Savanna-orchards.com

The timeline behind savanna-orchards.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 A.L. Schutzman Company, Inc. v. Abubakar Mustafa Case No. D2026-3323 1. The Parties The Complainant is A.L. Schutzman Company, Inc., United States of America (“U.S.”), represented by Quarles & Brady LLP, U.S. The Respondent is Abubakar Mustafa, Ukraine. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <savanna-orchards.com> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Dynadot Inc (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 27, 2026. On July 28, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On July 30, 2026, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent (Redacted for Privacy, Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on August 11, 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 August 11, 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 the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on August 18, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 7, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. On September 16, 2026, the Respondent was granted a five-day period (through September 21, 2026) to indicate whether it wishes to participate in these proceedings. The Respondent did not submit any response by the due date. page 2 The Center appointed Mathias Lilleengen as the sole panelist in this matter on September 23, 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 to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background The Complainant is a food producer and distributor of nuts, trail mixes, chocolates, candies, popcorn and other snacks. It has conducted business since 1921 and now serves consumers globally. The Complainant launched the SAVANNA ORCHARDS brand in June 2009. Since, the Complainant has continually used the trademark in the marketing and sale of nuts and nut mixes. The Complainant owns trademark registration SAVANNA ORCHARDS, U.S. trademark registration no. 3738145 (registered January 12, 2010). The Domain Name was registered on August 30, 2025. The Complainant has documented that the Domain Name resolves to a webpage that impersonates the Complainant. The Respondent’s webpage appears to offer the same products as the Complainant and it displays the Complainant’s trademark. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant provides evidence of trademark registrations and argues that it has common law trademark rights in SAVANNA ORCHARDS. The Complainant asserts that the Domain Name is identical and/or confusingly similar to its trademark, as the Domain Name consists solely of Complainant’s trademark connected by a hyphen and with a Top-Level Domain. The Complainant argues that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. The Complainant has never licensed, authorized, or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use the Complainant’s trademark. There is no evidence that Respondent is commonly known as “Savanna Orchards”. The Respondent uses the Domain Name to impersonate the Complainant. The use of the word “generic” in conjunction with the SAVANNA ORCHARDS trademark on the Respondent’s website suggests that the products are not genuine, and the Respondent simply is trading off the SAVANNA ORCHARDS Mark in order to attract customers and sell an inferior generic version of an identical product. The Complainant acknowledges that there are limited circumstances in which a reseller may legitimately use another’s trademark in its domain name. However, the Complainant submits that does not apply in this matter as the Respondent is not offering the Complainant’s goods for sale and the Respondent’s website does not include a required disclaimer. The Complainant argues that the Respondent registered and uses the Domain Name in bad faith because it uses its website to intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website. The Respondent uses the Domain Name to impersonate the Complainant. Moreover, the Respondent has taken deliberate steps to ensure that its true identity cannot be determined and communication with it cannot be made through lack of accurate information on the WhoIs database. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. page 3 6. Discussion and Findings Preliminary Issue: Procedural Consideration - The Respondent’s location Under paragraph 10 of the Rules, the Panel is required to ensure that the Parties are treated with equality and that each Party is given a fair opportunity to present its case, and also that the administrative proceeding takes place with due expedition. The location of the Respondent as disclosed by the Registrar is listed by the Respondent to be in Ukraine, which is subject to an international conflict on the date of this Decision that may impact case notification. The Panel therefore would consider, in accordance with its discretion under paragraph 10 of the Rules, whether the proceeding should continue. The Panel notes that the record shows that the Written Notice has not been delivered to the address disclosed by the Registrar in its verification. However, it appears that the Notification of Complaint’s emails were delivered to the Respondent’s email address, as provided by the Registrar. Therefore, there is no evidence that the case notification was not successfully received by the Respondent. The Respondent has not opposed the continuation of the proceeding. Moreover, as described below, the Panel believes the Respondent has registered the Domain Name in bad faith to target the Complainant and mislead consumers. The Panel concludes that the Respondent who is allegedly located in Ukraine has been given a fair opportunity to present its case, and so that the administrative proceeding takes place with due expedition, the Panel will proceed to a Decision accordingly. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar 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 Domain Name. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 1.7. The Complainant has established that it has rights in the trademark SAVANNA ORCHARDS. In this case, the Domain Name is almost identical to SAVANNA ORCHARDS, save the added hyphen. This addition does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the trademark. For the purpose of assessing under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, the Panel may ignore the generic Top-Level Domain (“.com”). See WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.11.1. The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. 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. While 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 often impossible 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. 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. page 4 Based on the evidence, the Respondent is not affiliated or related to the Complainant in any way. There is no evidence that the Respondent has registered the Domain Name as a trademark or acquired trademark rights. There is no evidence of the Respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Domain Name or a name corresponding to the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Respondent’s purported offering does not qualify as fair use by a reseller, inter alia because it appears that the Respondent are not offering the Complainant’s goods and the Respondent’s website does not disclose the registrant’s relationship with the trademark holder. See WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.8. On the contrary, the Panel finds that the Respondent’s use of the Domain Name, as well as the composition of the Domain Name, cause Internet users to confuse the Respondent’s website with the Complainant and its trademark. The Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. 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. The Respondent most likely knew of the Complainant when he registered the Domain Name. It follows from the composition and use of the Domain Name. The Panel agrees that the Respondent has registered the Domain Name in an attempt to unfairly take advantage of the Complainant’s trademark by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant. Moreover, the Respondent appears to have attempted to hide its identity from an anticipated complainant or to avoid being notified of a UDRP proceeding filed against it, based on the use of a privacy service coupled with inaccurate/false registrant details. See WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.6. The Panel finds that the 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 the Domain Name <savanna-orchards.com> transferred to the Complainant. /Mathias Lilleengen/ Mathias Lilleengen Sole Panelist Date: September 30, 2026

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