Doordash.design

The timeline behind doordash.design

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 DoorDash, Inc. v. Annapurna Patta Claim Number: FA2506002160480 PARTIES Complainant is DoorDash, Inc. ("Complainant"), United States, represented by Laura M. Schaefer of Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff, LLP, United States. Respondent is Annapurna Patta ("Respondent"), India. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <doordash.design>, registered with GoDaddy.com, 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. David E. Sorkin as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 12, 2025; Forum received payment on June 12, 2025. On June 12, 2025, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by email to Forum that the <doordash.design> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, 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 June 18, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 8, 2025 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@doordash.design. Also on June 18, 2025, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email 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 July 9, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed David E. Sorkin 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 an on-demand food and convenience delivery service company founded in 2013. Complainant has used DOORDASH in connection with its services since that date. Complainant owns United States trademark registrations for DOORDASH in standard character form and for a D DOORDASH design mark composed of a stylized "D" shape followed by the word DOORDASH. Complainant states that it was the former owner of the disputed domain name <doordash.design>, but inadvertently allowed the registration to lapse in August 2023. Respondent subsequently registered or acquired the disputed domain name, holding the registration in the name of a privacy registration service. Complainant had used the disputed domain name for a website for its design team, including its DOORDASH word mark and D DOORDASH design mark, information about Complainant's employees, and links to Complainant's primary website and social media profiles. Respondent is now using the domain name for a nearly identical website, but for the addition of what Complainant describes as "unauthorized third-party links" (apparently to unrelated gambling websites) near the bottom of the page. Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name and is not authorized to use Complainant's mark. Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <doordash.design> is identical to its DOORDASH mark; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used 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 Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, § 4.3 (3d ed. 2017), available at http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/; UDRP Perspectives on Recent Jurisprudence, §§ 0.2, 0.8 (updated June 2, 2025), available at https://udrpperspectives.org/; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (dismissing complaint where complainant failed to "produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations"). Identical and/or Confusingly Similar The disputed domain name <doordash.design> corresponds to Complainant's registered DOORDASH trademark, appending the ".design" top-level domain. The addition of a top-level domain is normally disregarded for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. See, e.g., Sitecore Corp. A/S v. Max Barrass, D2023-3992 (WIPO Nov. 7, 2023) (finding <sitecore.design> identical to SITECORE); Ulta Beauty, Inc. v. Emily Casillas / emily, FA 2063652 (Forum Oct. 20, 2023) (finding <ulta.design> confusingly similar to ULTA); Lovehoney Group Ltd. v. Wu Ze Xin, CAC-UDRP-104489 (Czech Arb. Ct. May 20, 2022) (finding <lovehoney.design> identical or confusingly similar to LOVEHONEY). The Panel considers the disputed domain name to be identical to a mark in which Complainant has rights. Rights or Legitimate Interests Under the Policy, the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc. v. Entertainment Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's registered mark without authorization. Its sole apparent use has been for a misleading website that attempts to pass off as Complainant, likely intended to profit from advertising links on the website or possibly for other fraudulent purposes. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., American International Group, Inc. v. \u91d1 \u5434 / Paranaque, FA 2081689 (Forum Feb. 22, 2024) (finding lack of rights or interests in similar circumstances); Sitecore Corp. A/S v. Max Barrass, supra (same). Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of such rights or interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered the disputed domain name "primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor." Under paragraph 4(b)(iv), bad faith may be shown by evidence that "by using the domain name, [Respondent] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent's] web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [Respondent's] web site or location or of a product or service on [Respondent's] web site or location." Respondent used a privacy registration service and what Complainant alleges may be incomplete or inaccurate underlying registration information to register a domain name corresponding to Complainant's registered mark. Respondent is using the domain name for a misleading website that attempts to pass off as Complainant, likely intended to profit from advertising links on the website or possibly for other fraudulent purposes. Such circumstances are indicative of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See, e.g., American International Group, Inc. v. \u91d1 \u5434 / Paranaque, supra (finding bad faith registration and use in similar circumstances); Sitecore Corp. A/S v. Max Barrass, supra (same). The Panel so finds. DECISION Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <doordash.design> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. David E. Sorkin, Panelist Dated: July 9, 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.