Her-rock.com

The timeline behind her-rock.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 Rockher Haute Jewels, LLC v. Brianna Chiarello / Her Rock, LLC Case No. D2026-1072 1. The Parties The Complainant is Rockher Haute Jewels, LLC, United States of America (“United States”), internally represented. The Respondents are Brianna Chiarello, United States, and Her Rock LLC, United States, represented by Lombard & Geliebter LLP, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <her-rock.com> is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 12, 2026. On March 13, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 16, 2026, 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 (Her Rock, LLC) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on March 19, 2026, 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 March 19, 2026, and an amendment to the Complaint on March 20, 2026. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint and the amendment to 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”). page 2 In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondents of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 24, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 13, 2026. On April 13, 2026, the Respondents requested an extension under paragraph 5(b) of the Rules, which the Center granted on April 13, 2026, setting the due date for Response as April 17, 2026. The Response was filed on April 17, 2026. The amended Response was received on April 23, 2026. The Center appointed W. Scott Blackmer as the sole panelist in this matter on April 29, 2026. 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 organized under the laws of the State of Delaware, United States, and headquartered in Los Angeles, California, United States. The Complainant designs and sells custom-made engagement rings and other jewelry online through its website at “www.rockher.com” (the “Complainant’s website”), which allows site visitors to select and order types and designs of jewelry. The Complainant’s website is headed with an RHHR figurative logo (not the registered trademark version listed below) and the name ROCKHER followed by the trademark registration symbol “®”. The Complainant promotes its website with Google Ads and also advertises online though social media channels including Instagram, X, Facebook, Pinterest, and TikTok, where its accounts similarly display the ROCKHER mark with the trademark designation symbol. The Complainant holds the following United States trademark registrations: Mark Registration No. Registration Date International Class RHHR (word and design) 5839632 August 20, 2019 (applied February 13, 2019) 14, 42 ROCKHER (standard characters) 7808197 May 27, 2025 (applied August 28, 2024) 14, 35, 42 The Complaint does not expressly claim common law rights in either the ROCKHER word mark or either the registered or currently displayed version of the RHHR design marks. Nevertheless, the Panel considers the possibility of protection under common law before the Complainant obtained trademark registration, given the available record and the fact that the Complainant is not represented by legal counsel. The Complainant claims first use in commerce of the ROCKHER word mark on June 2, 2014. The Panel notes that the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine has archived screenshots from 2014-2017 alternately displaying an RHHR logo or the name ROCKHER, with a “Coming Soon” or “Under Construction” message. 1 Archived screenshots of a complete website allowing the online design and purchase of customized jewelry appear at the end of 2017. The Complaint attaches a redacted invoice from June 2018 evidencing a commercial sale of jewelry under the ROCKHER mark, as well as the Better Business Bureau (“BBB”) accreditation for the Complainant reporting continuous business operation since 2018. 1 Noting the general powers of a panel articulated in paragraphs 10 and 12 of the Rules, it is commonly accepted that a panel may undertake limited factual research into matters of public record, as the Panel has done in these proceedings. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 4.8. page 3 The disputed domain name was created on May 9, 2020, and is registered to the Respondent Brianna Chiarello, listing a postal address in the State of New York, United States and a Gmail contact email address. The disputed domain name resolves to a Shopify website (the “Respondents’ website”) operated by “Her Rock LLC” and headed “HER ROCK Jewelry”. The site advertises “custom-made jewelry suitable for your wedding day and beyond”. According to the “About us” page of the Respondents’ website, Brianna Chiarello is the founder and operates showrooms in New York City and Saratoga Springs. The Panel notes that the Wayback Machine has archived screenshots of this website from April 2021 onward. Ms. Chiarello submitted a declaration in support of the Response, which was filed on behalf of Her Rock, LLC, a limited liability company established under the laws of the State of New York, United States, on September 17, 2020. According to her Declaration, Ms. Chiarello is a Gemological Institute of America (“GIA”) Graduate Gemologist with over 15 years of experience in the jewelry industry. She launched the business to make custom, handmade engagement rings and bridal jewelry, registered the disputed domain name, and organized Her Rock, LLC to operate the business and the associated website in September 2020. The Response attaches copies of invoices showing early sales in 2020 and 2021, as well as photos and social media posts about the Saratoga Springs, New York showroom grand opening in 2022. In view of their shared interests in the disputed domain name and associated website, the Panel accepts Her Rock, LLC (“Her Rock”) as an additional Respondent and refers hereafter to both Brianna Chiarello and Her Rock as the “Respondent”, unless otherwise indicated. The Complainant became aware of the Respondent advertising similar goods in many of the same social media channels used by the Complainant, as well as using Google Ads with similar keywords to promote the Respondent’s website. The Complainant demonstrates that Google Ads itself confuses search results for the Parties, due to the similarity of their name strings. The Complainant contacted the Responded in August 2025 concerning the Complainant’s trademark rights and raised the question of potential consumer confusion, given that the Parties’ names are essentially inversions of one another. The Complainant observed that the Respondent’s advertising and packaging also featured an “HR” logo that could be confused with the Complainant’s “RHHR” logo. The Parties engaged in settlement negotiations, drafting an agreement for the Respondent to rebrand over a period of twelve months. However, the Parties did not conclude the settlement, and this UDRP proceeding followed. 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 “nearly identical” to its ROCKHER mark, reversing the order of the words “rock” and “her” and adding a hyphen. The Complainant argues that the Respondent has no permission to use the mark and is not legitimately offering goods or services under the disputed domain name, since it is directly competing with the Complainant in bad faith with “actual or constructive” knowledge of the Complainant’s prior rights in the ROCKHER mark. The Complainant asserts that is was “a known, active entity” in the online market for fine, custom jewelry online in 2020 when the Respondent registered the disputed domain name, so anyone entering this market should have been aware of the Complainant. The Complainant suggests that the Respondent’s use of a logo similar to the Complainant’s design mark is further evidence that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s marks and continued to act in bad faith. page 4 B. Respondent The Respondent contends that the Complainant has not satisfied all three of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name. The Respondent argues that the Complainant has not alleged or established common law trademark rights, particularly at the time of the disputed domain name registration in 2020 and observes that the Complainant did not obtain trademark registration of the ROCKHER word mark until 2025. The Respondent argues in any event that the disputed domain name is not confusingly similar to that word mark. The Respondent claims a legitimate interest in the disputed domain name, which corresponds to its registered company name and has been used since 2020 for the bona fide offering of goods and services. Based on this use over the past five years, the Respondent also claims common law protection for HER ROCK and HER-ROCK.COM as marks. In addition, the Respondent has applied recently for United States trademark registration of HER ROCK JEWELRY as a word mark (Serial No. 99752448, application filed April 8, 2026) in international classes 14, 35, and 42; that application is awaiting examination at the time of this Decision. Ms. Chiarello in her Declaration denies targeting the Complainant with the disputed domain name. She reports that she chose the name “Her Rock” for the company name and the website because each ring created by the business is unique, based on multiple meetings with the client. “Her” refers to the personalization of the jewelry, and “rock” both to the diamond and the solid, romantic relationship it represents. Ms. Chiarello denies having heard of the Complainant until the Complainant contacted her in 2025, years after her business launched in person and online. She also states that the diamond wholesalers and other vendors and clients she has spoken to also say that they have not heard of the Complainant. The Declaration supports the probability of this result by attaching analytics concerning the Parties’ social media accounts, showing high levels of engagement with the Respondent’s accounts compared with low levels of engagement with the Complainant’s accounts. In a 30-day period in March and April 2026, for example, the Respondent gained more than 1,500 new followers and over 800,000 views on its Instagram account, while the Complainant’s account has only 36 posts and 62 “likes”. 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 Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 1.7. The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark (the registered ROCKHER word mark) for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. The Panel finds the mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name and the mark are not identical; they differ by inverting the words “rock” and “her” and introducing a hyphen between them, but they are both composed of the same two English words and are used explicitly by both Parties to refer to the same things, a diamond ring for a woman. (The Panel notes that the Merriam Webster and other online English dictionaries recognize that “rock” is slang for a diamond or gem.) Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the ROCKHER mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established. page 5 The consideration of possible unregistered, common law rights in ROCKHER is not necessary for the first element but may be relevant for the second and third elements. The Complainant, as noted above, does not expressly claim common law rights but furnished some relevant evidence in the form of a 2018 sales invoice and a BBB report, as well as website and social media accounts, and the Panel notes the trademark prosecution history and the archived screenshots from the Wayback Machine. There is otherwise no evidence in the record concerning the volume of sales or of industry, media, or consumer recognition of the mark, factors that would help establish secondary meaning in an unregistered mark for Policy purposes. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.3. Thus, on this record the Panel does not find that the Complainant’s ROCKHER mark had more likely than not acquired distinctiveness by May 2020 when the disputed domain name was registered. 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. The Panel finds that, before notice to the Respondent of the dispute, the Respondent used the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, the Respondent’s custom jewelry website that has been in operation for five years. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.2. The Panel finds that the Respondent also has been commonly known by names correspondent to the disputed domain name, “Her Rock, LLC” or “Her Rock Jewelry”, as a registered company name, the name of multiple social media accounts, and the name placed on physical showroom facilities and in print advertising. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.3. Accordingly, the Panel finds the second element of the Policy has not been established, subject to an assessment of the facts on the allegations of bad faith below. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel’s finding on the second element would be dispositive, unless the Panel were persuaded that the Complainant is correct in inferring that the Respondent selected both the disputed domain name and the name of its business in an effort to exploit the Complainant’s marks. As explained below, the Panel is not so persuaded. 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. These circumstances include the intentional creation of a likelihood of confusion with a mark to attract Internet users for commercial gain (paragraph 4(b)(iv)), which the Complainant alleges here. The Complainant argues that by May 2020 its unregistered ROCKHER mark was so well established that anyone entering the market to offer fine jewelry online must be deemed to have had “actual or constructive notice” of the mark. The Complainant simply does not offer sufficient evidence to support this claim, which the Respondent denies, pointing out with analytics the relatively low engagement that the Complainant’s social media accounts attract even at present. The Complainant does not provide any data about Internet search results or website visits in 2020, for example, or cite any information about industry, media, or consumer recognition. It is an overreach to assume that the Respondent had actual knowledge of the Complainant’s business, which was established on the other side of the United States and had been active online for less than two years at that point, and the Complainant cites no legal or Policy precedent for a finding of “constructive notice” for an unregistered mark. Thus, the Respondent’s denial of prior knowledge of the unregistered mark is credible. The Complainant fails to meet its burden of proof on this point, even assuming the Complainant had acquired protectible common law rights in ROCKHER as a mark by 2020. page 6 (As discussed above under the first element, the Panel does not find it likely that the Complainant’s ROCKHER mark had acquired distinctiveness by May 2020 when Respondent registered the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.8.1.) The evidence in the case file as presented does not indicate that the Respondent’s aim in registering the disputed domain name was to profit from or exploit the Complainant’s trademark. The Panel finds the third element of the Policy has not been established. Given this assessment of the facts, the Panel also confirms its finding that the second element of the Policy has not been established. D. Reverse Domain Name Hijacking Paragraph 15(e) of the Rules provides that, if after considering the submissions, the Panel finds that the Complaint was brought in bad faith, for example in an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (“RDNH”) or to harass the domain-name holder, the Panel shall declare in its decision that the Complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding. The mere lack of success of the complaint is not, on its own, sufficient to constitute RDNH. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 4.16. The Panel notes that in a case such as this, where the Respondent has been operating a commercial website for five years, the Complainant had no registered trademark at the time of the disputed domain name registration and made no express claim or record for common law rights at that time, the Panel ordinarily would consider a finding that the Complaint had been brought in bad faith and constituted an attempt at RDNH. The Respondent has not requested such a finding, however, and the Panel will not enter one in this case, in view of the fact that the Complaint was filed without the benefit of legal counsel. 7. Decision For the foregoing reasons, the Complaint is denied. /W. Scott Blackmer/ W. Scott Blackmer Sole Panelist Date: May 8, 2026

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