FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:<\/p>\n
The Complainant, YETI COOLERS, LLC., is a manufacturer and supplier of premium outdoor products, including high-performance coolers, drinkware, bags, and related accessories, established in 2006. In recent years, YETI has been included among the Best Brands for Social Impact, ranking #54 in the Food Storage Containers\/Coolers category in 2026 and #53 in the Home Goods category in 2025. The company was also recognized among the Best Brands for Value in the Home & Furnishings sector in 2025, ranked #261, and was featured among Forbes' Best Mid-Cap Companies, ranking #33 in 2025 and #32 in 2022. Moreover, YETI was included in Forbes’ Customer Experience All-Stars ranking in the Food Storage Containers\/Coolers category in 2024.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain names <yetithailand.com>, <yeti-suomi.com>, <yeti-israel.com> were registered on August 19, 2024, and the disputed domain name < yeticuppe.com> was registered on October 31, 2025. They are all inactive at the time of this decision.<\/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": "
PARTIES CONTENTIONS<\/p>\n
COMPLAINANT:<\/p>\n
The Complainant requests the acceptance of the consolidated Complaint filed against multiple Respondents, because it is in their view equitable and procedurally efficient to permit the consolidation, and the Respondents are engaged in a common conduct that has affected the Complainant in a similar fashion.<\/p>\n
THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES ARE CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR<\/p>\n
The Complainant states that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark “YETI”. The addition of the generic geographic terms “THAILAND”, “-SUOMI”, “-ISRAEL”, and “CUPPE”, which is composed by “cup”, i.e. one of the most sold items of YETI, and “pe”, i.e., the ccTLD of Peru, does not preclude a finding of confusing similarity; on the contrary, it reinforces the association with the Complainant’s products, creating the impression of a direct impersonation.<\/p>\n
The Complainant also states that the top level “.com” does not change the overall impression and does not prevent likelihood of confusion.<\/p>\n
Consequently, the Complainant asserts that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.<\/p>\n
NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES<\/p>\n
The Complainant states that the Respondent is neither a licensee nor an authorized distributor of the Complainant and has received no permission—express or implied—to use the Complainant’s “YETI” trademarks or to register domain names incorporating them. The Complainant has not granted the Respondent any rights to operate domain names identical or confusingly similar to its trademarks.<\/p>\n
The Complainant claims that the Respondent uses the disputed domain names to impersonate “YETI” brand and provided screenshots of the websites that are resolved by the disputed domain names. Such use is claimed to clearly target the Complainant’s products and is inherently illegitimate, as it is based on the unauthorized distribution and exploitation of the Complainant’s brand.<\/p>\n
It is referred that the past panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity (e.g. phishing, scams, unauthorized account access\/hacking, impersonation\/passing off, or other types of fraud) can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent (WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1.).<\/p>\n
Consequently, the Complainant argues that the Respondent is not using the disputed domain names in connection with bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use.<\/p>\n
THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES WERE REGISTERED AND ARE USED IN BAD FAITH<\/p>\n
The Complainant submits that in light of its trademark filings and the widespread use of the “YETI” trademarks, it is inconceivable that the Respondents were unaware of the Complainant’s rights when registering the disputed domain names. On the contrary, in light of the content of the websites, it is claimed that the Respondents have, from the outset, intentionally sought to exploit the Complainant’s trademarks and reputation in order to derive an illicit commercial benefit. Notably, the disputed domain names are alleged to resolve to websites on which the Complainant’s trademarks are prominently and unduly displayed as provided in the annexes, further demonstrating that the Respondent was fully aware of the Complainant’s brand and deliberately sought to associate its own offerings with it. Such conduct constitutes clear evidence of bad‑faith registration and use under the Policy.<\/p>\n
Moreover, considering that the disputed domain names incorporate the Complainant’s trademarks in their entirety, it is claimed that the Respondents could not be unaware that it was making unauthorized use of the Complainant’s mark in both the domain names and the associated websites’ content. Despite this, the Respondents never sought authorization from YETI COOLERS, LLC. to use the trademark within the disputed domain names. On the contrary, the Respondent sought to exploit the mark’s notoriety without permission and subsequently failed to respond when contacted by the Complainant in an effort to explore an amicable resolution.<\/p>\n
With reference to the above, the Complainant highlights that it has been stated in various decisions that the registration of a domain name with the knowledge of the complainant’s trademarks is evidence of bad faith, i.e. in Belstaff S.R.L. v. jiangzheng ying Case No. D2012-0793, “the Panel notices that the word “belstaff” is distinctive and the Complainant had expended substantial efforts to create and maintain the reputation of the mark BELSTAFF. Use of the Domain Names by the Respondent took place only long after the trademark BELSTAFF had become well known in the relevant public sector. Therefore, the Respondent should have been aware of the mark BELSTAFF when it applied to register the Domain Names. In this Panel’s view, the Respondent’s reproduction of the Complainant’s trademark BELSTAFF (both word and device trademarks) on the Websites, as well as its offering of purported Belstaff products is sufficient to show that it knew of the BELSTAFF mark when registering the Domain Names. Incorporation of the BELSTAFF mark in the Domain Names without any reasonable justification is sufficient evidence of bad faith by the Respondent<\/em>”.<\/p>\n The Complainant states that in its decisions, panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity (e.g., the sale of counterfeit goods or illegal pharmaceuticals, phishing, distributing malware, unauthorized account access\/hacking, impersonation\/passing off, or other types of fraud) constitutes bad faith (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4.).<\/p>\n When the Complainant became aware of the registration and use of the disputed domain names by the Respondent, the Respondents were served with cease and desist notice in order to formally notify the Respondent of the infringement of the Complainant’s trademark rights, requesting the immediate cease of any use, and the transfer of the disputed domain names to the Complainant, however, the Respondent did not reply.<\/p>\n This absence of cooperation, combined with the Respondent’s refusal to respond to official communications, the Complainant emphasizes its bad-faith intent and its failure to demonstrate any bona fide <\/em>basis for the registration or use of the disputed domain names.<\/p>\n As a further indication of bad faith, it is noted that some disputed domain names resolved to inactive webpages (<yetithailand.com>; <yeti-suomi.com>; <yeticuppe.com>) at the time of the Complaint and displayed no genuine content, while “yeti-israel.com” was only accessible through VPN ISRAEL. In the circumstances of this case, the passive holding of the disputed domain names further supports the conclusion that the Respondent was fully aware of the Complainant’s rights and registered the disputed domain names in bad faith, without any legitimate purpose or bona fide use. This conclusion is reinforced by the fact that one of the four corresponding websites – www.yeti-israel.com - is accessible only through an Israeli VPN. Such circumstances demonstrate a deliberate attempt to target Internet users in that specific jurisdiction and to capitalize on the Complainant’s trademark reputation in the Israeli market.<\/p>\n As a further indication of the Respondent’s bad faith, the Complainant notes that, following the registrant data disclosure on September 8, 2026, it was possible to ascertain that the contact details provided by the Respondent at the time of registration are associated with over five hundreds of additional domain names. This evidence demonstrates a clear pattern of bad-faith registrations involving domain names incorporating well-known trademarks, with the evident purpose of exploiting the goodwill and reputation associated with such marks for commercial gain.<\/p>\n Moreover, the registrant, identified as “Ming Diang,” has been the subject of several prior UDRP proceedings in which he was found to have acted in bad faith by registering domain names incorporating famous or well-known trademarks. In those cases, the panels ordered the transfer of the disputed domain names after concluding that the respondent had engaged in bad-faith registration and use. Such prior adverse findings are claimed to further reinforce the conclusion that the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of cybersquatting conduct and that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.<\/p>\n The Complainant further highlights the Respondent's bad faith from the inaccurate and incomplete contact details provided at the time of registration. Following the disclosure of the underlying registrant data, the Respondent's address was revealed as “honglianxili, xiamen, fujian, 361000, CN”. However, such address does not correspond to any complete, identifiable, or independently mappable postal address.<\/p>\n Accordingly, the Complainant alleges that the disputed domain names were registered and is being used in bad faith.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n RESPONDENT:<\/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": " It must be noted that the Complainant requested a consolidation regarding multiple respondents. According to WIPO Overview 3.0. under 4.11., it is possible and the final decision is on the panel. In that regard, where a complaint is filed against multiple respondents, panels should look at whether the domain names or corresponding websites are subject to common control, and the consolidation would be fair and equitable to all parties. Procedural efficiency would also be taken into account. Panels have considered a range of factors, typically present in some combination, as useful to determining whether such consolidation is appropriate, such as similarities in or relevant aspects of (i) the registrants’ identity(ies) including pseudonyms, (ii) the registrants’ contact information including e-mail address(es), postal address(es), or phone number(s), including any pattern of irregularities, (iii) relevant IP addresses, name servers, or webhost(s), (iv) the content or layout of websites corresponding to the disputed domain names, (v) the nature of the marks at issue (e.g., where a registrant targets a specific sector), (vi) any naming patterns in the disputed domain names (e.g., <mark-country> or <mark-goods>), (vii) the relevant language\/scripts of the disputed domain names particularly where they are the same as the mark(s) at issue, (viii) any changes by the respondent relating to any of the above items following communications regarding the disputed domain name(s), (ix) any evidence of respondent affiliation with respect to the ability to control the disputed domain name(s), (x) any (prior) pattern of similar respondent behavior, or (xi) other arguments made by the complainant and\/or disclosures by the respondent(s).<\/p>\n The Panel has examined the case details and the evidence for signs of commonality between any of the Respondents. Apparently the four disputed domain names were registered, three of them belonging to the same Respondent at the same date but the other in the name of the other Respondent in another date, through different registrars, to different persons in different addresses and different communications details. No convincing point of commonality has been drawn to the attention of the Panel. From the provided information, the Panel could not establish a clear link between the two Respondents or any similarities or pattern that could justify a consolidation. It seems that the disputed domain names <yetithailand.com> and <yeti-israel.com> include the same\/highly similar content and they seem to be related, or controlled by the same person\/entity, whereas there is no information that the disputed domain name <yeticuppe.com> is of the same or that it is in fact a combination of “YETI” and a geographical place as the others. The latter is inactive and the information on the Respondent does not match with the other. Considering that none of the above criteria were met and there is no established common control of the websites or domain names, the Panel considers that the consolidation request is not acceptable. Consequently, the Panel will proceed to hear the Complaint against the cited first Respondent ming dian in respect of the disputed domain names <yetithailand.com>, <yeti-suomi.com>, <yeti-israel.com>. This is without prejudice to the right of the Complainant to seek to refile the remaining Complaint (Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. \/ iNova Pharmaceuticals (Australia) Pty Limited v. Luca Radu \/ Fundacion Private WhoIs \/ Maxim Conovalov \/ Vasju Pere, WIPO Case No. D2013-1918).<\/p>",
"decision": "Partially Accepted\/Partially Rejected",
"panelists": [
"Mrs Selma Ünlü"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2026-10-20 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " The Complainant has submitted evidence, which the Panel accepts, showing that it is the registered owner of trademark “YETI”, inter alia<\/em>, the following:<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n\n