Theexpertgrill.com

The timeline behind theexpertgrill.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.

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION Walmart Apollo, LLC v. Nadeem Asghar Claim Number: FA2502002140968 PARTIES Complainant is Walmart Apollo, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Fatima Y. Kassem of Brooks Kushman P.C., Michigan, USA. Respondent is Nadeem Asghar ("Respondent"), Pakistan. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <theexpertgrill.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. Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 19, 2025; Forum received payment on February 19, 2025. On February 20, 2025, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <theexpertgrill.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 February 20, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 12, 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@theexpertgrill.com. Also on February 20, 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 March 13, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. 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 i) Walmart is a multinational retail corporation operating a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and grocery stores. Complainant has been using its EXPERT GRILL trademark in United States commerce since at least as early as April 2016. Complainant has rights in the EXPERT GRILL mark based upon trademark registrations with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 5,325,900 registered October 31, 2017). The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's EXPERT GRILL mark because it contains Complainant's mark in its entirety adding non-distinguishing element "the." ii) Respondent has no legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and Complainant has not authorized or licensed Respondent to hold any rights in the EXPERT GRILL mark. Additionally, Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the disputed domain name is used to pass Respondent off as Complainant. iii) Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent uses the disputed domain name to intentionally attract Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's EXPERT GRILL mark for commercial gain. Respondent's registration and use of the disputed domain name for passing off activities constitute a ground of bad faith. Respondent's use of Complainant's address and phone number is deceptive, aiming to mislead Internet users into believing the site is associated with Walmart. Respondent's website replicates the content of the Complainant's legitimate site, further supporting the conclusion that the domain was registered and is being used in bad faith. Respondent intentionally and willfully misrepresented to the Registrar that the registration of the disputed domain name did not interfere with or infringe upon the rights of any third parties. Respondent offers competing or counterfeit products falsely associated with Complainant's EXPERT GRILL trademarks through the disputed domain, aiming to divert consumers from the legitimate website. Given the well-known status of Complainant's mark and Respondent's passing off activities, Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith with full knowledge of Complainant's rights in the EXPERT GRILL mark. B. Respondent Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS 1.The disputed domain name was registered on July 19, 2024. 2. Complainant has established rights in the EXPERT GRILL mark based upon trademark registrations with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 5,325,900 registered October 31, 2017). 3. Respondent displays Complainant's EXPERT GRILL mark on its website, which promotes Complainant's EXPERT GRILL products and includes direct links to purchase competing products from third-party sellers on Amazon. Respondent's website provides links labeled "View On Amazon" and "VIEW ALL EXPERT GRILL PRODUCTS," which redirect to Amazon pages featuring competing products 4. Respondent's website displays images of Complainant's EXPERT GRILL products, featuring the EXPERT GRILL logo. 5. The footer of Respondent's website includes social media icons that link directly to Complainant's social media profiles on X, Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube. 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 Complainant claims rights in the EXPERT GRILL mark based on trademark registrations with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 5,325,900, registered October 31, 2017). Registration of a mark with the USPTO constitutes a valid demonstration of rights in a mark. Since Complainant provides evidence of the registration of the EXPERT GRILL mark with the USPTO, the Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Complainant contends that the disputed domain name <theexpertgrill.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant's EXPERT GRILL mark because it contains Complainant's mark in its entirety. The addition of the non-distinctive element "the" does not negate the confusing similarity of the disputed domain name. The Panel agrees and finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's EXPERT GRILL mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Section 2.1, WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 ("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."). Complainant argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Respondent been authorized by Complainant to use Complainant's mark, and Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant. Relevant information, such as WHOIS information, can be used as evidence to show a respondent is or is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). The Panel notes that the WHOIS data lists "Nadeem Asghar" as the registrant, and there is no evidence in the record to suggest Respondent was authorized to use the mark. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Complainant argues that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, as Respondent uses the disputed domain name to impersonate Complainant. The Panel observes that such impersonation does not constitute 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. Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund, FA 1790949 (Forum July 9, 2018) (finding that the respondent did not use the domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services per Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) where the website resolving from the disputed domain name featured the complainant's mark and various photographs related to the complainant's business); see also Wolverine World Wide, Inc. v. Fergus Knox, FA 1627751 (Forum Aug. 19, 2015) (finding that no bona fide offering of goods or legitimate noncommercial or fair use existed where the respondent used the resolving website to sell products branded with Complainant's MERRELL mark, which were either counterfeit products or legitimate products of Complainant being resold without authorization). From the screenshots of the disputed domain name's website, the Panel notes that: (i) Respondent displays Complainant's EXPERT GRILL mark on its website, which promotes Complainant's EXPERT GRILL products while also providing direct links to purchase competing products from third-party sellers on Amazon. Respondent's website includes links labeled "View On Amazon" and "VIEW ALL EXPERT GRILL PRODUCTS," which redirect users to Amazon pages featuring competing products; (ii) Respondent's website displays images of Complainant's EXPERT GRILL products, prominently featuring the EXPERT GRILL logo; and (iii) The footer of Respondent's website includes social media icons that link directly to Complainant's official social media profiles on X (formerly Twitter), Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube. The Panel finds that the resolving website of the disputed domain name impersonates Complainant and offers competing services by directing users to a third party's competing website. Accordingly, Respondent fails to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). The Panel finds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case based on the considerations above. All of these factors support the establishment of a prima facie case against Respondent. As Respondent has neither filed a Response nor attempted to refute the prima facie case by any other means, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant contends that Respondent's registration and use of the disputed domain name constitute bad faith because the disputed domain name resolves to a website displaying the EXPERT GRILL mark in a manner that impersonates Complainant and mimics the appearance of a legitimate website. The Panel finds that such impersonation, combined with the sale of competing products, constitutes evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (b)(iv). See Ontel Products Corporation v. Waweru Njoroge, FA 1762229 (Forum Dec. 22, 2017) ("Respondent's primary offering seems to be counterfeits of Complainant's toy car products. Respondent's use of the <magictrackscars.com> domain name is thus disruptive to Complainant's business per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)."); see also Russell & Bromley Limited v. Li Wei Wei, FA 1752021 (Forum Nov. 17, 2017) (finding that the respondent registered and used the at-issue domain name in bad faith because it used the name to pass off as the complainant and to offer for sale competitive, counterfeit goods). As noted above, the Panel finds that the resolving website of the disputed domain name impersonates Complainant and offers competing products by directing users to a third party's competing website. The Panel concludes that Respondent disrupts Complainant's business by diverting Internet users seeking Complainant to Respondent's website as well as third-party competitors' websites. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). Complainant further contends that Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith with full awareness of Complainant's rights in the EXPERT GRILL mark, given the well-known status of Complainant's mark and Respondent's passing off activities. The Panel notes that Complainant sells its EXPERT GRILL branded goods online and via its downloadable mobile application. Walmart's mobile application has been downloaded from the Google Play Store over 100 million times, with 5.47 million reviews, and has 13.6 million ratings on the Apple App Store. Complainant has invested millions of dollars in advertising and promoting its goods in the United States. As a result of Complainant's extensive promotional efforts and the broad consumer recognition of its goods associated with the trademark, the EXPERT GRILL trademark has become widely recognized among consumers in the United States and abroad prior to Respondent's registration of the disputed domain name. The Panel infers, due to the notoriety of Complainant's mark and the manner in which the disputed domain name is used, that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the EXPERT GRILL mark at the time of registering the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(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 <theexpertgrill.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist Dated: March 13, 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.