WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Future Motion, Inc. v. Contact Privacy Inc., Customer 0153887810 / Wu Xiaojie, Giftminds Case No. D2019-0853 1. The Parties

The Complainant is Future Motion, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Kolitch Romano LLP, United States.

The Respondent is Contact Privacy Inc., Customer 0153887810, Canada / Wu Xiaojie, Giftminds, Australia. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name is registered with Tucows Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 16, 2019. On April 16, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 16, 2019, 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 and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on April 23, 2019, 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 April 25, 2019.

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 April 26, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 16, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 17, 2019.

The Center appointed Jane Seager as the sole panelist in this matter on June 5, 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 United States corporation, incorporated under the laws of the state of Delaware, with its principal place of business in Santa Cruz, California, United States. The Complainant has, since early 2014, operated a business of selling electric sports boards, including a line of electric skateboards under the trademark ONEWHEEL. The Complainant is the registrant of the domain name , from which it operates an online web store selling its electric skateboards.

For use in connection with its business operations, the Complainant is the owner of, inter alia, the following trademarks:

- United States Trademark Registration No. 4622766, ONEWHEEL, registered on October 14, 2014,

- United States Trademark Registration No. 4715457, , registered on April 7, 2015, and

- International Trademark Registration No. 1227105, ONEWHEEL, registered on August 26, 2014, designating Australia, China, France, Germany, Israel, Japan, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.

The disputed domain name was registered on February 6, 2019. The disputed domain name previously resolved to a website that purported to be an online store for electric skateboards resembling the Complainant’s products and bearing the Complainant’s trademark (the “Respondent’s website”). At the time of this decision, the disputed domain name resolves to a Shopify landing page. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant

The Complainant contends, in relevant part, as follows:

The Complainant asserts rights in the ONEWHEEL trademark by virtue of its registration and use in commerce since 2014, details of which are set out in the factual background section above. The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ONEWHEEL trademark, as it incorporates the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety. The Complainant argues that the mere addition of the term “flash” does nothing to distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s well-known ONEWHEEL mark, and therefore does nothing to prevent a likelihood of confusion.

The Complainant submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant states that the Respondent is not sponsored by or affiliated with the Complainant, nor has the Respondent received any license or permission to use the Complainant’s ONEWHEEL mark in any manner, including in domain names. The Complainant states th