Petsbarkbox.com

The timeline behind petsbarkbox.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.

DECISION Barkbox, Inc. v. mOUAD BAZRI Claim Number: FA2110001969400 PARTIES Complainant is Barkbox, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Matthew Hintz of Lowenstein Sandler LLP, New Jersey, USA. Respondent is mOUAD BAZRI (“Respondent”), Morocco. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <petsbarkbox.com>, registered with NameCheap, Inc. PANEL The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Alan L. Limbury, as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on October 18, 2021.The Forum received payment on October 18, 2021. On October 18, 2021, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <petsbarkbox.com> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, Inc. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”). On October 19, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 8, 2021 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@petsbarkbox.com. Also on October 19, 2021, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts. Having received no response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On November 11, 2021, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Alan L. Limbury as Panelist. Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Launched in 2012, Complainant, Barkbox, Inc., is a provider of pet products and subscription services for pet treats and toys. Complainant registered the <barkbox.com> domain name, which it uses for its website, in 2009. Complainant maintains registrations of the BARKBOX mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The <petsbarkbox.com> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s BARKBOX mark. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <petsbarkbox.com> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name nor has Respondent been licensed to use Complainant’s BARKBOX mark. Respondent is not using the <petsbarkbox.com> domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services nor for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use because Respondent passes itself off as Complainant by selling, via third party service providers, products that users would find on Complainant’s own website, and Respondent solicits purchases from Internet users. Respondent registered and uses the <petsbarkbox.com> domain name in bad faith because Respondent sold products in competition with Complainant, via third party service providers, utilizing Complainant’s mark. Further bad faith is found through Respondent’s use of a privacy service. Respondent acted with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the BARKBOX mark. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant has established all the elements entitling it to relief. DISCUSSION Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable." Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred: (1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and (2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (“Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint”). Identical or Confusingly Similar Complainant has shown that it has rights in the BARKBOX mark through several registrations with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. 4283860, registered Jan. 29, 2013). The Panel finds Respondent’s <petsbarkbox.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark because it wholly incorporates the mark and adds the term “pets” which, far from distinguishing the domain name from the mark, suggests the field of business in which Complainant is engaged. The inconsequential “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) may be ignored. Complainant has established this element. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy sets out three illustrative circumstances as examples which, if established by Respondent, shall demonstrate rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, i.e. (i) before any notice to Respondent of the dispute, the use by Respondent 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; or (ii) Respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert customers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue. The <petsbarkbox.com> domain name was registered on February 12, 2021, several years after Complainant has shown that its BARKBOX mark had become well-known. Before Respondent’s online storefront was shut down by a third-party service provider, Respondent used the website to which the domain name <petsbarkbox.com> resolved to sell pet products while prominently displaying Complainant’s BARKBOX mark. These circumstances, together with Complainant’s assertions, are sufficient to constitute a prima facie showing of absence of rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name on the part of Respondent. The evidentiary burden therefore shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the <petsbarkbox.com> domain name. See Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014). Respondent has made no attempt to do so. The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name. Complainant has established this element. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out four illustrative circumstances, which, though not exclusive, shall be evidence of the registration and use of the domain name in bad faith for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, including: (iv) by using the domain name, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on its website or location. The circumstances set out above in relation to the second element satisfy the Panel that Respondent was fully aware of Complainant’s well-known BARKBOX mark when Respondent registered the <petsbarkbox.com> domain name and that Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source of Respondent’s website and of the goods promoted on that website. This demonstrates registration and use in bad faith to attract users for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). Complainant has established this element. DECISION Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <petsbarkbox.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Alan L. Limbury, Panelist Dated: November 15, 2021 Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page. Click Here to return to our Home Page

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