Zachbryanmerchofficial.com

The timeline behind zachbryanmerchofficial.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 Belting Bronco Merchandising Inc. v. big merch shop Claim Number: FA2503002147248 PARTIES Complainant is Belting Bronco Merchandising Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Peter Nussbaum of Chiesa Shahinian Giantomasi PC, New Jersey, USA. Respondent is big merch shop ("Respondent"), United Arab Emirates. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <zachbryanmerchofficial.com> ("Domain Name"), registered with Name.com, Inc. PANEL The undersigned certifies that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on March 27, 2025; Forum received payment on March 27, 2025. On March 28, 2025, Name.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <zachbryanmerchofficial.com> domain name is registered with Name.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Name.com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Name.com, 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 March 31, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 21, 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@zachbryanmerchofficial.com. Also on March 31, 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 April 22, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Nicholas J.T. Smith 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 is the intellectual property holding company of Zach Bryan, a musician who has performed successfully and released 6 full length albums under his name since 2017. Complainant has rights in the ZACH BRYAN mark based on numerous registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (e.g., Reg. No. 7,468,545 registered August 6, 2024 with a first use date of 2017). Respondent's <zachbryanmerchofficial.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's ZACH BRYAN mark because it removes the space between words in the ZACH BRYAN mark and adds the descriptive terms "merch" and "official", and the generic top-level domain ("gTLD") ".com" to form the Domain Name. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <zachbryanmerchofficial.com> domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant's ZACH BRYAN mark and is not commonly known by the Domain Name. Additionally, Respondent fails to use the Domain Name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent is attempting to profit from confusing users into believing that the resolving site ("Respondent's Website") belongs to Complainant by reproducing Complainant's mark and Zach Bryan's name and likeness and offering merchandise associated with the Complainant/Zach Bryan while asserting that it is the "official Website", which is not the case. Respondent registered and uses the <zachbryanmerchofficial.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent attempts to pass off as Complainant for the purpose of obtaining commercial gain. Respondent also had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the ZACH BRYAN mark at the time of registration evidenced by the use of the name and likeness of Zach Bryan on the Respondent's Website. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant holds trademark rights for the ZACH BRYAN mark. The Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's ZACH BRYAN mark. Complainant has established that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name and that Respondent registered and has used the Domain Name in bad faith. 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 has rights in the ZACH BRYAN mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its registration of the mark with the USPTO (e.g. Reg. No. 7,468,545 registered August 6, 2024 with a first use date of 2017). Registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to establish rights in that mark. See DIRECTV, LLC v. The Pearline Group, FA 1818749 (Forum Dec. 30, 2018) ("Complainant's ownership of a USPTO registration for DIRECTV demonstrate its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)."). The Panel finds that the Domain Name <zachbryanmerchofficial.com> is confusingly similar to the ZACH BRYAN mark as it incorporates the entire ZACH BRYAN mark while adding the generic terms "merch" (a common abbreviation for "merchandise") and "official" and the ".com" gTLD. Domain names which incorporate an entire mark are usually considered confusingly similar, while adding generic words and a gTLD is generally insufficient to create a distinction between a complainant's mark and a disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See MTD Products Inc v J Randall Shank, FA 1783050 (Forum June 27, 2018) ("The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark as it wholly incorporates the CUB CADET mark before appending the generic terms 'genuine' and 'parts' as well as the '.com' gTLD."); see also Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognisable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element."). The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant alleges that Respondent holds no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. In order for Complainant to succeed under this element, it must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the Domain Name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006) and 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."). The Panel holds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case. Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name as Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the ZACH BRYAN mark. Respondent has no relationship, affiliation, connection, endorsement or association with Complainant. WHOIS information can help support a finding that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, especially where a privacy service has been engaged. See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Dale Anderson, FA 1613011 (Forum May 21, 2015) (concluding that because the WHOIS record lists "Dale Anderson" as the registrant of the disputed domain name, the respondent was not commonly known by the <statefarmforum.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)); see also Kohler Co. v. Privacy Service, FA 1621573 (Forum July 2, 2015) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) where "Privacy Service" was listed as the registrant of the disputed domain name). The WHOIS information of record lists "big merch shop" as the registrant of record. Coupled with Complainant's unrebutted assertions as to absence of any affiliation or authorization between the parties, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name in accordance with Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). The Domain Name resolves to the Respondent's Website which, through the reproduction of the ZACH BRYAN mark, images of Zach Bryan and statement that the Respondent's Website is the "official website" (as well as the nature of the Domain Name itself which contains the term "official"), passes itself off as an official website of the Complainant for the purpose of offering for sale unauthorized merchandise featuring the name and likeness of Zach Bryan, in direct competition with Complainant's merchandise which also features the name and likeness of Zach Bryan. The use of a confusingly similar domain name to resolve to a webpage that directly offers unauthorized versions of a complainant's goods does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use; indeed it provides a false impression that the Respondent is affiliated with or authorized by Complainant. See BALENCIAGA SA v. ling lin, FA 1768542 (Forum Feb. 16, 2018) ("The disputed domain names incorporate Complainant's registered mark, and are being used for websites that prominently display Complainant's mark and logo, along with apparent images of Complainant's products, offering them for sale at discounted prices. The sites do not disclaim any connection with Complainant, and in fact seem to be designed to create an appearance of such a connection. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests."). See also Am. Int'l Group, Inc. v. Busby, FA 156251 (Forum May 30, 2003) (finding that the respondent attempts to pass itself off as the complainant online, which is blatant unauthorized use of the complainant's mark and is evidence that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name). The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith The Panel finds on the balance of probabilities that, at the time of registration of the Domain Name (July 5, 2024), Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's ZACH BRYAN mark since the Respondent's Website passes itself off as an official website of the Complainant including reproducing Complainant's mark (which had been in use since 2017) and likeness of Zach Bryan and asserting that it is the "official website" for Zach Bryan. Furthermore, there is no obvious explanation, nor has one been provided, for an entity to register a domain name that contains the ZACH BRYAN mark and use it to redirect visitors to a website selling goods in direct competition with the Complainant under the ZACH BRYAN mark other than to take advantage of Complainant's reputation in the ZACH BRYAN mark. In the absence of rights or legitimate interests of its own this demonstrates registration in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). The Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the Domain Name in bad faith to create confusion with Complainant's ZACH BRYAN mark for commercial gain by using the confusingly similar Domain Name to resolve to a website that falsely asserts that it provides official merchandise associated with Complainant/Zach Bryan but actually offers unauthorized products in direct competition with the Complainant's official merchandise. Using a confusingly similar domain name to trade upon the goodwill of a complainant can evince bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Xylem Inc. and Xylem IP Holdings LLC v. YinSi BaoHu YiKaiQi, FA 1612750 (Forum May 13, 2015) ("The Panel agrees that Respondent's use of the website to display products similar to Complainant's, imputes intent to attract Internet users for commercial gain, and finds bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)."). See also See Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum Dec. 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."). The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied 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 <zachbryanmerchofficial.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Nicholas J.T. Smith, Panelist Dated: April 23, 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.