Teabydavid.com

The timeline behind teabydavid.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

ARBITRATION AN D MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION DAVIDsTEA Inc. v. Herbert Hedstrom, Herbert Case No. D2025-2755 1. The Parties The Complainant is DAVIDsTEA Inc., Canada, represented by Riebling IP, PLLC, United States of America. The Respondent is Herbert Hedstrom, Herbert, United States of America. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <teabydavid.com> is registered with Cosmotown, Inc. (the “Reg istrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 11, 2025. On July 14, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request f or registrar verif ication in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 16, 2025, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verif ication response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which dif f ered f rom the named Respondent (Unknown) and contact inf ormation in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on July 16, 2025, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant f iled an amended Complaint on July 16, 2025. The Center verif ied that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisf ied the f ormal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules f or Unif orm Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules f or Unif orm Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”). In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center f ormally notif ied the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on July 21, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date f or Response was August 10, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notif ied the Respondent’s def ault on August 11, 2025. The Center appointed Iris Quadrio as the sole panelist in this matter on August 19, 2025. The Panel f inds 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. page 2 4. Factual Background The Complainant is a leading specialty tea company and one of the most iconic retail and online tea businesses in North America. Founded in 2008 by Herschel Segal and David Segal, the Complainant is headquartered in Montréal, Canada. The Complainant has been widely f eatured in leading newspapers and magazines around the world, including Globe & Mail, Vogue, Good Housekeeping, Elle, and Women’s Health, among others. Through its reputation f or quality and innovation, the Complainant has built strong goodwill among consumers, employing strict health and safety protocols to ensure the highest standards in its products and services. Today, the Complainant continues to of f er a wide range of high-quality proprietary loose-leaf teas, pre- packaged teas, tea sachets, tea accessories, and gifts. Its products are distributed through its e-commerce platf orm at “www.davidstea.com”, the Amazon Marketplace, wholesale channels including more than 4,000 grocery stores and pharmacies, over 1,500 convenience stores in Canada, and over 900 grocery stores in the United States o f America, as well as through 20 company-owned stores across Canada. The Complainant is the owner of the trademark DAVIDSTE A in many jurisdictions, including United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Reg. No. 4129095 for classes 16, 21, 30, 32, 35, and 43, registered since April 17, 2012, and Reg. No. 4461051 for classes 16, 21, and 30, registered since January 7, 2014; Canadian Trademark Office Reg. No. TM A761042 for classes 21, 30, 32, 35 and 43, registered since March 8, 2010; and European Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) Reg. No. 008598476 for classes 16, 21, 30, and 35, registered since April 5, 2010; Likewise, the Complainant claims to have online Internet presence through its main domain name <davidstea.com>, registered since April 15, 2008. Lastly, the disputed domain name resolved to a webpage prominently displaying the Complainant’s trademark and logo, using the Complainant’s photographs and images, and purportedly of f ering tea-related products for sale (as evidenced by the Complainant in Annex 8 to the Complaint). It currently resolves to an inactive website. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy f or a transf er of the disputed domain name. The Complainant states that the disputed domain name <teabydavid.com> is conf usingly similar to its trademark DAVIDSTEA on which the Complainant has prior rights. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name <teabydavid.com> and he is not related in any way with the Complainant. The Complainant is not related to the Respondent in any way and has not established any activity and/or business with the Respondent. More specifically, the Complainant alleged that the Respondent has not used and/or has no demonstrable intention to use the disputed domain name except to create a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark. In f act, the Complainant claims that the registration and use of the disputed domain name is only intended to generate conf usion among consumers as to the origin of the website. Finally, the Complainant has requested the Panel to issue a decision ordering the transf er of the disputed domain name to the Complainant. page 3 B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, for this Complaint to succeed in relation to the disputed domain name, the Complainant must prove each of the f ollowing, namely that: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar with a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad f aith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well accepted that the f irst element f unctions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7. The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1. The Panel f inds the mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. The practice of inverting the terms “tea” and “d avid” and replacing the letter “s” with the word “by” does not prevent the Panel from finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, in line with section 1.9 of the WIPO Overview 3.0. The Panel f inds the f irst element of the Policy has been established. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is of ten primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come f orward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent f ails to come f orward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisf ied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1. The Complainant has claimed not to have authorized, licensed, or permitted the Respondent to register or use the disputed domain name or to use the DAVIDSTE A trademark nor is there any other evidence in the f ile suggesting that the Respondent has or could have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. page 4 Likewise, it does not seem that the Respondent is making any legitimate noncommercial or f air use of the disputed domain name. In this regard, the Complainant has proven in Annex 8 to the Complaint that, at the time of its detection, the disputed domain name was pointing to a website that appears to mimic the Complainant’s web site, depicted the Complainant’s DAVIDsTEA trademark and of f ered tea-related goods. These actions clearly aim at exploiting the Complainant’s reputation by misleading Internet users into believing that the website is an official platform of the Complainant. Hence, as established in section 2.5 of WIPO Overview 3.0: “Fundamentally, a respondent’s use of a domain name will not be considered ‘f air’ if it f alsely suggests af f iliation with the trademark owner; the correlation between a domain name and the complainant’s mark is of ten central to this inquiry.” Panels have held that the use of a domain name f or illegal activity, as applicable to this case: impersonation/passing off, can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1. Currently, the Respondent is passively holding the disputed domain name by directing users to an inactive website and, theref ore, this Panel considers that the Respondent is not making any legitimate noncommercial or f air use of disputed domain name. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima f acie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come f orward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. The Panel f inds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel notes that, f or the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad f aith. In such connection, the Complainant has submitted evidence to support that the trademark DAVIDSTE A was registered and used many years bef ore the Respondent registered the disputed domain name. When registering the disputed domain name, the Respondent has targeted the Complainant’s trademark DAVIDSTEA to create conf usion among the Internet users and benef it f rom Complainant’s reputation. Theref ore, the Panel is satisfied that the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant and the Complainant’s trademark DAVIDSTEA when it registered the disputed domain name. Likewise, based on the evidence provided by the Complainant in Annex 8 to the Complaint, the disputed domain name resolved to a website mimicking the Complainant’s of f icial website, displaying the Complainant’s trademark DAVIDSTEA and offering tea-related goods. Clearly, the Respondent should have known the existence of the Complainant when registering the disputed domain name, and such use constitutes bad f aith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. Mo reo ver, the use of the Complainant’s registered trademark DAVIDSTEA in combination with a nearly slavish copy of the Complainant’s legitimate “www.davidstea.com” website demonstrates an intent to impersonate the Complainant and to collect personal and financial inf ormation f rom unsuspecting Internet users through false offers of heavily discounted products. Such conduct not only deceives consumers, who may have their credit cards charged without receiving any goods, but also creates a f alse impression of af f iliation with the Complainant, thereby causing significant harm to consumers and irreparably tarnishing the Complainant’s reputation. Currently, the disputed domain name resolves to an inactive website. The Panel f inds that the non-use of disputed domain name would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding in the circumstances of this case. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3. page 5 The Panel f inds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy. 7. Decision For the f oregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name <teabydavid.com> be transf erred to the Complainant. /Iris Quadrio/ Iris Quadrio Sole Panelist Date: September 2, 2025

Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.