Canadian Tire Corporation, Limited filed a complaint against Vadym Bayev regarding the domain myhudsonbay.com. The panel ordered the transfer of the domain after finding that the respondent used the site to impersonate the HUDSON’S BAY brand and sell counterfeit goods.
Case Snapshot
| Case Number | D2026-3319 |
|---|---|
| Complainant | Canadian Tire Corporation, Limited |
| Respondent | Vadym Bayev |
| Disputed Domain | myhudsonbay.com |
| Threat Tactic | Corporate Impersonation |
| Decision Date | 2026-09-22 |
| Panelist | Andrew Brown K.C. |
| Outcome | Transfer |
| Official Source | https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2026-3319 |
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 EvaluationOperational Risks: Brand Impersonation and Monetization of Counterfeit Goods
The registration of ‘myhudsonbay.com’ represents a targeted effort to compromise brand integrity by directly impersonating the Hudson’s Bay trademark. By utilizing a domain that mirrors the established brand, the respondent created a high-risk environment for consumer confusion. This strategy was further compounded by the respondent’s decision to populate the site with products bearing the protected ‘Stripes Design’ and offering vintage merchandise, effectively passing off illegitimate goods as authorized products. Such activity poses a direct threat to the complainant’s brand equity, as unsuspecting consumers are exposed to unauthorized retail channels under the guise of an official affiliation.
Beyond the immediate impact of customer deception, the domain was utilized as a mechanism for affiliate fraud through the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program. The respondent leveraged the goodwill associated with the HUDSON’S BAY name to generate illicit advertising fees, a tactic that fundamentally conflicts with bona fide commercial use under the UDRP. Because the respondent opted not to participate in the proceedings, they failed to offer any defense or explanation for this monetization strategy, leaving the panel to conclude that the registration was intentionally predatory. This case underscores the recurring business danger where bad-faith actors exploit affiliate programs to extract value from legitimate brand traffic while simultaneously damaging the reputation of the trademark holder through the sale of counterfeit merchandise.
Panel Reasoning: Navigating Impersonation, Legitimate Interests, and Bad Faith
In evaluating the first element of the UDRP, the Panel determined that the addition of the prefix ‘my’ to the disputed domain name did not sufficiently distinguish the registrant from the Complainant’s established marks. By focusing the user’s attention on the ‘hudsonbay’ component, the Respondent created a high risk of consumer confusion, leading the Panel to conclude that the domain was confusingly similar to the HUDSON’S BAY Trademark. Because the Respondent failed to file a response, they offered no rebuttal to the Complainant’s assertion that the domain was specifically designed to suggest an unauthorized association with the brand’s retail operations.
Regarding the second element, the Panel rejected any claim of legitimate interests by the Respondent. The evidence demonstrated that the website utilized the disputed domain to impersonate the Complainant, specifically through the sale of products bearing the protected ‘Stripes Design’ and the integration of the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program. The Panel underscored that the use of a domain name to facilitate the sale of counterfeit goods or to misappropriate brand equity for affiliate advertising fees cannot constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services under the Policy.
The finding of bad faith was solidified by the timing of the registration and the nature of the subsequent website content. Given that the HUDSON’S BAY Trademark had achieved international recognition decades prior to the December 2025 registration, the Panel found it improbable that the Respondent was unaware of the brand’s existence. By choosing a domain that explicitly mimics the brand and using it to divert traffic for commercial gain, the Respondent demonstrated a clear intent to target the Complainant. This pattern of conduct, coupled with the Respondent’s failure to mount any defense, permitted the Panel to draw a firm conclusion that the domain was both registered and used in bad faith.
Strategic Breakdown: Addressing Impersonation through Trademark Integration
The success of Canadian Tire Corporation’s complaint relied on a robust demonstration of brand identity and the illicit use of its protected assets. By documenting its acquisition of the HUDSON’S BAY trademark rights in June 2025 and detailing its portfolio of 93 registered trademarks—specifically highlighting the ‘Stripes Design’—the complainant established a clear, preemptive foundation for ownership. The evidence presented to the panel showed the respondent was actively utilizing this specific design on goods offered at the disputed domain, which served as compelling proof of bad faith. This tactical focus on the misuse of visual brand signatures allowed the panel to easily dismiss the legitimacy of the respondent’s operations, as counterfeit usage inherently nullifies claims of bona fide commercial activity.
The complainant’s strategy also benefitted from the respondent’s failure to respond, which left the narrative of unauthorized monetization unchallenged. The respondent attempted to leverage the domain through an Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, a common tactic designed to divert traffic and capture affiliate commissions by mimicking a trusted retail entity. By proactively presenting evidence that the ‘myhudsonbay.com’ domain was registered long after the brand had achieved international recognition, the complainant illustrated that the respondent’s registration was not an accidental or good-faith acquisition. This methodical presentation of facts—coupling the timing of registration with the nature of the affiliate-based monetization—effectively framed the respondent’s conduct as a deliberate attempt to profit from consumer confusion, thereby securing the domain transfer.
Practical Recommendations
- Monitor for common domain prefixes like ‘my-‘ or ‘official-‘ combined with core brand terms, as these are frequently used to establish a false sense of association.
- Document affiliate program participation on infringing sites as clear evidence of commercial bad faith, as unauthorized monetization of a trademarked brand name does not constitute a legitimate interest.
- Catalog evidence of counterfeit sales immediately upon discovery, as the sale of products bearing signature brand assets (such as the ‘Stripes Design’) provides robust grounds to defeat any potential fair use defense.
- When initiating a UDRP, request registrar verification early to identify discrepancies between WHOIS privacy data and the actual operator, which can be used to establish patterns of obfuscation if the respondent remains silent.
- Assert global trademark recognition in all filings; even if the respondent defaults, documenting the long-standing international fame of the brand strengthens the finding of bad faith registration.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Why did the panel consider ‘myhudsonbay.com’ confusingly similar to the HUDSON’S BAY trademark?
The panel found that the addition of the prefix ‘my’ to the core trademark ‘hudsonbay’ did not prevent confusion. It concluded that the prefix would likely cause internet users to incorrectly associate the domain with Canadian Tire Corporation’s established retail brand.
Did the Respondent provide any evidence of a legitimate interest in using the domain?
No, the Respondent failed to respond to the complaint. Furthermore, the panel found that using the domain to sell counterfeit goods featuring the trademarked ‘Stripes Design’ and to operate an unauthorized Amazon affiliate program could never constitute a legitimate, non-commercial, or fair use.
What evidence confirmed that the domain was registered and used in bad faith?
Bad faith was established by the fact that the Respondent registered the domain long after the HUDSON’S BAY trademark had achieved widespread international recognition. The panel deemed it improbable that the registrant was unaware of the brand, noting that the intentional impersonation for commercial gain through counterfeit sales clearly demonstrates bad faith.
What is the practical takeaway regarding the Respondent’s failure to mount a defense?
The Respondent’s decision to remain silent left the Complainant’s evidence of impersonation and bad faith entirely uncontested. By failing to participate in the proceedings, the Respondent could not rebut the findings that their site was merely a fraudulent vehicle designed to exploit brand trust and divert traffic for affiliate commissions.
Facing corporate impersonation through a domain?
Protect your brand identity from unauthorized sites mimicking your retail presence. Our UDRP assessment services help you evaluate actionable paths to recover domains used for impersonation and counterfeit sales.
This case note is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice.
