Decathlon successfully reclaimed the domains thedomyos.com and thenabaiji.com after the panel found the respondent used them to divert traffic to third-party commercial sites. The respondent failed to respond, and the domains were ordered transferred to the complainant.
Case Snapshot
| Case Number | D2026-2883 |
|---|---|
| Complainant | Decathlon |
| Respondent | Rizwan Shad |
| Disputed Domain | thedomyos.comthenabaiji.com |
| Threat Tactic | Traffic Diversion |
| Decision Date | 2026-08-21 |
| Panelist | Andrea Cappai |
| Outcome | Transfer |
| Official Source | https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2026-2883 |
Facing Unauthorized Domain Registrations or Brand Abuse?
Our domain dispute attorneys represent trademark owners and businesses worldwide before WIPO, Forum (NAF), and CAC. Explore our Domain Name Disputes and Enforcement & Takedowns services, or request a free case evaluation.
Request Case EvaluationEvaluating Commercial and Brand Trust Risks in Unauthorized Traffic Diversion
The use of domains like ‘thedomyos.com’ and ‘thenabaiji.com’ represents a targeted effort to compromise brand equity by intercepting consumers searching for Decathlon’s proprietary product lines. By establishing unauthorized websites that mimic official channels—complete with ‘check on Amazon’ buttons—the respondent created a credible, albeit deceptive, interface that poses significant risks to customer trust. When users are diverted away from authenticated brand environments, Decathlon loses control over the consumer experience, increasing the likelihood of brand dilution and the potential for reputational damage should these sites fail to meet the standards associated with the DOMYOS and NABAIJI marks.
Beyond the immediate loss of traffic, such domain tactics create severe safety and security vulnerabilities for the brand’s customer base. The lack of legitimate connection between the respondent and the complainant suggests that these platforms are designed primarily to facilitate unauthorized commercial activity, which may involve third-party affiliate links of uncertain safety. As organizations with substantial global footprints—such as Decathlon, which reported EUR 15.6 billion in net sales in 2023—face increasing digital impersonation, these UDRP actions serve as a necessary countermeasure. By reclaiming domain assets through the established dispute process, brand owners can effectively mitigate the risk of economic leakage and prevent unauthorized parties from exploiting consumer intent to generate illicit affiliate revenue.
Panel Reasoning: Navigating Confusing Similarity, Legitimate Interests, and Bad Faith
In evaluating the threshold requirement of confusing similarity, the panel performed a straightforward comparison between Decathlon’s registered trademarks—NABAIJI and DOMYOS—and the disputed domain names, ‘thenabaiji.com’ and ‘thedomyos.com’. The panel affirmed that these disputed domains incorporate the complainant’s marks in their entirety, creating a clear potential for consumer confusion. This finding established the necessary standing for the complainant, reinforcing that domain names featuring core brand identifiers in conjunction with generic prefixes are frequently viewed by panels as inherently confusingly similar to established trademark portfolios.
Regarding the respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests, the panel noted the respondent’s total absence of response to the complaint. Given the evidence, the panel determined that the respondent was not commonly known by either disputed domain name, held no prior relationship with Decathlon, and operated without any license or authorization to use the marks. The absence of any rebuttal from the respondent allowed the panel to conclude that the websites, which featured ‘check on Amazon’ buttons for fitness and swimming products, failed to constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the brand names.
The panel’s findings on bad faith were driven by the international reputation of Decathlon’s marks and the strategic use of the domains to facilitate traffic diversion. By hosting sites that mimicked the brand’s associations, the respondent actively sought to attract internet users for commercial gain under the guise of an official channel. The panel concluded that the respondent possessed actual knowledge of Decathlon’s rights at the time of registration. This deliberate attempt to exploit brand equity for third-party affiliate links, coupled with the respondent’s failure to participate in the proceedings, solidified the decision to order the transfer of both domain names.
From a business and legal perspective, this case underscores the efficacy of the UDRP as a mechanism for reclaiming assets when unauthorized actors employ traffic diversion tactics. The decision emphasizes that even where monetary loss is not explicitly quantified, the creation of an unauthorized, deceptive digital infrastructure is sufficient to demonstrate bad faith. For brand owners, the successful outcome highlights the importance of maintaining robust trademark registrations and documenting the nexus between online traffic diversion tactics and the respondent’s lack of legitimate authorization.
Strategic Enforcement Against Domain-Based Traffic Diversion
Decathlon’s successful recovery of thedomyos.com and thenabaiji.com demonstrates the effectiveness of aligning trademark registration data with tangible evidence of consumer deception. By documenting the respondent’s use of ‘check on Amazon’ buttons, the complainant effectively highlighted how the domains were used to siphon traffic away from official brand channels toward third-party affiliate platforms. This tactical presentation of evidence allowed the panel to easily identify that the respondent lacked legitimate interests, framing the unauthorized domain usage not merely as squatting, but as a deliberate attempt to impersonate official brand infrastructure to facilitate commercial diversion.
The strength of the complainant’s case was bolstered by connecting the disputed domains directly to the brand’s core product lines, NABAIJI and DOMYOS. By submitting comprehensive records of its 2023 global operations—including 1,749 stores and EUR 15.6 billion in net sales—Decathlon established a clear global reputation that rendered the respondent’s unauthorized activity inherently indicative of bad faith. This approach underscores a critical lesson for brand owners: even in cases where a respondent defaults, presenting rigorous documentation of trademark seniority and clear evidence of the respondent’s attempt to profit from existing brand equity remains essential for ensuring a swift and favorable UDRP outcome.
Practical Recommendations
- Conduct proactive monitoring for domain registrations that combine core brand trademarks with keywords like ‘the[brand]’ to catch squatting early before site development.
- Document the user journey on infringing sites, specifically capturing screenshots of affiliate or third-party call-to-action buttons (e.g., ‘check on Amazon’) to provide evidence of commercial bad faith.
- Utilize WIPO UDRP filings to address unauthorized traffic diversion, ensuring evidence includes clear side-by-side comparisons of official trademarked products and the unauthorized site’s misleading content.
- Leverage the respondent’s default status as part of the case narrative to demonstrate a lack of rights or legitimate interests, reinforcing that the site serves no bona fide commercial purpose.
- Incorporate global trademark registration evidence in UDRP complaints to solidify the ‘reputation’ argument, which helps establish the respondent’s constructive knowledge of the brand at the time of domain registration.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Why were the domains thedomyos.com and thenabaiji.com considered confusingly similar to Decathlon’s brands?
The panel found the domain names identical or confusingly similar because they incorporated the exact DOMYOS and NABAIJI word marks, which Decathlon uses for its fitness and swimming product lines, without authorization.
What evidence established that the respondent lacked legitimate rights to these domains?
The panel concluded the respondent had no rights or legitimate interests because there was no evidence that they were commonly known by the domain names or had any authorization, license, or relationship with Decathlon.
How did the panel determine the domains were registered and used in bad faith?
Bad faith was established by the respondent’s use of the sites to host ‘check on Amazon’ buttons to divert traffic to third-party commercial links, signaling an intent to leverage the reputation of Decathlon’s marks for illicit commercial gain.
What was the tactical impact of the respondent’s failure to file a formal response?
By failing to contest the complaint, the respondent provided no rebuttal to the claims of traffic diversion and impersonation, leading the panel to accept the complainant’s factual allegations and ultimately order the transfer of the domains to Decathlon.
Losing traffic to an abusive domain?
Unauthorized sites leveraging your brand to drive traffic to third-party marketplaces can dilute your equity and confuse your customers. Our UDRP assessment helps you identify actionable evidence of bad-faith diversion to reclaim your digital assets.
This case note is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice.
