Murphybrownusa.com

The timeline behind murphybrownusa.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 Murphy-Brown LLC v. Kristian Best, SSB manufacturing Owner Case No. D2026-2286 1. The Parties The Complainant is Murphy-Brown LLC, United States of America (“United States”), represented by SF Investments, Inc., United States. The Respondent is Kristian Best SSB manufacturing Owner, Uganda. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <murphybrownusa.com> (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 27, 2026. On May 29, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On May 29,2026, 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 (Unknown, RDAP Server Redacted) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on June 1, 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 the same date. On June 4, 2026, the Center notified the Complainant of formal deficiencies in the Complaint and requested the Complainant to submit an amended Complaint to cure such deficiencies. The Complainant submitted a new amended Complaint on the same date. 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”). In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on June 10, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, page 2 the due date for Response was June 30, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 2, 2026. The Center appointed Marilena Comanescu as the sole panelist in this matter on July 6, 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, Murphy-Brown LLC, is a Delaware Limited Liability Company wholly-owned subsidiary of Smithfield Foods, Inc., Virginia corporation. The Complainant is engaged in livestock production and related agricultural operations in the United States. The Complainant’s name “Murphy-Brown, LLC” has been adopted following the merger of several entities (including MURPHY-BROWN HOLDINGS LLC) on May 1 st , 2009. In 2015, Smithfield Foods publicly announced that it would cease externally using the “Murphy-Brown LLC” name for its livestock production business and instead publicly operates under the “Smithfield Hog Production Division” name. Certain operations are currently publicly branded under the “Smithfield Hog Production” name, however, the Complainant remains a legitimate active legal entity affiliated with Smithfield Foods, Inc. The evidence to the Complaint shows that the Complainant was publicly recognized as a major business enterprise in 2013 and reviews its business activities under the MURPHY-BROWN name; specifically, the Smithfield 2013 Integrated Report identifies the Complainant as one of the world's largest pork producer, with 5,000 employees and the D&B Directory notes that Murphy-Brown brings to market more than 16 million hogs annually, and operates about 450 company-owned farms in a dozen states, as well as international operations. The Complainant holds the domain name <murphybrownllc.com>, which is currently redirected to Smithfield Foods' website at <smithfieldfoods.com>. The Disputed Domain Name was registered on October 9, 2025, and, at the time of filing the Complaint, it was used in relation to a website that displays the MURPHY BROWN mark, promotes similar goods and services to those offered by the Complainant (crop and animal production), states that “Murphy-Brown LLC is a global leader in both human and animal nutrition”, and claims to be a family business created in 2001. There is no disclaimer regarding any lack of connection between the Disputed Domain Name and the Complainant, to the contrary the website under the Disputed Domain Name claims copyright protection “2026MURPHY-BROWN LLC I All Rights Reserved” and displays, at the “Contact us” section, the Complainant’s actual North Carolina business address associated with “Smithfield Hog Production”. 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 the following: - the Complainant has acquired common law trademark and service mark rights in the name MURPHY BROWN through longstanding and extensive use of such designation in connection with livestock production, agricultural operations, and related business activities in the United States; page 3 - the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to its MURPHY BROWN mark since it incorporates the mark in its entirety, and differs only by the addition of the non-distinctive geographic term “usa”; - the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name mainly because: (i) the Respondent has no affiliation whatsoever with Complainant and has never been authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted to use the Murphy Brown name; (ii) there is no evidence that Respondent is commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name; (iii) the Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name, nor is making a bona fide offering of goods or services. Instead, the Respondent is using the Disputed Domain Name to impersonate the Complainant through unauthorized use of: the Complainant’s exact legal entity name; the Complainant’s actual North Carolina business address; and misleading North Carolina contact information; and - the Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith mainly because: (i) through the Disputed Domain Name and corresponding website, the Respondent impersonates the Complainant, since the Respondent’s unauthorized use of the precise address associated with the Complainant’s “Smithfield Hog Production” assumed business name is particularly strong evidence of deliberate impersonation and bad faith; (ii) the Registrar disclosed that the registrant is Kristian Best of Kampala, Uganda, whereas the Respondent's website presents itself as a North Carolina agricultural business associated with Murphy-Brown, LLC and uses the Complainant's actual North Carolina business address despite having no apparent connection to the Complainant or to the United States livestock industry. This further supports a finding that Respondent intentionally ought to create a false impression of affiliation with Complainant; and (iii) the Disputed Domain Name appears intended to confuse Internet users into believing the website is operated, sponsored, endorsed, or affiliated with the Complainant and such conduct constitutes bad-faith impersonation and passing off under the Policy. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Under the Policy, the Complainant is required to prove on the balance of probabilities 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 the Disputed Domain Name; and (iii) the Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. 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 Panel finds the Complainant has established unregistered trademark or service mark rights for the purposes of the Policy, WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.3. The Panel finds that the Complainant has demonstrated unregistered trademark rights in the mark MURPHY BROWN through extensive use for hog production. Further on, the Panel notes that the Complainant has used the domain name <murphybrownllc.com> in connection with its offerings, and after 2015, to redirect those Internet users using that domain name to reach the Complainant’s main website, at the domain name page 4 <smithfieldfoods.com>. The Complainant has continuously utilized the domain name <murphybrownllc.com> as a source identifier for its services. The Panel further notes that the Respondent is shown to have been targeting that source identifier (<murphybrownllc.com>) to attempt to create confusion, by displaying the Complainant’s company name, official contact address and to promote similar goods and services on the website under the Disputed Domain Name, in an attempt to pass off as coming from the Complainant. Therefore, one person who cannot dispute the fact that <murphybrownllc.com> is a source identifier of Complainant’s services, is Respondent. See Greenspring Associates, Inc. v. Lisa Knowles, Victoria capital pty, WIPO Case No. D2019-0265. The Panel considers that such use supports the Panel’s finding that the Complainant still has residual goodwill at the present time. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.3. 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. While the addition and deletion of other terms, here addition of “usa”, may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds that such alteration 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 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 3.1, section 2.1. Having reviewed the 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. According to the evidence provided in the Complaint, the Respondent has used the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a website that offers competing products and reproduces the Complainant’s corporate name and address, indicating the Respondent’s intention to impersonate the Complainant and/or at least cause consumer confusion. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity (e.g., impersonation/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. page 5 The Panel further notes the composition of the Disputed Domain Name which incorporates the Complainant’s MURPHY BROWN identifier together with a geographical term, closely related to the Complainant (indicating its country). Such fact, together with the other circumstances in this case, including its use and a lack of any explanation for the choice of Disputed Domain Name by the Respondent, do not amount to a bona fide offering or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. 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 Disputed Domain Name was registered in bad faith, with likely knowledge of the Complainant and its MURPHY BROWN common law trademark particularly because the first use of the Complainant’s mark predates the registration of the Disputed Domain Name by about 16 years. In addition, the composition of the Disputed Domain Name itself, which reproduces the Complainant’s distinctive mark and the geographical indication of Complainant’s country (“usa” from the United States), whereas the Respondent is apparently located in Uganda. Further, the Disputed Domain Name is highly similar to the Complainant’s domain name<murphybrownllc.com>, and this reinforces an inference of bad faith. Lastly, the use of the Disputed Domain Name for a website that impersonates the Complainant, in particular by using the Complainant’s actual company name and address, further supports that the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name opportunistically to take advantage of the Complainant’s rights in its MURPHY BROWN mark. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances may be relevant in assessing whether a respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.2.1. Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy provides that the use of a domain name to intentionally attempt “to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [the respondent’s] website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [the respondent’s] website or location or of a product or service on [the respondent’s] website or location” is evidence of registration and use in bad faith. By creating a website that impersonates the Complainant’s official website by displaying the Complainant’s mark, providing similar goods and services, reproducing the Complainant’s official company name and address, in this Panel’s view, the Respondent has intended to attract Internet users accessing the website corresponding to the Disputed Domain Name who may be confused and believe that the website is held, controlled by, or somehow affiliated or related to the Complainant, for its commercial gain. Also, the use of a domain name for impersonation/passing off can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent and it is considered evidence of bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.4. Further, the Respondent failed to provide a response to the present procedure or put forward any argument in its favour. Along with other circumstances in this case, such fact constitutes further sign of bad faith. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy. page 6 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, <murphybrownusa.com>, be transferred to the Complainant. /Marilena Comanescu/ Marilena Comanescu Sole Panelist Date: July 21, 2026

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