Westmore · UDRP DecisionBallparkhotdogs.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <ballparkhotdogs.com>. It found the domain confusingly similar to the Complainant’s BALL PARK mark because it incorporated the mark and added only the descriptive term “hot dogs.” The Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests because it was not authorized, was not commonly known by the relevant name, and was not making a bona fide offering. Bad faith was established from the Respondent’s presumed awareness of the longstanding, known mark and its use of the domain for competitor advertising links and an offer to sell the domain.
The timeline behind ballparkhotdogs.com
Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.
Westmore reconstructs the full history behind ballparkhotdogs.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
The decision illustrates a straightforward trademark-plus-product-term case in which the added words reinforced rather than reduced the connection with the trademark owner. The combination of a longstanding mark, a directly relevant product term, competitor advertising links, and an on-site sale offer supported findings against the Respondent on all three UDRP elements.
Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Sara Lee Foods, LLC v. Domain Hostmaster, Protopixel Pty Ltd Case No. D2016-0199 1. The Parties The Complainant is Sara Lee Foods, LLC of Chicago, Illinois, United States of America, represented by Winston & Strawn LLP, United States of America. The Respondent is Domain Hostmaster, Protopixel Pty Ltd of Queensland, Australia. 2. The Domain name and Registrar The disputed domain name <ballparkhotdogs.com> is registered with Fabulous.com Pty Ltd (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 1, 2016. On February 2, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 3, 2016, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”). In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on February 5, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 25, 2016. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 29, 2016. The Center appointed Dietrich Beier as the sole panelist in this matter on March 2, 2016. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background The Complainant is a subsidiary of Tyson Foods, Inc., one of the largest food production companies in the United States of America and throughout the world. The Complainant is the owner of the BALL PARK mark and, through its predecessors-in-interest, began selling BALL PARK brand hot dogs more than 50 years ago. BALL PARK is now a national premium brand of hot dogs and BALL PARK franks, beef patties, angus brats, and beef hot links can be found in supermarkets and convenience stores throughout the United States of America. The Complainant owns multiple federal trademark registrations for the BALL PARK trademark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) including for use in connection with frankfurters (Registration. No. 1,807,761, applied for on March 11, 1993 and registered on November 30, 1993). The disputed domain name was registered on October 25, 2002. It is used for a website featuring links to third-party websites that are in part competitive to the business of Complainant. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant owns multiple federal trademark registrations for the BALL PARK mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) including for use in connection with frankfurters (Registration No. 1,807,761, registered on November 30, 1993). The Complainant and its predecessors-in-interest have used the BALL PARK trademark since at least as early as 1961 and the Complainant has achieved significant goodwill in its BALL PARK mark. The disputed domain name <ballparkhotdogs.com> incorporates the Complainant’s BALL PARK mark in full, changing the BALL PARK mark only by adding the descriptive terms “hot dogs” and the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com.” In light of the foregoing, pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s BALL PARK mark. The disputed domain name was registered without the Complainant’s authorization or consent. The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, has not used or prepared to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, has not been authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted by the Complainant to register and/or use the disputed domain name. Instead, the Complainant has used the disputed domain name to redirect consumers to a website featuring links to third-party websites that are in part competitive to the business of the Complainant. In light of the foregoing, the Respondent clearly lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent acquired and has commercially used the disputed domain name <ballparkhotdogs.com> to capitalize on Internet users’ efforts to find the Complainant’s website and seek information about the Complainant and its products. The Respondent has used the disputed domain name to redirect these consumers to a gateway website that contains links to other goods and services. Panels routinely presume that when Internet users are diverted in this manner, the respondent receives income in the form of “pay-per-click” fees. As such, the Respondent has clearly used the disputed domain name to attract the Complainant’s customers for the Respondent’s own commercial gain. Moreover, the Respondent is offering to sell the disputed domain name for $999 on the website under the disputed domain name. The Respondent’s efforts to misappropriate the Complainant’s famous BALL PARK mark, capitalize on consumer confusion, and divert unsuspecting Internet users to third-party websites unrelated to the Complainant undoubtedly constitutes bad-faith registration and use of the disputed domain name. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings In order to succeed in its claim, the Complainant must demonstrate that all of the elements enumerated in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied: (i) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and (ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the disputed domain name; and (iii) The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has established the fact that it has valid trademark rights in BALL PARK. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the BALL PARK mark of the Complainant, since the addition of “hot dogs” in the disputed domain name is of a purely descriptive nature and does not change the overall impression being created by the dominating element “ball park” being used identically. The Panel therefore considers the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to the BALL PARK mark in which the Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Respondent is not a licensee of the Complainant nor has the Complainant granted any permission or consent to the Respondent to use its trademarks. Furthermore, there is no indication that the Respondent is commonly known by the name “ball park” or that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Panel therefore finds that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Due to the nature of the BALL PARK mark as known, not at last due to the long time the mark is present on the United States of America market, the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant and its trademark when registering the disputed domain name. The Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to make use of its mark. The circumstances of this case, in particular the offer to sell the disputed domain name on the website under the disputed domain name as well as the advertising links to competitors in the field of the Complainant indicate that the Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name primarily with the intention of attempting to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other online locations, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of such website or location, or of a product or service on such website or location. The Panel therefore considers the disputed domain name to have been registered and used in bad faith in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. 7. Decision For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name <ballparkhotdogs.com> be transferred to the Complainant. Dietrich Beier Sole Panelist Date: March 15, 2016
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around ballparkhotdogs.com
The decision is only the record. Westmore connects it to the cases, authorities, panelists, parties and domain evidence surrounding it.
A short, grounded explanation drawn only from this decision's record — not legal advice or a prediction.
Grounded in the Westmore record for this decision. Research/informational only — not legal advice or a prediction of any outcome.
The decision is only the beginning.
You've seen what happened. Now discover the deeper intelligence behind the case, the panelist, the parties and the authorities that matter.
Go beyond the public record: see how this case has been cited, find comparable decisions, analyze the panelist and apply the relevant authorities to your Matter.
Westmore Professional · $395/month
Research with UDRP IntelligenceWestmore AI drafts an attorney-review-ready UDRP response from your facts, grounded in the exact panel and closest precedent.
$895 one-time per matter · no subscription required. Self-help drafting aid — not legal advice.
Build your responseWestmore UDRP records draw on WIPO-indexed decisions and are provided for research and informational purposes only. Not legal advice, a clearance opinion, or a prediction of any outcome.