Sole panelist – Adv. Lihi Feldman
The decision was rendered on April 27, 2025.
Background and arguments of the parties:
The Complainant filed a Complaint for the reallocation and transfer of the domain name lululemonisrael.co.il (“the Domain Name”), which is currently held by the Respondent.
The Complainant was established in 1998 and is an international company engaged in the sale of athletic apparel and footwear, operating hundreds of stores worldwide. The Respondent registered the Domain Name in March 2024. At the time of the decision, the Domain Name did not direct to an active website, although according to the Complainant’s evidence, it had previously been used as a website selling sportswear.
The Complainant argued that the Domain Name is a registered trademark owned by the Complainant (registered in Israel since 2004), is a well-known mark worldwide, and that the Respondent has no connection to it.
The Respondent did not file a response to the Complaint.
Decision:
The IL-DRP is an alternative dispute resolution procedure concerning the allocation of domain names under Israel’s country-code top-level domains. The procedure is subject to the Rules for Dispute Resolution of the Israel Internet Association. By registering a domain name under the Registration Rules, a holder agrees to be bound by 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 registration of the Complainant;
- 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 registered trademark “lululemon” in its entirety, followed by the geographic term “israel,” and ends with the country-code suffix “.co.il.” Both the addition of the word “israel” and the suffix reflect a geographic or state-related element. The first part of the Domain Name contains the Complainant’s trademark in full, registered in the Complainant’s name since 2004.
The combination of the registered trademark with the geographic term “israel” does not prevent the Domain Name from being confusingly similar to the Complainant’s name. The suffix “.co.il” should be disregarded for the purposes of evaluating similarity, as it is a conventional designation for commercial entities operating in Israel and does not have any distinctive character. Therefore, the first condition is satisfied.
Rights in the Name – The Complainant submitted evidence showing that it holds the registered rights to the Name and has been using the trademark lululemon for decades, both in Israel and globally. This includes registered trademarks, widespread brand recognition, and operation of hundreds of stores in 25 countries, including Israel. Accordingly, the Complainant has demonstrated rights in the name.
Lack of rights on the part of the Respondent – The Respondent did not respond to the Complaint. No evidence was found of any relationship between the Respondent and the Complainant’s mark, nor any indication that the Respondent is a licensee, agent, or authorized reseller. The Complainant asserted it had not granted any usage rights to the Respondent. The word pair “lululemon” is not generic and does not suggest any legitimate reason for use unrelated to the brand, and as such the Respondent must present sufficient justification for the pairing of these words, other than the attempt to imitate an existing trademark.
According to the Complainant’s evidence, the Domain Name was used for a certain period of time as a site selling sports and leisure apparel and accessories, visually resembling the Complainant’s official website and even displaying its logo without permission. The site ceased operating between the filing of the Complaint and issuance of the decision, without any explanation or apparent reason. This behavior further supports the conclusion that the Respondent lacks rights in the name, and therefore chose to take down the website once a complaint was submitted against it. Therefore, the second condition is met.
Bad faith registration or use – The Rules enumerate several circumstances that may serve as independent evidence of bad faith. In this case, several aspects of the Respondent’s conduct point to bad faith, including: an apparent intention to sell the Domain Name (a search of the Respondent’s name reveals additional domains registered by the Respondent without rights and later transferred to trademark holders); 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); failure to respond; and discontinuation of website activity. Thus, the third condition is also met.
The Panel decided to uphold the Complaint and ordered that the Domain Name be transferred to the Complainant within 30 days of the date of the decision.
The above constitutes a summary of the decision. Click here for the full decision (PDF, Hebrew)