, 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. In response to a Request for Amendment by the Center, the Complainant filed an amended Complaint on March 14, 2019.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 amended Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 20, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 9, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 10, 2019.

The Center appointed William R. Towns as the sole panelist in this matter on April 24, 2019. 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 Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in New York. The Complainant operates an online retail store offering women’s undergarments, lingerie, underwear and sanitary products, and providing online forums and related services under the THINX mark. The Complainant is the owner of the following United States trademark registrations for THINX: United States trademark registration No. 4,946,535, applied for March 14, 2013, and registered April 26, 2016, United States trademark registration No. 5,099,075, applied for March 3, 2016, and registered December 13, 2016, and United States trademark registration No. 5,144,899, applied for April 3, 2016, and registered February 21, 2017. The Complainant promotes its goods and services through its official website at “.”

The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on February 8, 2019. The disputed domain name resolves to a website headed “THINXDISCOUNTCODE” at “www..” The Respondent’s website offers discount codes for THINX products that may be purchased on the Complainant’s website. Visitors to the Respondent’s website obtain a “discount code” in order to click through to the Complainant’s online store, and are encouraged to provide their email addresses before leaving the Respondent’s website. If the visitor purchases an eligible product from the Complainant’s online store, the discount code obtained from the Respondent is applied at checkout. The Respondent’s website also displays the THINX mark with a “Visit Website” link that resolves to the Complainant’s website. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant

The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its well-known and distinctive THINX mark. The Complainant maintains that the incorporation of the Complainant’s THINX mark in the disputed domain name is sufficient to establish the confusing similarity of the disputed domain name with the Complainant’s mark. The Complainant asserts that the addition of the descriptive term “discount code” does not dispel confusing similarity, but rather is calculated to mislead consumers to believe that the Respondent’s website is operated by, sponsored, endorsed, or affiliated with the Complainant. The Complainant further explains that the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” is disregarded when assessing confusing similarity.

The Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant avers that the Respondent has not been licensed or otherwise authorized to use the Complainant’s THINX mark, has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name, and is neither using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services nor making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. According to the Complainant, the Respondent instead is using the disputed domain name to attract Internet users to the Respondent’s website, infringing on the Complainant’s mark in order to create a false association with the Complainant for the Respondent’s own commercial gain. The Complainant contends that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name to raise the Respondent’s website’s search engine ranking while lowering and damaging the ranking of the Complainant’s genuine website.

The Complainant maintains that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Complainant asserts that the THINX mark is distinctive, well-known, and strongly associated with the Complainant, and further submits that the Respondent clearly was aware of the Complainant and its rights in the THINX mark when registering the disputed domain name. According to the Complainant, the Respondent is seeking to divert Internet visitors to the Respondent’s website though the creation of Internet user confusion, in order to capitalize on the good will of the Complainant’s mark for the Respondent’s personal gain, and to obtain visitors’ email addresses and personal information, possibly to resell them to third parties. B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Scope of the Policy

The Policy is addressed to resolving disputes concerning allegations of abusive domain name registration and use. Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation v. Bay Verte Machinery, Inc. d/b/a The Power Tool Store,WIPO Case No. D2002-0774. Accordingly, the jurisdiction of this Panel is limited to providing a remedy in cases of “the abusive registration of domain names”, also known as “cybersquatting”. Weber-Stephen Products Co. v. Armitage Hardware,WIPO Case No. D2000-0187. See Final Report of the First WIPO Internet Domain Name Process, April 30, 1999, paragraphs 169-177. The term “cybersquatting” is most frequently used to describe the deliberate, bad faith abusive registration of a domain name in violation of rights in trademarks or service marks. Id. at paragraph 170. Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules provides that the panel shall decide a complaint on the basis of statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Poli