Bffucitysoap.store

The timeline behind bffucitysoap.store

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.

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION Buff City Soap Holdings, LLC v. Cary Nedd / CaryNedd Claim Number: FA2502002138288 PARTIES Complainant is Buff City Soap Holdings, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Nicole Berkowitz Riccio of Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC, Tennessee, USA. Respondent is Cary Nedd / CaryNedd ("Respondent"), Indiana, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <bffucitysoap.store>, 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. Petter Rindforth as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 3, 2025; Forum received payment on February 3, 2025. On February 3, 2025, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <bffucitysoap.store> 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 February 5, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 25, 2025 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@bffucitysoap.store. Also on February 5, 2025, 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, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On February 26, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Petter Rindforth as Panelist. Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that 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, 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 The Complainant is the owner of the BUFF CITY SOAP trademarks (word and fig), which are used in connection with cosmetics and cleaning preparations, as well as cosmetic and cleaning accessories. The trademarks are registered with the USPTO, as well as in China. In addition, Complainant owns and operates the website at domain name <buffcitysoap.com>. The trademark/s has amassed a significant customer base and has a developed substantial goodwill in the cosmetics and cleaning preparations space. Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in bad faith and is using it to mimic the goods and services of those offered by Complainant. The disputed domain name <bffucitysoap.store> is almost identical to the Complainant's registered domain name, with the only differences being the use of "bffu" instead of "buff" before "city", and the use of the top-level domain ".store" instead of ".com." The hosted web page prominently displays the BUFF CITY SOAP trademarks, resulting in a likelihood of consumer confusion that the disputed domain name is affiliated with the Complainant. The Complainant has never authorized Respondent to use any of the BUFF CITY SOAP trademarks or the confusingly similar <bffucitysoap.store> domain name. Respondent has set up the disputed domain name to deceive consumers into using the <bffucitysoap.store> webpage to provide sensitive personal and financial information. More specifically, Respondent created an imitation of Complainant's website. Upon information and belief, when a consumer attempts to purchase items from the Respondent's web site, the Respondent will not actually complete the purchase, but instead retains the personal and financial information obtained through the domain name and connected web site. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS The Complainant is the owner of the trademark BUFF CITY SOAP, registered in USA and China, including but not limited to: U.S. Trademark Registration No. 5,399,187 BUFF CITY SOAP (word), registered on February 13, 2018 for goods in Intl Classes 3 and 21; U.S. Trademark Registration No. 6,277,676 BUFF CITY SOAP (logo), registered February 23, 2021 for goods in Intl Classes 3 and 21; and Chinese Trademark Registration No. 44714855 BUFF CITY SOAP (word), registered on November 14, 2020 for goods in Intl Class 3. The disputed domain name <bffucitysoap.store> was registered on January 20, 2025. DISCUSSION Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and 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 and/or Confusingly Similar The Complainant claims rights in the BUFF CITY SOAP trademark through its registration with multiple trademark agencies including the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 5,399,187, registered on February 13, 2018). Registration with multiple trademark agencies is generally sufficient in demonstrating rights in a trademark Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Emerson Electric Co. v. Cai Jian Lin / Shen Zhen Shi colorsun Zi Dong Hua You Xian Gong Si, FA 1798802 (Forum Aug. 31, 2018) ("Registering a mark with multiple trademark agencies around the world is sufficient to establish rights in a mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)."). Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the BUFF CITY SOAP trademark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) based on its registration with multiple trademark agencies. Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's BUFF CITY SOAP trademark/s as the disputed domain consists of the trademark, with only a small misspelling (using "bffu" instead of "buff" as the initial part), and the use of the top-level domain ".store" instead of ".com." Misspelling of a trademark and the addition of a gTLD is insufficient in distinguishing a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Morgan Stanley v. Francis Mccarthy / Baltec Marine Llc, FA 1785347 (Forum June 8, 2018) ("The [<morganstonley.com> and <morganstainley.com>] "Domain Names are confusingly similar to Complainant's marks, as they fully incorporate the MORGAN STANLEY mark, varying it only by subtle misspellings, omitting a space between the words, and adding the generic top-level domain ("gTLD") '.com.'"); see also The Toronto-Dominion Bank v. George Whitehead, FA 1784412 (Forum June 11, 2018) ("[S]light differences between domain names and registered marks, such as the addition of words that describe the goods or services in connection with the mark and gTLDs, do not distinguish the domain name from the mark incorporated therein per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)."). As noted, the disputed domain name incorporates a misspelling of the trademark by mixing the "u" and the double "ff". Therefore, the Panel find the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's BUFF CITY SOAP trademark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Once the Complainant makes a prima facie case in support of its allegations in respect of the second element of the Policy, the burden shifts to the Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Forum Sept. 25, 2006) ("Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names."); see also Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006) (holding that the complainant must first make a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under UDRP ¶ 4(a)(ii) before the burden shifts to the respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name). Complainant contends that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <bffucitysoap.store> domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name nor has Complainant authorized or licensed to Respondent any rights in the BUFF CITY SOAP trademark. When a response is lacking, WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Suzen Khan / Nancy Jain / Andrew Stanzy, FA 1741129 (Forum Aug. 16, 2017) (finding that respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names when the identifying information provided by WHOIS was unrelated to the domain names or respondent's use of the same). Additionally, lack of authorization to use a complainant's trademark may indicate that the respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) ("lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant's mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)"). The WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as "Cary Nedd / CaryNedd" and Complainant asserts there is no other evidence to suggest that Respondent was authorized to use the BUFF CITY SOAP trademark. Therefore, the Panel find that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Next, Complainant argues that Respondent fails to use the <bffucitysoap.store> domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use as Respondent passes off as Complainant by advertising counterfeit versions of Complainant's goods for sale on an unauthorized basis. Using a disputed domain name to divert and confuse users as to the ownership or association of the site is indeed not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Ripple Labs Inc. v. NGYEN NGOC PHUONG THAO, FA 1741737 (Forum Aug.21, 2017) ("Respondent uses the [disputed] domain name to divert Internet users to Respondent's website… confusing them into believing that some sort of affiliation exists between it and Complainant… [which] is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)."). Complainant provides screenshots of the resolving website showing that Respondent used more or less identical pictures and text as on Complainant's own web site. The Panel indeed agrees that such use is confusing for Complainant's customers, and find that Respondent fails to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant argues that Respondent has set up the disputed domain name to deceive consumers into using the <bffucitysoap.store> webpage to provide sensitive personal and financial information, by creating an imitation of Complainant's website. Registration of a confusingly similar domain name with the intent to pass off as a complainant in an attempt to phish for personal information can evince bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum December 27, 2017) (finding bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where "Respondent registered and uses the <lbittrex.com> domain name in bad faith by directing Internet users to a website that mimics Complainant's own website in order to confuse users into believing that Respondent is Complainant, or is otherwise affiliated or associated with Complainant."). Based on the screenshot, provided by the Complainant, of the web site linked to the disputed domain name, it is clear for the Panel that the Respondent has made several efforts to identify itself as at least business related to the Complainant. The Panel therefore finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). Further, registration of a confusingly similar domain name with the intent to disrupt business by passing off as a complainant can clearly evince bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See LoanDepot.com, LLC v. Kaolee (Kay) Vang-Thao, FA1762308 (Forum January 9, 2018) (Finding that Respondent's use of the disputed domain name to offer competing loan services disrupts Complainant's business under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)). As noted above, Complainant provides screenshots of the disputed domain name offering what seem to be the same goods as the Complainant's, in order to confuse users and compete with Complainant. The Panel therefore find that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). DECISION Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <bffucitysoap.store> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Petter Rindforth, Panelist Dated: March 11, 2025 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.