Daveschickenmenu.com

The timeline behind daveschickenmenu.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 Dave’s Hot Chicken Franchise Co., LLC v. Mohammad Ishaque Case No. D2026-0282 1. The Parties The Complainant is Dave’s Hot Chicken Franchise Co., LLC, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Greenberg Traurig, LLP, United States. The Respondent is Mohammad Ishaque, Ind ia. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <daveschickenmenu.com> is registered with Hostinger Operations, UAB (the “Reg istrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 23, 2026. On January 23, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request f or registrar verif ication in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 27, 2026, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verif ication response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent (Domain Admin) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on January 29, 2026, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Respondent sent an informal email communication to the Center on February 2, 2026. The Complainant f iled an amended Complaint on February 17, 2026. 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 February 18, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 10, 2026. The Response was f iled with the Center on March 9, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Steven A. Maier as the sole panelist in this matter on March 16, 2026. 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. The Complainant submitted an unsolicited supplemental filing on March 17, 2026, to which f urther ref erence is made below. 4. Factual Background The Complainant operates a f ried chicken restaurant chain. It was f ounded in Los Angeles in 2017 and currently comprises over 250 restaurants in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. The Complainant is the owner of numerous trademark registrations f or the mark DAVE’S HOT CHICKEN. Those registrations include, f or example: - United States trademark registration number 5561164 f or the wo rd mark DAVE’S HOT CHICKEN, registered on September 11, 2018; - United States trademark registration number 6721972 for a combined mark DAVE’S HOT CHICKEN EST 2017. HOLLYWOOD BLVD as represented below (the chicken image being coloured yellow and red) (the “Complainant’s Logo”), registered on May 24, 2022; - International trademark registration number 1643871 for the word mark DAVE’S HOT CHICKEN, registered on December 14, 2021 and designating nine countries including India. The Complainant operates a website at “www.daveshotchicken.com”. The website includes the Complainant’s Logo both as a f avicon and elsewhere within its content. The disputed domain name was registered on August 15, 2025. The disputed domain name has resolved to a website headed “Daves Chicken Menu Guide & Items List With Prices & Locations”, providing information about the Complainant’s restaurants, menu items and associated services. 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 submits that the disputed domain name is conf usingly similar to its DAVE’S HOT CHICKEN trademark. It contends, in particular, that the removal of the word “hot”, and the addition of the word “menu”, do not result in the disputed domain name being distinct f rom the trademark. page 3 The Complainant submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. It states that it has never licensed or authorized the Respondent to use its DAVE’S HOT CHICKEN trademarks, that the Respondent has not commonly been known by the disputed domain name, and that the Respondent is making neither bona fide commercial use, nor legitimate noncommercial or f air use, of the disputed domain name. The Complainant contends in particular that, insofar as the Respondent’s website is presented as a f an or tribute site, it is in reality an impersonation of the Complainant’s website, intended to mislead Internet users into believing it is operated by, or otherwise legitimately af f iliated with, the Complainant. The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is in itself misleading, as being highly similar to the Complainant’s trademark and URL “www.daveshotchicken.com”, but including no term such as “f an” or “f ans” which would identify it as being independent of the Complainant. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name itself theref ore carries a high risk of implied af f iliation. The Complainant also highlights the f ollowing matters pertaining to the Respondent’s website: - It copies the “look and feel” of the Complainant’s website, including the Complainant’s red, black and white colour scheme. - It is headed with f our navigational links, “MENU”, “LOCATIONS”, “REWARDS”, and “ABOUT”, which replicate those same headings on the Complainant’s website. - Its browser tab employs the Complainant’s Logo as a f avicon in the same manner as the Complainant’s website. - It makes repeated use of the term “our”, including “Join our Rewards Program”, “Sign up through our mobile app...”, “Our customer service team is here to help”, and “Our Story & Mission”, all of which give the clear impression that the website is operated by the Complainant. - While it f eatures three disclaimers stating that it is an independent f an resource, these are obscurely located and unlikely to come to the attention of visitors to the website. These disclaimers should theref ore be assumed to be self-serving pretexts, designed to avoid the Complainant’s enf orcement ef f orts. - The website’s HTM L code includes metatags making direct reference to the Complainant, as well as links to the Complainant’s social media profiles, in order to influence search engine behaviour and the content of search result previews. The Complainant adds that the “Contact Us” page of the Respondent’s website encourages visitors to “Get in Touch with Dave’s Chicken Menu” f or purposes including “Partnership or collaboration ideas (e.g. f itness inf luencers, spicy challenge events, vegan-f riendly f eatures”, and provides an email address f or that purpose. The Complainant submits that such partnership or collaboration ideas would potentially be revenue-generating, and also that the Respondent is able to capture email addresses and other potentially sensitive inf ormation sent to the email address provided. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and has been used in bad faith. It repeats that the Respondent does not host a genuine f an site, but instead a website that creates a f alse af f iliation with the Complainant. It contends that the contents of the Respondent’s website evidences a clear intention to target the Complainant’s trademark, and that the Respondent’s non-prominent disclaimers support rather than detract f rom a f inding of bad f aith. The Complainant provides evidence that, on October 21, 2025, the Complainant emailed the Respondent at the email address provided on its website, demanding that the Respondent take down its website and transf er the disputed domain name to the Complainant. The Complainant states that the Respondent made no reply to this communication. The Complainant also exhibits the inf ormal communication f rom the page 4 Respondent to the Center dated February 2, 2026, together with an email dated February 5, 2026 which the Complainant sent to the Respondent by way of response, repeating its claims and demands. It states that the Respondent also did not reply to that communication. B. Respondent The Respondent submits that he registered the domain name with the intention of creating an inf ormational web site providing general reference material about publicly available menu items and categories related to the Complainant’s restaurant brand. He states that the website does not sell products, process o rd ers, o r claim to be the official website of the brand. He contends that the purpose of the website has always been to provide a menu guide and inf ormational overview f or users searching online f or menu items, meal combinations, sides, drinks, shakes, and related inf ormation. He adds that the website simply organizes publicly available information about menu categories, and that the intention is to help visitors understand menu options bef ore visiting a restaurant location. The Respondent denies that his website has ever sought to impersonate the Complainant or to seek in any way to exploit the Complainant’s trademark or business. He states that he fully appreciates the importance of trademark rights in preventing consumer conf usion. The Respondent states that, af ter receiving the Complaint in this proceeding, he adjusted the website content to provide more prominent disclaimers, to simplify the website structure and by “removing elements that could potentially cause confusion”. He contends that these voluntary actions demonstrate his good faith in the matter. 6. Complainant’s Unsolicited Supplemental Filing The Complainant’s unsolicited supplemental f iling addresses two matters. First, it provides evidence to suggest that the Response may have been AI-generated, and submits that such action is designed to f rustrate the proceedings and is a f urther indication of bad f aith. Secondly, the Complainant makes submissions concerning the Respondent’s changes to its website following its receipt of the Complainant. The use of AI by parties in preparing submissions under the UDRP is ref erred to in section 4.2 of WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions(“WIPO Overview 3.1”), which states: “In cases where arguments and/or evidence presented to the panel is created with the assistance of AI tools, the credibility of such arguments/evidence may be impacted by the inclusion (e.g., in an annex) by the parties of specif ic prompts and their results.” While parties should generally be f ree to f ormulate their submissions in such a way as they see f it, the mischief to which the above commentary is directed is that AI-generated material may contain hallucinated f acts, legal arguments, or case citations, which may not be accurate nor verif ied by the presenting party. The Panel does not, however, consider this to pose a signif icant risk in the present case, in which the Respondent’s arguments are straightf orward, predictable, and based on f acts which are self -evident. With regard to the Complainant’s further unsolicited submissions, the Panel does not consider it necessary or appropriate to consider the Complainant’s observations on the Respondent’s changes to its website f ollowing its receipt of the Complaint. In light of the Panel’s conclusions on both aspects of the Complainant’s unsolicited supplemental f iling, the Panel f inds it unnecessary to invite the Respondent’s comments on that f iling. page 5 7. Discussion and Findings In order to succeed in the Complaint, the Complainant is required to show that all three of the elements set out under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are present. Those elements are that: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad f aith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has demonstrated that it is the owner of registered trademark rights in the mark DAVE’S HOT CHICKEN. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. The disputed domain name effectively incorporates that trademark, but for the omission of the word “hot” and the addition of the term “menu” in the disputed domain name. Neither of these differences prevent the Complainant’s trademark from being recognizable within the disputed domain name, and the Panel theref ore f inds that the f irst element under the Policy is satisf ied. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Respondent claims to use the disputed domain name f or the purpose of an inf ormational website, without any intention to impersonate the Complainant or to benef it f rom its trademark rights. Under paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy, a respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in respect of a domain name where it is “making a legitimate noncommercial or f air use of the domain name, without intent f or commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.” WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.7 contains commentary upon this issue, touching upon both the nature of the domain name itself, and the wider question of whether the respondent’s website constitutes a genuine fan or inf ormational site, or appears alternatively to be a pretext for cybersquatting. It comments specifically that “a respondent’s f an or inf ormational site must be active, genuine, and clearly distinct f rom any of f icial complainant site.” Turning f irst to the disputed domain name itself, this comprises the Complainant’s trademark (minus the word “hot”) together with the additional term “menu”. While the inclusion in a domain name of a term such as “fan” or “review” may assist in indicating independence from the trademark owner, the Panel is not of the view that the term “menu” is indicative of an independent fan or informational site in this case, and considers, on the contrary, that members of the public would be at least as likely to view the disputed domain name as indicating a page provided by the Complainant itself to promote its menu items. The Panel also accepts the Complainant’s submissions that the contents of the Respondent’s website (at least prior to the changes made following the Respondent’s receipt of the Complainant) were misleading and would have confused members of the public as to the provenance of the website in question. While the similarity between the “look and feel” and structure of the two websites, including the navigational links, is notable, the Panel is particularly struck by the Respondent’s repeated adoption of the words “o ur” o r “us” and the related content pertaining to the Complainant, which would inevitably give the impression that the website is legitimately affiliated with, if not directly controlled by, the Complainant. The website includes, f or example, several pages under the heading “Join our Rewards Program”, which continues “Earn points, unlock rewards, and enjoy exclusive perks every time you dine with us!” and which clearly gives the impression of constituting the Complainant’s content. page 6 The Panel also f inds that such disclaimers as originally appeared on the Respondent’s website lacked prominence, observing also that, regardless of the presence of disclaimers, Internet users are likely to have been attracted to the website in the first place in the mistaken belief that it was legitimately affiliated with the Complainant. The Panel also notes the Complainant’s submissions concerning the Respondent’s metatags (which the Respondent does not dispute) which, together with the nature of the domain name itself, are likely to have inf luenced Internet searches directed to the Complainant’s of f icial website. The Panel observes that, while there appears to be no overtly commercial purpose to the Respondent’s website (save f or raising the possibility of “partnerships”), that website may still be detrimental to the Complainant and its trademark to the extent that it gives the false impression of being owned or operated by, or otherwise legitimately af f iliated with, the Complainant. The Complainant is entitled to autonomy and agency over its online content, which is denied by a website that misrepresents itself in the manner that is evident in this case. While the Respondent’s website may purport to provide a noncommercial informational resource (and there is no submission that the information which it provides about the Complainant’s products and services is f actually incorrect), the Respondent cannot establish rights or legitimate interests in either a domain name which is inherently misleading, or a website which is likely to confuse Internet users in the manner described above. The Panel theref ore f inds that the second element under the Policy is established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith For similar reasons as set out above, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. There can be no dispute that the Respondent selected the disputed domain name with knowledge of the Complainant and with the intention of referring to its business. Moreover, by using the disputed domain name for the purpose of the website described above, the Respondent is likely to have conf used Internet users into believing that the website must be owned or operated by, or otherwise legitimately affiliated with, the Complainant, which causes an unf air detriment to the Complainant. See, WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.3. The Panel also notes that the Respondent did not respond to the Complainant’s pre-action communication dated October 21, 2025 and made alterations to his website only af ter receipt of the Complaint in this proceeding. Moreover, the Respondent’s failure to reply to correspondence, and action only af ter receipt of the Complaint, contribute to an overall impression of bad f aith. The Panel theref ore f inds that the third element under the Policy is established. 8. 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 <daveschickenmenu.com> be transf erred to the Complainant. /Steven A. Maier/ Steven A. Maier Sole Panelist Date: March 30, 2026

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