Chocolatehershey.com

The timeline behind chocolatehershey.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 AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Hershey Chocolate & Confectionery LLC v. Steps 4 Success, Steps 4 Success Inc. Case No. D2025-4056 1. The Parties The Complainant is Hershey Chocolate & Confectionery LLC, United States of America (the “United States”), represented by Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, United States. The Respondent is Steps 4 Success, Steps 4 Success Inc., United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <chocolatehershey.com> is registered with Amazon Registrar, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 3, 2025. On October 6, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 7, 2025, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent (On behalf of chocolatehershey.com owner, Identity Protection Service) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on October 8, 2025, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on October 15, 2025. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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”). page 2 In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on October 20, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 9, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on November 10, 2025. The Center appointed Michelle Brownlee as the sole panelist in this matter on November 19, 2025. 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 limited liability company incorporated in the state of Delaware, United States. The Complainant has been using the HERSHEY’S mark in connection with candy, chocolate and confectionery products since 1894 and owns numerous registrations in the United States and other jurisdictions around the world for the marks HERSHEY’S and HERSHEY, including: - United States Registration Number 54041 for the mark HERSHEY’S (stylized), registered on June 19, 1906, in connection with chocolate, cocoa and preparations thereof; - United States Registration Number 863592 for the mark HERSHEY’S, registered on January 14, 1969, in connection with semi-sweet chocolate, cocoa, sweet chocolate, milk chocolate, both with and without nuts or cereals, milk chocolate fudge, instant cocoa mixes, chocolate flavored syrups, candy, and milk chocolate covered nutrolls, semi-sweet chocolate chips and milk chocolate chips; and - United States Registration Number 1455684 for the mark HERSHEY, registered on September 1, 1987, in connection with services in classes 35, 37, 39, 40, 41, and 42. The Complainant owns the domain names <hersheys.com> and <chocolatehersheys.com> which it uses to promote HERSHEY’S products to the public. The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on October 21, 2020. The disputed domain name redirects to a website that offers fundraising services that involve selling various items, including chocolate candy produced by the Complainant’s competitors. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name. Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s HERSHEY’S and HERSHEY marks, that the Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. In particular, the Complainant notes that the disputed domain name is one letter different from the Complainant’s <chocolatehersheys.com> domain name and the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in connection with a website that is promoting fundraising services that offer competing brands of chocolate for sale. The Complainant contends that these actions show a bad faith intent to divert Internet users who are trying to visit the Complainant’s website to the Respondent’s website. page 3 B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well accepted that the first element functions 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 entirety of the mark is reproduced 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. Although the addition of other terms, here, “chocolate”, may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such term does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8. The Panel finds the first 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 often 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 forward 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 fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie 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 forward 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 finds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel notes that, for 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 faith. page 4 In the present case, the Panel notes that the Respondent redirected the disputed domain name to a website that promotes fundraising services that involve selling chocolate brands that are competitive with the Complainant. Further, the disputed domain name is nearly identical to the <chocolatehersheys.com> domain name that is used by the Complainant to promote its products, which suggests that the Respondent intended to divert Internet users seeking the Complainant’s website to the Respondent’s website. The Panel finds that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy by intentionally attempting to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element 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 <chocolatehershey.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Michelle Brownlee/ Michelle Brownlee Sole Panelist Date: December 3, 2025

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