The AMERICAN GIRL brand of dolls was created in 1986 and has been used extensively in trade in connection with dolls, accessories, books, retail services, audiovisual content and related consumer products. It was later acquired by Mattel.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain names <americangirlus.com> and <americangirlx.com> were registered between 24 November 2025 and 12 December 2025.<\/p>\n
Before the filing of the Complaint, the disputed domain names resolved to websites displaying the AMERICAN GIRL mark and offering for sale purported AMERICAN GIRL products. <\/p>\n
Following enforcement action, <americangirlx.com> ceased resolving to an active website. <\/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 the requirements of the Policy have been met and that the disputed domain name should be transferred to it.
No administratively compliant Response has been filed.<\/p>",
"rights": "
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).<\/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 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>\n
The Complaint names two registrants and seeks consolidation of the two disputed domain names into a single proceeding. Under paragraphs 3(c) and 10(e) of the Rules, consolidation may be appropriate where the disputed domain names or corresponding websites are subject to common control and where consolidation would be fair and equitable to all parties. Procedural efficiency is also relevant.<\/p>\n
The Panel grants consolidation. The evidence shows a sufficient pattern of common control or coordinated conduct. Both disputed domain names were registered through the same Registrar, use the same hosting provider, incorporate the Complainant’s AMERICAN GIRL mark in closely related forms, and were used for websites with materially the same look and feel and the same essential commercial presentation. The registrations were made within a short period of one another. Those circumstances, considered together, are unlikely to be coincidental and support the inference that the domain names are subject to common control or, at minimum, coordinated action by persons acting in concert.<\/p>\n
The Panel has considered the consolidation request by reference to the approach reflected in section 4.11.2 of the WIPO Overview 3.0. The question is not whether the registrant data are identical, but whether the available circumstances establish, on the balance of probabilities, that the domain names or corresponding websites are subject to common control and whether consolidation would be fair and equitable. Common registrar or hosting arrangements would not, standing alone, necessarily be sufficient. Here, however, those features form part of a much more specific pattern: the same distinctive trade mark is reproduced in both names; each name adds only a short suffix; the names were registered within a confined period; and the associated websites were presented in materially the same manner for the same commercial purpose.<\/p>\n
The website evidence is particularly material to that assessment. The Complaint identifies the printed website material and screenshots in evidence and states that both sites displayed the AMERICAN GIRL mark, purported to offer AMERICAN GIRL products, and closely imitated the branding, visual presentation and structure of the Complainant's official online presence. The parallel domain-name construction and parallel website use make the inference of coordinated conduct substantially stronger than could be drawn from shared technical providers alone.<\/p>\n
Panel also notes that the footer exhibited for <americangirlx.com> states “©2024 Americangirlus. All rights reserved”. Far from identifying the operator as an independent reseller, that wording provides an additional connection between the two disputed websites.<\/p>\n
The two named Respondents are Maine Ville, the registrant of <americangirlus.com>, and Jony MAICK, the registrant of <americangirlx.com>. Having granted consolidation, the Panel will, except where it is necessary to distinguish between them or the individual disputed domain names, refer to the two named Respondents collectively as the “Respondent” for the remainder of this Decision.<\/p>", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Victoria McEvedy" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2026-09-08 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "
The Complainant is the owner of registered trade mark rights in AMERICAN GIRL, including<\/p>\n
The Complainant also operates its principal online presence at <americangirl.com> and has an established social media and retail presence.<\/p>\n
On the evidence before it, the Panel is satisfied that AMERICAN GIRL is a distinctive mark with a reputation.<\/p>", "decision_domains": { "americangirlus.com": "TRANSFERRED", "americangirlx.com": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }