Petrossiancaviarco.com

The timeline behind petrossiancaviarco.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 Petrossian Inc. v. anderse bergstrom Case No. D2026-2595 1. The Parties Complainant is Petrossian Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Areopage, France. Respondent is anderse bergstrom, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <petrossiancaviarco.com> is registered with Spaceship, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 15, 2026. On June 15, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 15, 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 (Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on June 16, 2026, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on June 19, 2026. 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on June 23, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 13, 2026. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on July 17, 2026. The Center appointed Georges Nahitchevansky as the sole panelist in this matter on July 24, 2026. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and page 2 Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background Complainant, Petrossian Inc., is in the business of selling caviar, smoked fish, seafood specialties and a variety of high-quality, specialty foods. Complainant also operates several restaurants, boutiques and corner shops in different cities around the world. Complainant uses the name and mark PETROSSIAN in connection with its products and services and owns a number of trademark registrations for the PETROSSIAN mark in the United States. These include Registration Nos. 1191779 (which issued to registration on March 9, 1982), 2340463 (which issued to registration on April 11, 2000), and 1337271 (which issued to registration on May 21, 1985). Complainant also owns and uses the domain name <petrossian.com> for a website concerning Complainant and its products and services and to offer Complainant’s products for sale online to American consumers. Respondent, who appears to be based in the United States, registered the disputed domain name on June 10, 2026. At some point after the disputed domain name was registered, Respondent used such for a website offering Complainant’s PETROSSIAN products, such as caviar and foie gras, that mirrored aspects of Complainant’s website at the domain name <petrossian.com>. Currently, the website at the disputed domain name is not accessible. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name. Complainant contends that it has strong rights in its PETROSSIAN mark through its use for over a century in connection with luxury food items such as caviar, its many trademark registrations for the PETROSSIAN mark, and the worldwide notoriety the PETROSSIAN mark has attained as “a leading luxury brand for caviar and fine food”. Complainant also notes that a prior UDRP Panel has found the PETROSSIAN mark to be well-known in relation to fine foods, namely, caviar. Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s PETROSSIAN mark as the PETROSSIAN mark is reproduced in the disputed domain name with the addition of non-distinguishing descriptive term “caviar co”, which relates directly to the very product Complainant is known for. Complainant argues that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as Respondent (i) owns no rights in the PETROSSIAN mark, (ii) is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and (iii) has no affiliation or association with, or license from, Complainant. Lastly, Complainant asserts that Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith in view of the well-known character of the PETROSSIAN mark and given that Respondent “perfectly knew that he had no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and that he cannot lawfully use it”. Complainant further contends that Respondent is engaged in “retail phishing” by using the disputed domain name with a website that impersonates Complainant and which deliberately creates the false impression that the associated website is operated by Complainant in order to attract and induce consumers into placing orders and providing payment and other information for Respondent’s commercial gain. page 3 B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, to succeed Complainant must satisfy the Panel that: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; (ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name was 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 Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. See section 1.7, Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”). Complainant has shown rights in its PETROSSIAN mark for purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. Here, the PETROSSIAN mark is fully incorporated and clearly visible in the disputed domain name. Although the addition of the element “caviar co” may bear on the assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such element does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the PETROSSIAN mark for 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 a 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 available record, the Panel finds that Complainant has established a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent, who has chosen not to appear in this proceeding, has not rebutted 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. page 4 Here, the disputed domain name fully incorporates Complainant’s exact PETROSSIAN mark and name with the descriptive terms “caviar co” (which stands for caviar company), the very product that Complainant is known for. As such, the disputed domain name is likely to be mistakenly seen by consumers as related to or associated with Complainant and/or its products and services. Additionally, the disputed domain name has resolved to a website that essentially impersonated Complainant and purported to offer for sale Complainant’s products. The website, for example, used much language that was meant to suggest the website is operated by Complainant including an “About Us” description that read as follows: “Not all caviar is created equal and Petrossian’s online caviar boutique is the perfect place to taste the difference.” Although it is not clear from the evidence submitted whether Respondent’s website, which is now down, actually sold genuine or counterfeit versions of Complainant’s products, or was instead a phishing vehicle to obtain credit card and other information from unsuspecting customers, what has been provided by Complainant puts into question the legitimacy of Respondent’s actions. This is underscored by the fact that Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence justifying its actions of using a domain name that conjures up Complainant for a website that passes itself off as Complainant. In all, the evidence before the Panel, at the very least, confirms that Respondent has used the disputed domain name and associated website to attract and mislead consumers into believing there is a connection with Complainant when none exists. Such use of the disputed domain name for the profit of Respondent is not a legitimate interest. WIPO Overview 3.1 at section 2.5.3. The Panel thus 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 view of Respondent’s actions, and failure to appear in this proceeding, it is easy to infer that Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name, which is clearly based on Complainant’s well-known PETROSSIAN mark and name, has been done opportunistically and in bad faith for the benefit or profit of Respondent. The disputed domain name and associated website essentially impersonate Complainant, was registered well after Complainant had established rights in its PETROSSIAN mark and name and appears to have been used as part of a scheme for Respondent’s benefit. Such use of the disputed domain name to attract unsuspecting consumers for profit, and a possible illicit scheme, constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, sections 3.1.4 and 3.4. The Panel finds that 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 <petrossiancaviarco.com> be transferred to Complainant. /Georges Nahitchevansky/ Georges Nahitchevansky Sole Panelist Date: August 7, 2026

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