Freddymenus.com

The timeline behind freddymenus.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 Freddy's, L.L.C. v. pasti bisa, istana group Case No. D2026-1102 1. The Parties The Complainant is Freddy's, L.L.C., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Lathrop GPM LLP, United States. The Respondent is pasti bisa, istana group, Indonesia. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <freddymenus.com> is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 14, 2026. On March 16, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 17, 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 (Redacted for Privacy) 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 amendment to the Complaint on March 23, 2026. The Center verified that the Complaint together with 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”). In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent 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. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 14, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Clive Duncan Thorne as the sole panelist in this matter on April 17, 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 the franchisor of Freddy’s Frozen Custard & Steakburgers restaurants in the United States. It has served fresh, made-to -order steakburgers, frozen custard and other fast-food staples for more than twenty years. It is one of the fastest growing franchises in the United States with more than 500 locations nationwide. It has an online presence where it offers information about its menu offerings, catering services, and related services, primarily at the website “www.freddys.com” from which customers can also place orders online. At Exhibit F to the Complaint the Complainant exhibits screenshots of the Complainant’s <freddys.com> menu page. The Complainant owns the domain name <freddys.com> which was registered on July 30,1998. This is evidenced at Exhibit E to the Complaint. The domain name resolves to the official Freddy’s website at the “www.freddys.com”. The website allows customers to find information about the Complainant’s restaurant services, menu items, catering services and related offerings all under the trade marks FREDDY’S. The Complainant is the owner of six United States registered trade marks in respect of Class 43 restaurant services consisting of or incorporating FREDDY’S. Certificates of registration are exhibited at Exhibit D to the Complaint and include; No. 4414677, FREDDY’S, in Class 43 registered October 8, 2013. No. 3968515, FREDDY’S FROZEN CUSTARD & STEAKBURGERS (and Design), in Class 43 registered May 31, 2011. No. 7194236, FREDDY’S (and Design), in Class 43 registered October 17, 2023. The Respondent on or about February 17, 2025 registered the disputed domain name <freddymenus.com>. As of the date of the Complaint the disputed domain name resolves to an active webpage prominently displaying the FREDDY’S marks and a near identical reproduction of the Complainant’s menu as exhibited at Exhibit F. This is evidenced by Exhibit H to the Complaint which is a close reproduction of the Complainant’s menu as exhibited at Exhibit F. The difference is that the Complainant’s menu refers to <freddys.com> whilst the Respondent’s menu refers to <freddymenus.com> which is the domain name in dispute. The Panel notes that the date of registration of the disputed domain name is February 17, 2025 which is later than the dates of registration of the Complainant’s registration of the trade marks relied upon. In the absence of a Response nothing further is known regarding the activities of the Respondent. The Panel determines this Complaint upon the evidence submitted by the Complainant. 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. page 3 Notably, the Complainant contends: i. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark FREDDY’S. ii. There is no evidence that the Respondent has any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; iii. On the evidence of the Respondent’s website the Respondent is intentionally attempting to attract users to its website for commercial gain and is using the Complainant’s FREDDY’S trade marks to create a likelihood of confusion. This is evidence of registration and use in bad faith. 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 Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 1.7. The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. The entirety of the mark FREDDY’S 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 3.1, section 1.7. The Panel finds 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 3.1, section 1.7. Although the addition of other terms, here “menus” may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, t he Panel finds the addition of such a descriptive 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 3.1, 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 that 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 page 4 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 3.1, 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. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for here, claimed as applicable to this case: unauthorized account access/hacking, copycat sites, passing off, or other types of fraud can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.13.1. In this case the Respondent has created and is using a website which is a substantial reproduction of the Complainant’s website. 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. In the present case, the Panel notes that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name for the purpose of attracting users to its website which is a substantial reproduction of that of the Complainant by creating a likelihood of confusion for customers as a result of the similarity of the two websites and confusingly similar domain names. The Panel also takes into account that the choice of the disputed domain name and similarity of the content of the websites is evidence that the Respondent had notice of the Complainant’s rights when creating its website and registering the disputed domain name. In the Panel’s view this is evidence of bad faith under paragraph 4(b) of the Policy on the part of the Complainant, by disrupting the business of a competitor and intentionally attempting to attract for commercial gain, Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark FREDDY’S. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity here, claimed as applicable to this Complaint; copycat sites, passing off, or other types of fraud constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.4. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith under the Policy. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy. page 5 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 <freddymenus.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Clive Duncan Thorne/ Clive Duncan Thorne Sole Panelist Date: April 27, 2026

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