Sole panelist – Adv. Lihi Feldman
Decision was rendered on April 28, 2025
Background and arguments of the parties:
The Complainant submitted a Complaint for the reallocation and transfer of the Domain Name lululemon.co.il (hereinafter, “the Domain Name”), currently held by the Respondent.
The Complainant, established in 1998, is an international company engaged in the sale of athletic apparel and footwear. It operates hundreds of stores worldwide. The Respondent registered the Domain Name in March 2024. The Domain Name does not resolve to an active website.
The Complainant asserted that “lululemon” is a registered trademark in its name (registered in Israel since 2005), is a well-known mark globally, and that the Respondent has no connection to it.
The Respondent did not submit a response to the Complaint.
Decision:
The IL-DRP is an alternative dispute resolution mechanism for disputes concerning the allocation of domain names under Israel’s country-code Top Level Domains. The procedure is governed by the Rules for Dispute Resolution of the Israel Internet Association. By registering a domain name in accordance with the registration rules, a domain holder agrees to these rules.
The rules establish that a dispute regarding the allocation of a domain name to its holder may be brought before the IL-DRP provided all the following conditions are met:
- The Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark, trade name, registered company name, or legal entity name in which the Complainant has rights;
- The Complainant has rights in the name, and the Respondent has no rights in the name; and
- The Complainant alleges, and must demonstrate, that the Domain Name was registered or is being used in bad faith.
Identical or confusingly similar – The Domain Name includes the term “lululemon” along with the country-code suffix “.co.il”. The Domain Name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety, which has been registered in the Complainant’s name since 2004. The suffix is a standard designation for commercial entities in Israel and is not considered distinctive. The similarity is further underscored by the fact that the Complainant registered the Domain Name lululemon.com as early as 1999. Therefore, the first condition is satisfied.
Complainant’s rights in the name – The Complainant submitted extensive evidence linking it and its operations to the name, including long-standing trademark registrations, substantial goodwill, and operation of hundreds of retail locations in 25 countries, including Israel. Therefore, the second condition is satisfied.
Respondent’s lack of rights in the name – The Respondent did not respond to the Complaint. No public source suggests any connection between the Respondent and the trademark, nor that the Respondent is a licensee, distributor, authorized reseller, or otherwise authorized to use the Complainant’s mark. The Complainant stated that it had never granted the Respondent any right to use the mark. The name “lululemon” is not composed of common generic terms that would naturally be used together, and its distinctiveness requires justification for its use, other than the attempt to imitate an existing trademark. The Domain Name does not resolve to an active website, and no intent to develop one was indicated. Therefore, the third condition is satisfied.
Bad faith registration or use – The Rules for Dispute Resolution enumerate several circumstances which, if proven, may constitute evidence of bad faith. In this case, multiple behaviors exhibited by the Respondent indicate bad faith in registering and holding the Domain Name. These include: the Respondent’s lack of any rights to the name (the implausibility that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant’s trademark or the likelihood that the registration might mislead consumers seeking the Complainant’s brand); an apparent intent to sell the Domain Name for consideration (as the Respondent holds other domain names corresponding to registered trademarks of third parties); the failure to respond to the Complaint; and the absence of any activity under the Domain Name. Therefore, the fourth condition is satisfied.
The panel upheld the Complaint and ordered that the Domain Name be transferred to the Complainant within 30 days of the decision.
The above constitutes a summary of the decision. Click here for the full decision (PDF, Hebrew)