Griffithfoods.cc

The timeline behind griffithfoods.cc

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 Griffith Foods International Inc. v. Ronald Wharton Claim Number: FA2502002141251 PARTIES Complainant is Griffith Foods International Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Thomas L. Holt of Perkins Coie LLP, Illinois, USA. Respondent is Ronald Wharton ("Respondent"), Minnesota, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <griffithfoods.cc>, registered with NameSilo, LLC. 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. Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 20, 2025; Forum received payment on February 20, 2025. On February 21, 2025, NameSilo, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <griffithfoods.cc> domain name is registered with NameSilo, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. NameSilo, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameSilo, LLC 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 24, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 17, 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@griffithfoods.cc. Also on February 24, 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 18, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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 Complainant contends in part as follows: Complainant provides food products and related market research, testing, design and development services. Complainant and its predecessors in interest have a long-established history with the GRIFFITH name in this market going back to 1919. Complainant operates in over 30 countries in North America, South America, Europe, Asia and Australia and specializes in building strong partnerships with its customers to create great food consumers love. Complainant owns the United States trademark registration for the GRIFFITH FOODS. Complainant, though its related company, owns numerous domain name registrations that incorporate the GRIFFITH FOODS marks in whole or in part. Respondent has used the at-issue domain name in connection with an email address to impersonate a member of Complainant's staff and direct third parties to fraudulent banking information concerning Complainant. Respondent's at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights. When comparing Complainant's mark to the at-issue domain name, each comprises the identical root terms with a different top-level domain ("TLD"). Although the <griffithfoods.cc> domain name swaps the TLD from ".com" to ".cc", this does not sufficiently distinguish the domain name from the GRIFFITH FOODS mark. Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Complainant has been using the mark exclusively and continuously for roughly 9 years and well before Respondent registered and used the at-issue domain name. Complainant has never licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its trademark. Respondent does not own a trademark or service mark registration for any mark comprising, in whole or in part, the mark GRIFFITH FOODS (or similar variations thereof). Respondent is using the at-issue domain name to pose as someone from Complainant's Accounts Receivable and Credit department and deceive third-parties into changing Complainant's bank account information. Respondent intended to derive commercial gain from the domain name. Respondent was aware of Complainant's rights when registering the domain name. By registering the domain name that infringes Complainant's mark and using the domain name to redirect third parties for its own commercial gain, Respondent both registered and used the <griffithfoods.cc> in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant has rights in the GRIFFITH FOODS trademark. Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and had not been authorized to use Complainant's trademark in any capacity. Respondent registered the at‑issue domain name after Complainant acquired rights in GRIFFITH FOODS. Respondent uses the <griffithfoods.cc> to host email to pose as Complainant's employee and attempt to defraud third parties. 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 at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights. Complainant shows that it has a USPTO trademark registration for its GRIFFITH FOODS mark. Complainant's trademark registration is sufficient to demonstrate Complainant's rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Thermo Electron Corp. v. Xu, FA 713851 (Forum July 12, 2006) (finding that the complainants had established rights in marks where the marks were registered with a national trademark authority). Respondent's <griffithfoods.cc> domain name consists of Complainant's GRIFFITH FOODS trademarks less its domain name impermissible space, followed by the ".cc" top-level domain name. The difference between Complainant's trademark and Respondent's domain name is insufficient to distinguish such trademark from the domain name under the Policy. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent's <griffithfoods.cc> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's GRIFFITH FOODS trademark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Domain Administrator / Registry Services, LLC, FA2 2038314 (Forum July 26, 2023)("The addition of a gTLD fails to sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)."). Rights or Legitimate Interests Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond, Complainant's prima facie showing acts conclusively. Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant's trademark in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue 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 <griffithfoods.cc> indicates the domain name's registrant is "Ronald Wharton" and the record before the Panel contains no evidence tending to prove that Respondent is commonly known as <griffithfoods.cc>. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the <griffithfoods.cc> domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Braun Corp. v. Loney, FA 699652 (Forum July 7, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain names where the WHOIS information, as well as all other information in the record, gave no indication that the respondent was commonly known by the domain names, and the complainant had not authorized the respondent to register a domain name containing its registered mark). Respondent's <griffithfoods.cc> domain name was used to host email pretending to come from one of Complainant's employees. Such email impersonated Complainant's employee and misrepresented that there were changes to Complainant banking information. Respondent's sham email attempts to deceive the recipient regarding the email's source so that funds might be misdirected to Respondent's account. Respondent's use of the <griffithfoods.cc> domain name evidences neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), nor a non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iv). See Microsoft Corporation v. Terrence Green / Whois Agent / Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc., FA 1661030 (Forum Apr. 4, 2016) (finding the respondent's use of the disputed domain names to send fraudulent emails purportedly from agents of complainant to be 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)). Given the forgoing, Respondent lacks rights and lacks legitimate interests in respect of <griffithfoods.cc>. Registration and Use in Bad Faith As discussed below without limitation, there is evidence that leads the Panel to find that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to the Policy. First as noted above regarding rights and legitimate interests, Respondent used the at-issue domain name in connection with an email based scheme intent on defrauding third parties. Respondent uses <griffithfoods.cc> hosted email pretending to be from one of Complainant's staff so that it might ultimately trick the email's recipient into misdirecting funds due Complainant to Respondent. Respondent's use of the domain name to provide an impostor a credible email address in furtherance of fraud shows Respondent's bad faith registration and use of the at-issue domain name under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). See Abbvie, Inc. v. James Bulow, FA 1701075 (Forum Nov. 30, 2016) ("Respondent uses the <abbuie.com> domain name to impersonate Complainant's CEO. Such use is undeniably disruptive to Complainant's business and demonstrates bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii), and/or Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)"); see also Microsoft Corporation v. Terrence Green / Whois Agent / Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc., FA 1661030 (Forum Apr. 4, 2016) (finding the Respondent's use of the disputed domain names to send fraudulent emails supported a finding of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)). Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the GRIFFITH FOODS mark when Respondent registered <griffithfoods.cc> as a domain name. Respondent's actual knowledge is gleaned from GRIFFITH FOODS' notoriety as well as from Respondent's use of the domain name to host fraudulent email pretending to be from Complainant's employee. Respondent's prior knowledge of Complainant's trademark rights further shows Respondent's bad faith registration and use of <griffithfoods.cc>. See Lemon Inc. v. Sumer Singh, FA 2110519 (Forum September 5, 2024 ("registration of a disputed domain name with actual knowledge of another's trademark rights is sufficient to establish bad faith, and can be shown by the notoriety of the mark and the use the Respondent makes of the disputed domain name"); see also, Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name). 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 <griffithfoods.cc> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist Dated: March 18, 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.