Goldencorralusa.com

The timeline behind goldencorralusa.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.

DECISION Golden Corral Corporation v. Haseeb Faiz Claim Number: FA2509002178010 PARTIES Complainant is Golden Corral Corporation ("Complainant"), represented by David K. Caplan of Kilpatrick, Townsend & Stockton LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Haseeb Faiz ("Respondent"), Pakistan. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <goldencorralusa.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. Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on September 19, 2025; Forum received payment on September 19, 2025. On September 22, 2025, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <goldencorralusa.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 September 23, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 14, 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@goldencorralusa.com. Also on September 23, 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 October 15, 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 Golden Corral Corporation opened its first restaurant in 1973 in Fayetteville, North Carolina, providing guests real, wholesome foods in a family-friendly atmosphere and at a great value. Since then, GC has grown to become the #1 buffet and grill in the United States, currently operating approximately 360 restaurants throughout 39 states and Puerto Rico. The at-issue domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's mark. Complainant owns trademark registrations for the GOLDEN CORRAL marks. Respondent's <goldencorralusa.com> domain name fully incorporates the GOLDEN CORRAL mark with only the addition of the descriptive or geographic term "usa" and the gTLD. Where an at-issue domain name incorporates a trademark in its entirety, the domain name is confusingly similar to the complainant's mark. The inclusion of a geographic indicator, such as the designation "usa" for the United States, does not distinguish the domain name from Complainant's mark. If anything, this term may increase the association with Complainant given that Complainant is a United States-based company. The inclusion of a top-level domain in the at-issue domain name does not change the conclusion that the <goldencorralusa.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark. Respondent should be considered as having no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent has no right to own or use any domain name incorporating Complainant's GOLDEN CORRAL mark, and nothing in Respondent's WHOIS information or the record suggests Respondent is commonly known by <goldencorralusa.com>. There is no relationship between Complainant and Respondent giving rise to any license, permission, or other right by which Respondent could own or use any domain name incorporating or imitating Complainant's GOLDEN CORRAL marks, nor has Complainant given Respondent permission to use Complainant's GOLDEN CORRAL marks, or any variation thereof. Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to pass itself off as Complainant which is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. Respondent also uses the at-issue domain name for commercial gain by displaying embedded third-party ads, generating revenue for Respondent. Use of a domain name that is confusingly similar to another's trademark to divert internet traffic to a commercial website is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under the Policy. Because Respondent is not known by the at-issue domain name, does not have authorization to use the GOLDEN CORRAL marks, and is not using the domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services nor making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in <goldencorralusa.com>. The at-issue domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Respondent has registered and used the at-issue domain name for commercial gain in bad faith to benefit from the goodwill and reputation associated with Complainant's GOLDEN CORRAL marks. Here, Respondent's bad-faith registration and use of the <goldencorralusa.com> is established by the fact that the domain name incorporates Complainant's entire GOLDEN CORRAL mark, and the domain name was registered by Respondent decades after Complainant began using the GOLDEN CORRAL marks. Respondent's bad-faith registration is also shown by the fact that Respondent used the at-issue domain name to either impersonate Complainant, or suggest an endorsement or connection to Complainant, in order to attract users to its website. Indeed, there can be no doubt that Respondent chose the at-issue domain name for purposes of attracting web users to Respondent's website, based on the website at the domain name featuring Complainant's GOLDEN CORRAL marks or confusingly similar versions thereof. Respondent's use of the at-issue domain name is intended to cause consumer confusion for Respondent's financial gain. Respondent also uses the <goldencorralusa.com> website to display pay-per-click advertisements and generate advertising revenue to benefit Respondent. This constitutes bad faith under the Policy. Finally, Respondent's purported disclaimer is insufficient to cure Respondent's bad faith, particularly considering that the disclaimer is inconspicuous and at the bottom of a website that prominently and repeatedly uses Complainant's GOLDEN CORRAL marks and copyrighted photographs to provide information about Complainant's services. Where the overall circumstances of a case point to the respondent's bad faith, the mere existence of a disclaimer cannot cure such bad faith, and in such cases, panels may consider the respondent's use of a disclaimer as an admission by the respondent that users may be confused. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant has trademark rights in the GOLDEN CORRAL mark. 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 the GOLDEN CORRAL trademark. Respondent's uses the at-issue domain name and its associated website to pass itself off as Complainant so as to direct internet traffic to Respondent's <goldencorralusa.com> website where, dressed as Complainant, Respondent displays pay-per-click advertisements. 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 is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights. Any of Complainant's USPTO registrations for GOLDEN CORRAL is sufficient to established Complainant's rights in such mark under Policy 4(a)(i). See Liberty Global Logistics, LLC v. damilola emmanuel / tovary services limited, FA 1738536 (Forum Aug. 4, 2017) (stating, "Registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently establishes the required rights in the mark for purposes of the Policy."). The at-issue domain name contains Complainant's GOLDEN CORRAL trademark less its domain name impermissible space, followed by the term "usa," with all followed by the ".com" top-level. The differences between Respondent's <goldencorralusa.com> domain name and Complainant's trademark are insufficient to distinguish the domain name from the trademark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent's <goldencorralusa.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's GOLDEN CORRAL mark. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognizable 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."). 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 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 <goldencorralusa.com>. See Navistar International Corporation v. N Rahmany, FA 1620789 (Forum Jun. 8, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the at-issue domain name where the complainant had never authorized the respondent to incorporate its NAVISTAR mark into any domain name). The WHOIS information for <goldencorralusa.com> identifies the domain name's registrant as "Haseeb Faiz" and the record before the Panel contains no evidence that tends to show that Respondent is commonly known by <goldencorralusa.com> or any relevant variation thereof. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name). Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to address a website that poses as if affiliated with Complainant notwithstanding that Respondent attempts to disassociate from Complainant via an ineffective disclaimer. Complainant's GOLDEN CORRAL trademark, or confusingly similar versions of the mark, is featured not only in the at-issue domain name domain name but on Respondent's <goldencorralusa.com> website as well. There Respondent, inter alia, presents click-through third party advertisements. Respondent thus attempts to pass itself off as being affiliated with Complainant so as to cause internet users to falsely believe that Respondent's domain name and its website are endorsed or sponsored by Complainant. Respondent then capitalizes on the pay-per-click advertisements displayed on the <goldencorralusa.com> website. Misdirecting internet users to Respondent's own website, as here, is not indicative of a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a non-commercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See, Insomniac Holdings, LLC v. Mark Daniels, FA 1735969 (Forum July 15, 2017) (refusing to find rights and legitimate interests in a domain name on the part of a respondent when the disputed domain name "resolves to a website that Respondent has designed to mimic Complainant's own in an attempt to pass itself off as Complainant"); see also, Walmart Inc. v. Domain Privacy / Above.com Domain Privacy, FA 1909147 (Forum Sept. 25, 2020) ("Respondent's use of the Domain Name to host pay-per-click advertisements for goods and services both connected and unconnected to Complainant's business is not a bona fide offering or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.") Given the forgoing, Respondent lacks rights and lacks legitimate interests in respect of <goldencorralusa.com>. Registration and Use in Bad Faith As discussed below without being exhaustive, Respondent acted in bad faith. As mentioned above, Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to address a website that appears like it is sponsored or endorsed by Complainant. Respondent's use of <goldencorralusa.com> to pass itself off as Complainant is disruptive to Complainant's business and is intended to attract internet users looking for Complainant to Respondent's website so that Respondent might wrongfully capitalize on the confusion it created between its <goldencorralusa.com> domain name and Complainant's GOLDEN CORRAL trademark via the website's pay-per-click advertisements. Respondent's use of <goldencorralusa.com> thus demonstrates Respondent's bad faith registration or use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). 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."); see also, Exafunction, Inc. v. monsoonw monsoon, FA2503002145729 (Forum April 10, 2025) (Finding that Respondent's display of third-party pay-per-click advertisements on the at-issue domain name's website evidences bad faith) 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 <goldencorralusa.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist Dated: October 15, 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.