Getswigg.com

The timeline behind getswigg.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 Swig Stores, LLC v. swigg Menu Claim Number: FA2512002196378 PARTIES Complainant is Swig Stores, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Farah P. Bhatti of Buchalter Nemer, California, USA. Respondent is swigg Menu ("Respondent"), Pakistan. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <getswigg.com> ('the Domain Name'), registered with HOSTINGER operations, UAB. 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. Dawn Osborne as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on December 23, 2025; Forum received payment on December 23, 2025. On December 25, 2025, HOSTINGER operations, UAB confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <getswigg.com> Domain Name is registered with HOSTINGER operations, UAB and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. HOSTINGER operations, UAB has verified that Respondent is bound by the HOSTINGER operations, UAB 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 December 30, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 20, 2026 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@getswigg.com. Also on December 30, 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 January 21, 2026 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Dawn Osborne 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 The Complainant's contentions can be summarised as follows: The Complainant is the owner of the trade mark SWIG registered, inter alia, in the USA for frozen confections since 2022. The Domain Name registered in 2024 is confusingly similar to the Complainant's mark, merely adding the generic word "get", an extra letter 'g' and the gTLD .com which do not prevent said confusing similarity between the Domain Name from the Complainant's mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name and has no permission from the Complainant to use the Complainant's mark. The Domain Name has been used for a web site offering competing services impersonating the Complainant using the Complainant's SWIG mark spelled correctly and material taken from the Complainant's website. This is not a bona fide offering of goods and services or a noncommercial legitimate fair use. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. The Respondent registered the Domain Name to direct it to a site to confuse Internet users into believing the web site and Domain Name are associated with the Complainant for commercial gain. The Domain Name has been registered and used in bad faith. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS The Complainant is the owner of the trade mark SWIG registered, inter alia, in the USA for frozen confections since 2022. The Domain Name registered in 2024 has been used for a web site offering competing services impersonating the Complainant using the Complainant's SWIG mark spelled correctly and material taken from the Complainant's website. 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 Domain Name consists of the Complainant's SWIG mark (registered, inter alia, in the USA for frozen confections since 2022), the single letter 'g', the generic word 'get' and the gTLD.com. Previous panels have found confusing similarity when a respondent merely adds a generic term to a Complainant's mark. See PG&E Corp. v Anderson, D2000-1264 (WIPO Nov. 22, 2000) (finding that respondent does not by adding common descriptive or generic terms create new or different marks nor does it alter the underlying mark held by the Complainant). Nor does the addition of a single letter. see PathAdvantage Associated v. VistaPrint Technologies Ltd, FA 1625731 (Forum July 23, 2015) (holding that the <pathadvantages.com> domain name was confusingly similar to the PATHADVANTAGE trademark because the domain name "merely adds the letter 's' to Complainant's mark"). The gTLD .com does not serve to distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant's mark, which is the distinctive component of the Domain Name. See Red Hat Inc v Haecke, FA 726010 (Forum July 24, 2006) (concluding that the redhat.org domain name is identical to the complainant's red hat mark because the mere addition of the gTLD was insufficient to differentiate the disputed domain name from the mark). Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar for the purposes of the Policy with a mark in which the Complainant has rights. As such the Panel holds that Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant has not authorised the use of its mark. Although SWIG appears in the WhoIs details misspelled as "swigg" the Domain Name was not registered until 2024 and there is no corroborating evidence to show that the Respondent is commonly known by the Domain Name. See Ripple Labs Inc. v. Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund, FA 1790949 (Forum July 9, 2018) (finding that, although the respondent listed itself as "Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund" in the WHOIS contact information, it did not provide any affirmative evidence to support this identity; combined with the fact that the complainant claimed it did not authorize the respondent to use the mark, the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name). Also the reference to "Swigg Menu" used in the data registration details is also used on the Respondent's site to refer to the drinks offered in competition to the Complainant using material taken from the Complainant's site and is clearly being used in the context of the generic sense of a restaurant menu all falsely referring to the Complainant. The Domain Name has been used for a site offering competing restaurant services using the Complainant's mark SWIG spelt correctly and material taken from the Complainant's web site. Use of the domain name containing a third party mark for competing services in such manner is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial fair use. (See Am. Intl Group Inc v Benjamin, FA 944242 (Forum May 11, 2007) finding that the Respondent's use of a confusingly similar domain name to advertise real estate services which competed with the Complainant's business did not constitute a bona fide use of goods and services). The Respondent has not submitted a Response in these proceedings or rebutted the prima facie case evidenced by the Complainant herein. As such the Panelist finds that the Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy. Registration and Use in Bad Faith In the opinion of the panelist the use made of the Domain Name in relation to the site is confusing and disruptive in that visitors to the site might reasonably believe it is connected to or approved by the Complainant as it offers competing services using the Complainant's mark SWIG spelled correctly and material taken from the Complainant's site intending to associate the site with the Complainant and showing that the Respondent is aware of the Complainant and its business, rights and services. Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trade mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the web site and services offered on it likely to disrupt the business of the Complainant. (See Asbury Auto Group Inc v Tex. Int'l Prop Assocs, FA 958542 (Forum May 29, 2007) finding that the respondent's use of the disputed domain name to advertise car dealerships that competed with the complainant's business would likely lead to confusion amongst Internet users as to the sponsorship or affiliation of those competing dealerships and was therefore evidence of bad faith and use). Also using "Swigg Menu" to refer to the Complainant in the data registration details seems to intentionally provide a false name. Providing false information at the time of a domain name's registration may be evidence of respondent's bad faith registration and use under Policy 4(a)(iii). See Farouk Systems, Inc. v. Jack King / SLB, FA 1618704 (Forum June 19, 2015) (finding bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) where the respondent had provided false contact information when registering the disputed domain name). Here in the context of impersonation providing false address details seems clearly in bad faith. As such, the Panelist believes that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith and has satisfied the third limb of the Policy under Paragraphs 4(b)(iii) and (iv). 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 <getswigg.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Dawn Osborne, Panelist Dated: January 21, 2026 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.