Decision for dispute CAC-UDRP-108479

The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name.

The Complainant has demonstrated ownership of rights in the trademark COOKE & LEWIS for the purposes of standing to file a UDRP complaint.

The Complainant is the owner, amongst others, of the following trademark registrations:

- International trademark registration No. 1190662 for COOKE & LEWIS (word mark), registered on June 28, 2013, in classes 6, 7, 11, 16, 20 and 21;

- United Kingdom trademark registration No. UK00909943358 for COOKE & LEWIS (word mark), filed on May 05, 2011, and registered on January 07, 2012, in classes 7, 11, 20 and 21;

- United Kingdom trademark registration No. UK00906872659 for COOKE & LEWIS (word mark), filed on April 28, 2008, and registered on May 14, 2009, in classes 6, 11, 19, 20 and 27;

- United Kingdom trademark registration No. UK00801190662 for COOKE & LEWIS (word mark), filed on June 28, 2013, and registered on December 03, 2014, in classes 6, 7, 11, 16, 20 and 21;

- United Kingdom trademark registration No. UK00003734471 for COOKE & LEWIS (word mark), filed on December 17, 2021, and registered on May 20, 2022, in classes 1, 6, 7, 11, 12, 17, 19, 20, 21, 24 and 27;

- United Kingdom trademark registration No. UK00002562421 for COOKE & LEWIS (word mark), filed on October 27, 2010, and registered on January 28, 2011, in classes 7, 11, 20 and 21;

- European Union trademark registration No. 018625071 for COOKE & LEWIS (word mark) filed on December 17, 2021, and registered on July 6, 2022, in classes 1, 6, 7, 11, 12, 17, 19, 20, 21, 24 and 27;

- Indian trademark registration No. 1748815 for COOKE & LEWIS (figurative mark), registered on October 29, 2008, in classes 11 and 20.

The Complainant is a British multinational group which operates through several well‑established retail banners, including B&Q, Castorama, Brico Dépôt, Screwfix, TradePoint and Koçtaş, providing a comprehensive range of home improvement products and services to both consumers and trade professionals and serving customers across an extensive store network and e‑commerce platforms. 

The Complainant owns a broad portfolio of trademarks, including the COOKE & LEWIS trademark, under which it markets interior design solutions and household products. The COOKE & LEWIS brand covers a wide range of home interior items such as bathroom and kitchen furniture, mixer taps, sinks, storage solutions, laminate flooring and door handles. The brand also extends to various home and lifestyle accessories within the interior furnishing and home‑improvement segments.

The Complainant provides information on the COOKE & LEWIS brand and product ranges on an internal page of its website “www.kingfisher.com”.

The disputed domain name <thecookeandlewis.com> was registered on October 16, 2025, and resolves to a website displaying the COOKE & LEWIS mark and providing images and descriptions of kitchen appliances, bathroom items, and household accessories, which are presented as part of the COOKE & LEWIS product range. The items featured under the “Shop by Cooke And Lewis Product” section of the website also include the product prices, although the website does not currently allow to complete purchases.

COMPLAINANT

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark COOKE & LEWIS, as it includes the trademark in its entirety with the mere addition of the definite article “the” placed before the trademark and the generic Top Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”, which are not sufficient to escape the finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark.

The Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name because the Respondent is neither a licensee nor an authorized distributor of the Complainant and has never been granted permission to use the Complainant’s COOKE & LEWIS trademark. The Complainant also states that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and has no relevant trademark or trade name rights in COOKE & LEWIS or in a name corresponding to the disputed domain name.

The Complainant further submits that the disputed domain name has not been used for a bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate non-commercial use since: i) the disputed domain name has been used by the Respondent to impersonate the Complainant and present itself as an official COOKE & LEWIS website, without any authorization; ii) the Respondent’s website prominently displays the Complainant’s COOKE & LEWIS trademark and imitates the Complainant’s branding; iii) the Respondent has failed to accurately and prominently disclose its lack of affiliation with the Complainant; iv) the disputed domain name fully incorporates the Complainant’s trademark and v) the registration of the disputed domain name significantly post-dates the Complainant’s registration of the COOKE & LEWIS trademarks.

The Complainant indicates that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith because: i) the Complainant’s COOKE & LEWIS trademark registrations long predate the registration of the disputed domain name; ii) the disputed domain name resolves to a website on which the Complainant’s COOKE & LEWIS trademark is prominently displayed, reproducing the Complainant’s brand identity and presenting product lines associated with the Complainant; iii) the Respondent is based in China and the website is displayed in English using GBP pricing. The Complainant concludes that, given the Complainant’s long-standing distinctiveness and world renown, the Respondent could not have been unaware of the Complainant’s trademark rights at the time of registration of the disputed domain name.

The Complainant further contends that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in bad faith since: i) the Complainant’s COOKE & LEWIS trademark is reproduced both in the disputed domain name and on the associated website, giving rise to the suspicion that the Respondent is deliberately seeking to exploit the reputation and goodwill of the Complainant’s brand; ii) the website to which the disputed domain name resolves also publishes an online store offering the Complainant’s COOKE & LEWIS branded products for sale; iii) the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in a manner that intentionally attracts Internet users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website; iv) the Respondent was acting in a fraudulent and deceptive manner since it used the disputed domain name to impersonate, pass off and profit from the sale of Complainant’s COOKE & LEWIS branded goods at discounted prices; and v) the Respondent has failed to accurately and prominently disclose its lack of affiliation with the Complainant since no disclaimer appears anywhere on the website corresponding to the disputed domain name, thereby reinforcing the misleading impression of affiliation and contributing to user confusion.

The Complainant also informs the Panel that it sent a notice of infringement to the Respondent, on February 03, 2026, but received no reply or acknowledgement from the Respondent.  

RESPONDENT

No administratively compliant Response has been filed.

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy).

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Respondent to have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy).

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).

The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.

1. The Complainant has provided evidence of ownership of valid trademark registrations for COOKE & LEWIS.

The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark as it reproduces the denominative elements of the mark by simply replacing the “&” with the conjunction “and” and adding the definite article “the” and the gTLD “.com”. As stated in prior decisions rendered under the UDRP, where a relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the addition of other terms and of the gTLD is not sufficient to prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element.

2. With reference to the Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, the Panel finds that the Complainant has made a prima facie case and that the Respondent, by not submitting a Response, has failed to provide any element from which a Respondent’s right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name could be inferred.

The Panel notes that, based on the records, the Respondent has not been authorized or licensed by the Complainant to use its trademark COOKE & LEWIS. Moreover, there is no evidence that the Respondent might be commonly known by the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name.

As highlighted above, the disputed domain name resolves to a website reproducing the Complainant’s trademark COOKE & LEWIS and displaying images and descriptions of COOKE & LEWIS products, including kitchen appliances, bathroom items, and household accessories, which are presented as part of the COOKE & LEWIS product range and are apparently offered for sale, despite currently it does not seem possible to conclude purchases. Moreover, the website does not include any information about the website operator or any disclaimer of non-affiliation with the Complainant. The Panel finds that the disputed domain name has not been used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate non-commercial or fair use without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the Complainant’s trademark. Indeed, the Panel notes that the content of the Respondent’s website is apparently designed to reinforce the impression that it is a website operated by the Complainant or by one of its affiliated entities with the Complainant’s consent. 

Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has demonstrated that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name according to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

3. As to bad faith at the time of registration, the Panel finds that, in light of the prior registration and use of the trademark COOKE & LEWIS in connection with the Complainant’s household products, the Respondent was or should have been aware of the Complainant when it registered the disputed domain name on October 16, 2025.

In light of the composition of the disputed domain name and of the content of the website to which the disputed domain name resolves, clearly reproducing the COOKE & LEWIS mark, the Panel finds that the Respondent was indeed aware of, and intended to target, the Complainant and its trademark at the time of registration.

In view of the above-described use of the disputed domain name in connection with a website reproducing the Complainant’s trademark and offering purported COOKE & LEWIS products for sale, without disclaiming the lack of relationship with the Complainant, the Panel finds that the Respondent has been using the disputed domain name to intentionally attempt to attract Internet users to its website for commercial gain, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of its website, according to paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.   

Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has also demonstrated that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith according to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.