The Complainant is DKH Retail Limited, a UK registered company and a wholly owned subsidiary of Superdry Limited, a UK registered company trading as the brand “SUPERDRY”. The Complainant is a well-known designer and retailer of clothing and apparel related accessories<\/p>\n
The Complainant owns trademarks rights on the term SUPERDRY, and owns and operates the domain name <superdry.com> and the corresponding website.<\/p>\n
All disputed domain names were registered between May and November 2023.<\/p>", "other_legal_proceedings": "
The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain names.<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "
COMPLAINANT<\/strong><\/p>\n Procedural element: Request for Consolidation<\/u><\/p>\n The Complainant asserts that all the disputed domain names are owned or under the effective control of a single person or entity, or a group of individuals acting in concert, as they share similarities: close registration date, sole registrar, same patterns, etc.<\/p>\n Legal elements<\/u><\/p>\n The Complainant submits that the disputed domain names are identical or similar to the point of confusion with its SUPERDRY trademarks. The Complainant asserts that the addition of generic or geographic terms is not sufficient to escape the finding that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the trademark SUPERDRY.<\/p>\n Per the Complaint, the Respondent is not known by the Complainant. The Complainant contends that Respondent is not affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant in any way and that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with, the Respondent. Furthermore, part of the disputed domain names resolve to websites resembling the official website of the Complainant at <superdry.com>, which is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate non-commercial or fair use under Policy. The websites reproduce the Complainant's name and logo. Other disputed domain names resolve to pay-per-click pages of commercial links.<\/p>\n As regards the bad faith of the Respondent, by registering many domain names reproducing the Complainant's well-known trademark and linking part of them with websites resembling the Complainant's official website, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark. The Complainant equally asserts that the Respondent has entered a pattern of conduct where it has registered domain names in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name.<\/p>\n RESPONDENT<\/strong><\/p>\n NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED. <\/p>",
"rights": " The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain names are 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).<\/p>",
"no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": " 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 names (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy).<\/p>",
"bad_faith": " The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).<\/p>",
"procedural_factors": " CONSOLIDATION - Multiple underlying Registrants<\/strong><\/p>\n It is well established that where the particular circumstances of a given case indicate that common control is being exercised over the disputed domain names, consolidation may be granted, provided that it would be fair and equitable to all parties.<\/p>\n The Complainant asserts that, on the balance of probabilities, all of the disputed domain names are owned or under the effective control of a single person or entity, or a group of individuals acting in concert.<\/p>\n The Complaint identifies a number of common factors:<\/p>\n The Panel first notes that under par. 3 (c) of the UDRP Rules, the complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain-name holder. Consolidation is also addressed in WIPO Overview 3.1, section 4.11, which states that “panels look at whether (i) the domain names or corresponding websites are subject to common control, and (ii) the consolidation would be fair and equitable to all parties. Procedural efficiency would also underpin panel consideration of such a consolidation scenario”.<\/p>\n The Panel, in line with decisions of other panels in similar cases (see, for example, CAC case No. 105420), considers that, on the balance of probabilities, all of the disputed domain names are under the control of a single person or entity, or group of individuals acting in concert.<\/p>\n Therefore, the Panel decides to grant the requested consolidation.<\/p>\n --<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>",
"decision": "Accepted",
"panelists": [
"Arthur Fouré"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2026-05-12 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " The Complainant provided evidence of ownership of a large number of SUPERDRY trademarks, inter alia:<\/p>\n\n
\n