Chipottle.com

The timeline behind chipottle.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 Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. v. VMI VMI Claim Number: FA2506002162708 PARTIES Complainant is Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Emily J. Cooper of Holland & Hart LLP, Colorado, USA. Respondent is VMI VMI ("Respondent"), Cayman Islands. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <chipottle.com>, 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. Debrett G. Lyons as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 25, 2025; Forum received payment on June 25, 2025. On June 26, 2025, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <chipottle.com> 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 27, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 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@chipottle.com. Also on June 27, 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 July 18, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Debrett G. Lyons 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. PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE COMPLAINANTS The Complaint in both its original and amended form was brought by Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. and CMG Pepper, LLC. Forum Supplemental Rule 1(e) states that UDRP proceedings may be initiated by "a single person or entity claiming to have rights in the domain name, or multiple persons or entities who have a sufficient nexus who can each claim to have rights to all domain names listed in the Complaint." The Complaint states that "CMG Pepper, LLC and its affiliated entities Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. and Chipotle Mexican Grill UK Ltd. is a U.S. based restaurant chain that pioneered the concept of 'fast-casual' dining." Putting Chipotle Mexican Grill UK Ltd to one side since it is not named as a complainant, there is nothing more in the Complaint to better describe the relationship between CMG Pepper, LLC and Chipotle Mexican Grill, or the unity of control under which they may operate. The WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0") asks at #1.4: Does a trademark owner's affiliate or licensee have standing to file a UDRP complaint? The consensus of UDRP panel opinion is expressed to be that: "A trademark owner's affiliate such as a subsidiary of a parent or of a holding company, or an exclusive trademark licensee, is considered to have rights in a trademark under the UDRP for purposes of standing to file a complaint. While panels have been prepared to infer the existence of authorization to file a UDRP case based on the facts and circumstances described in the complaint, they may expect parties to provide relevant evidence of authorization to file a UDRP complaint. In the circumstances the Panel does not find that Forum Supplemental Rule 1(e) has been met, but to avoid recommencement of the proceedings the Panel has reduced the named party to Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. which is the owner of the relevant registered trademark. All references in this Decision to "Complainant" are consequentially references to Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. In this way, the Decision also deals with the Complaint's lack of clarity as to the intended transferee of the domain name. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant asserts trademark rights in CHIPOTLE which it uses in connection with restaurant services. Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark. Complainant states that the disputed domain name was created after Complainant had acquired rights in the trademark. Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because it is not known by the same name and has not been authorized to use the trademark. Complainant alleges that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith having targeted Complainant and its trademark. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS The factual findings pertinent to the decision in this case are that: 1. Complainant provides restaurant services under the trademark, CHIPOTLE; 2. Complainant is the owner of United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") Reg. No. 2,344,423, registered on April 25, 2000, for the mark, CHIPOTLE; 3. the disputed domain name was registered on October 4, 2005, using a privacy service to shield the name of Respondent; 4. the domain name resolves to a webpage featuring links for job searches; and 5. the domain name is for sale for USD8,400. DISCUSSION Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted 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. Identical and/or Confusingly Similar Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires a two-fold enquiry—an investigation into whether a complainant has rights in a trademark, followed by an assessment of whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark. The Policy does not distinguish between registered and unregistered trademark rights (see, for example, Microsoft Corporation v. Story Remix / Inofficial, FA 1734934 (Forum July 10, 2017). A trademark registered with a national authority is evidence of trademark rights (see, for example, Mothers Against Drunk Driving v. phix, FA 174052 (Forum Sept. 25, 2003)). Complainant provides evidence of its registration of CHIPOTLE with the USPTO, a national trademark authority, and so the Panel finds proof of trademark rights. For the purposes of comparison, the gTLD, ".com", can be disregarded (see, for example, Morgan Stanley v. Morgan Stanley, FA 1169733 (Forum May 3, 2008) finding addition of a gTLD irrelevant for the purposes of comparison). Thereafter, the domain name is a trivial misspelling of the trademark and the Panel finds it to be confusingly similar to the trademark. The Panel therefore finds that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy are satisfied. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy states that any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate rights or legitimate interests to a domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy: (i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or (ii) you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue. Complainant need only make out a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, after which the onus shifts to Respondent to rebut that case by demonstrating those rights or interests (see, for example, Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000‑0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000)). The name of Respondent was shielded by a privacy service. Once revealed in consequence of these proceedings as VMI VMI, nothing indicated that Respondent might be commonly known by the domain name (see, for example, Tercent Inc. v. Lee Yi, FA 0139720 (Forum Feb. 10, 2003) stating "nothing in [the respondent's] WHOIS information implies that [the respondent] is 'commonly known by' the disputed domain name" as one factor in determining that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) does not apply"). There is no evidence that Respondent has any trademark rights. Complainant states that Respondent has no permission to use the trademark and the Panel accepts that statement. Complainant provides evidence that the domain name resolves to a webpage with links to job searches, and also shows that the domain name is for sale for USD8,400. The Panel finds no bona fide use of the domain name within the terms of paragraph 4(c) of the Policy. A prima facie case has been made (see, for example, Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Yang Zhi Chao, FA2208002010196 (Forum Oct. 3, 2022) finding use of a domain name to host pay-per-click links and advertisements is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under nor a non-commercial or fair use under the Policy). The onus shifts to Respondent and in the absence of a Response, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or interests and so finds that Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant must prove on the balance of probabilities both that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith and used in bad faith. The Panel observes that the Complaint is silent on the fact that the disputed domain name was created 20 years ago, giving no explanation as to why it has taken an inordinate length of time to bring these administrative proceedings. In circumstances where doubts arose regarding possible bad faith, the Panel might have been troubled by the failure to address this point, but here the Panel is sufficiently guided by paragraph 4(b) of the Policy. In particular, the Panel finds that Respondent's conduct falls under paragraphs 4(b)(i) and (iv), set out below: '(i) circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the respondent's documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or (iv) by using the domain name, respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, internet users to respondent's website 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 the respondent's website or location or of a product or service on the site or location.' The for-sale price far exceeds the out of pocket costs associated with registration and renewal of the domain name; the trademark has no ordinary meaning, and the failure to use it commercially in two decades all create the reasonable inference that Respondent registered the name primarily for the purpose of selling it to Complainant. Further, the Panel finds that Respondent's conduct is caught by paragraph 4(b)(iv). The Panel has already found confusing similarity. The use of the disputed domain name is for commercial gain, most likely pay-per-click referral fees as alleged by Complainant. In terms of the Policy, the Panel finds that Respondent intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its webpage by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of that webpage. The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied the third and final element of the Policy. 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 <chipottle.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Debrett G. Lyons, Panelist July 21, 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.