The Complainant, Sisco Textiles N.V., is the exclusive owner of the O’NEILL trademarks, registered throughout the world notably for clothing and accessories. O’NEILL is a worldwide-known surf, ski and casual brand which has been designing, manufacturing, marketing and selling quality apparel, accessories and performance wear since 1952.<\/p>\n
The Complainant is the owner of the trademarks identified above. Apart from numerous physical stores around the world, O’NEILL-branded fashion products are also offered for sale online through websites operated by the Complainant’s licensees, such as <oneill.com>, <eu.oneill.com>, <us.oneill.com> and <au.oneill.com>.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name <oneiillsell.com> was registered on April 3, 2026 with the registrar Dynadot Inc. It resolves to a website which imitates the Complainant’s official website, reproduces the Complainant’s trademarks and logos, and offers for sale purported O’NEILL-branded products, using pictures taken from the Complainant’s website. On May 27, 2026, the Complainant addressed a cease-and-desist letter to the Respondent through the Registrar; the letter remained unanswered. <\/p>\n
The Respondent did not file a Response.<\/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 name.<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "
The Complainant contends that each of the three elements set out in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is satisfied.<\/p>\n
As to the first element, the Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademarks, as it reproduces that trademark in its entirety with the addition of (a) a duplicated letter “i” (yielding “oneiill” instead of “oneill”), (b) the generic term “sell”, and (c) the generic top-level domain “.com”. The Complainant contends that the generic top-level domain is not a distinguishing factor; that the addition of a descriptive or generic term does not avert a finding of confusing similarity, as it does not alter the overall impression that the designation is connected with the Complainant’s well-known trademark (referring to decision CAC-UDRP-104909); that the addition of the term “sell” is an aggravating factor, strongly suggesting the existence of an official Complainant’s retail outlet; and that the duplication of the letter “i” constitutes a deliberate, minimal misspelling easily overlooked by a casual Internet user, which does not overcome the confusing similarity with the trademark.<\/p>\n
As to the second element, the Complainant submits that the Respondent has no connection or affiliation with the Complainant and has not received any licence or consent, express or implied, to use the Complainant’s trademarks or to register any domain name incorporating them; that there is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the name “oneiillsell” or uses that term in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; that, to the contrary, the disputed domain name resolves to a website which clones the Complainant’s official website, reproduces its trademarks and logos, and offers counterfeit products for sale; and that the use of a domain name for illegal activity – here, the sale of counterfeit goods – can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent.<\/p>\n
As to the third element, the Complainant submits that the disputed domain name was registered long after the Complainant’s trademarks, whose worldwide reputation has been established since 1952, so that it is inconceivable that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name without actual knowledge of the Complainant’s rights; that the website accessible via the disputed domain name displays the Complainant’s trademarks and logos and offers, or purports to offer, for sale O’NEILL-branded goods using pictures taken directly from the Complainant’s website, which constitutes a deliberate attempt to attract Internet users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademarks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the website within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy; that the addition of the term “sell” evidences a deliberate commercial intent reinforcing the Respondent’s bad faith both at the time of registration and in use; and that the Respondent has maintained the disputed domain name despite the Complainant’s cease-and-desist letter, which remained unanswered, this being an additional indicator of bad faith.<\/p>\n
NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.<\/p>", "rights": "
The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name is 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 name (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 name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).<\/p>", "procedural_factors": "
The Complaint was filed with the Czech Arbitration Court (the “CAC”) in accordance with the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) and the CAC Supplemental Rules (the “Supplemental Rules”).<\/p>\n
The CAC verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Policy, the Rules and the Supplemental Rules. The CAC formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint and the proceedings commenced. The due date for a Response was duly set.<\/p>\n
The Respondent did not submit any Response. Accordingly, the CAC notified the Respondent of its default. The Panel was appointed in accordance with the Rules. The Panel has submitted its Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the CAC to ensure compliance with the Rules.<\/p>\n
The language of the proceedings is English.<\/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": [ "Petr Hostaš" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2026-07-07 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "