Griffiths-foods.com

The timeline behind griffiths-foods.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 Griffith Foods International Inc. v. Eroms Jay Claim Number: FA2601002199990 PARTIES Complainant is Griffith Foods International Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Thomas L. Holt of Perkins Coie LLP, Illinois, USA. Respondent is Eroms Jay ("Respondent"), Georgia, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <griffiths-foods.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 January 15, 2026; Forum received payment on January 15, 2026. On January 16, 2026, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <griffiths-foods.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 January 21, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 10, 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@griffiths-foods.com. Also on January 21, 2026, 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 February 11, 2026, 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 provides food products and related market research, testing, design and development services. Complainant and its predecessors in interest have a long-established history with the GRIFFITH name in this market going back to 1919. Complainant operates in over 30 countries in North America, South America, Europe, Asia and Australia and specializes in building strong partnerships with its customers to create great food consumers love. Complainant owns the United States trademark registration for GRIFFITH FOODS. Complainant, though its related company, owns numerous domain name registrations that incorporate the GRIFFITH FOODS marks in whole or in part. Respondent has used the domain name in connection with an email address to impersonate a member of Complainant's staff to submit orders using fraudulent bank information. Complainant never authorized, licensed or otherwise permitted Respondent to use the marks or any confusingly similar variation of Complainant's marks. Respondent's at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's trademark. In determining whether a domain name creates confusion with a trademark, in addition to comparing the domain name to the mark in terms of appearance, sound, impression and meaning, the Panel should consider other factors, including: (1) the distinctiveness of the mark and the extent to which it has become known; (2) the length of time that the mark has been in use; (3) the nature of the service, business or trade with which the mark is being associated; (4) the degree of resemblance between the mark and the domain name in appearance and sound or what is suggested by them. When comparing the Complainant's marks to the domain name, each comprises the "GRIFFITH[S] FOODS" root terms with the identical top-level domain ("TLD") "GRIFFITHFOODS.[**]" Because this term is highly distinctive, it is entitled to significant weight in the likelihood of confusion analysis. Although the domain name adds an "S" after the end of the term "GRIFFITH", this does not sufficiently distinguish the domain name from the GRIFFITH FOODS marks. Given the distinctiveness of Complainant's marks, the extensive use of the marks in U.S. commerce, and the marked similarity between the marks and the domain name in terms of appearance, sound, commercial impression and meaning, Complainant shows that the domain name is confusingly similar to the marks. Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Complainant has been using its mark exclusively and continuously for roughly 10 years and well before Respondent registered and used the at-issue domain name. Complainant has never licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its trademark. Respondent does not own a trademark or service mark registration for any mark comprising, in whole or in part, the mark GRIFFITH FOODS (or any similar variations thereof). Respondent is using the domain name to deceive third-party vendors into accepting orders using Respondent's bank account information under Complainant's identity. Numerous decisions confirm that Respondent's use of the domain name to divert third parties away from Complainant is not considered to be in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to the Policy, ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy, ¶ 4(c)(iii). Respondent's intent to derive commercial gain. When Respondent registered the at-issue domain name, the GRIFFITH FOODS marks enjoyed recognition such that it cannot be reasonably argued that Respondent was not aware of Complainant's rights when registering the domain name. Thus, there is no plausible explanation for Respondent registering and using the domain name other than to misdirect third parties for its own commercial gain. Use of the domain name by Respondent "will inevitably be associated with the [products of] Complainant and this must have been known to or foreseen by the Respondent." By registering a domain name that infringes Complainant's marks and using the domain name to redirect third parties for its own commercial gain, Respondent both registered and used the domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant has rights in the GRIFFITH FOODS trademark. 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 GRIFFITH FOODS. Respondent uses the <griffiths-foods.com> domain name to host email that pretends to originate from Complainant and facilitates fraud. 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 name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights. Complainant shows that it has a USPTO trademark registration for its GRIFFITH FOODS mark. Complainant's trademark registration is sufficient to demonstrate Complainant's rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Thermo Electron Corp. v. Xu, FA 713851 (Forum July 12, 2006) (finding that the complainants had established rights in marks where the marks were registered with a national trademark authority). Respondent's <griffiths-foods.com> domain name consists of Complainant's GRIFFITH FOODS trademark with an "s" added to the mark's GRIFFITH term and a hyphen replacing the mark's domain name impermissible space, with all followed by the ".com" top-level domain name. The differences between Complainant's trademark and Respondent's domain name is insufficient to distinguish such trademark from the domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent's <griffiths-foods.com>domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's GRIFFITH FOODS trademark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). 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."); see also, Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Domain Administrator / Registry Services, LLC, FA2 2038314 (Forum July 26, 2023) ("The addition of a gTLD fails to sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)."). 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 interests in respect of the at‑issue domain name. See Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC v. Taha Shaikh / Tskdesigners, FA 1814475 (Forum Nov. 25, 2018) (finding no rights or legitimate interests in <spectrumfeature.com> because complainant never gave respondent permission to use the mark in any manner and "Panels may use these assertions as evidence that no rights or legitimate interests exist in a disputed domain name."). The fact of Complainant's USPTO registration for GRIFFITH FOODS creates an inference that Respondent lacks rights in Complainant's mark worldwide. Indeed, it is unlikely that any trademark agency would allow a trademark's registration where another party was the owner or beneficiary of an identical mark. See Natural Life Collections, Inc. v. Cary Nedd / CaryNedd, FA 2119765 (Forum Nov. 1, 2024) (finding absent any contrary evidence that Respondent was not the owner or beneficiary of a trade or service mark that is identical to the domain name since "it is unlikely that this or any other governmental trademark agency would register a trademark identical to the domain name or any other mark identical or similar to the domain name in the name of any person other than Complainant or an affiliate, or that Respondent could be the owner or beneficiary of a valid common law trade or service mark identical to the domain name"). The WHOIS information for the at-issue domain name leads to finding that the domain name's registrant is "Erom Jay" and the record before the Panel contains no evidence that otherwise tends to show that Respondent is commonly known by the <griffiths-foods.com> domain name. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). 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 <griffiths-foods.com> to host email used to impersonate a member of Complainant's staff in furtherance of fraud. Respondent's sham email's purpose is to trick vendors into making payments to Respondent's account. Such use of the <griffiths-foods.com> domain name to swindle funds from third-parties by deceit indicates neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4 (c)(i), nor a non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Microsoft Corporation v. Terrence Green / Whois Agent / Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc., FA 1661030 (Forum Apr. 4, 2016) (finding the respondent's use of the disputed domain names to send fraudulent emails purportedly from agents of complainant to be neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)). Given the foregoing, Respondent lacks rights and lacks legitimate interests in <griffiths-foods.com>. Registration and Use in Bad Faith As discussed below without being exhaustive, Respondent acted in bad faith. Respondent capitalizes on the confusion it created between the at-issue domain name and Complainant's trademark. As mentioned above, Respondent sent email originating from <griffiths-foods.com> designed to impersonate one of Complainant's employees. The email was used to induce vendors receiving such email and believing they were dealing with Complainant into accepting orders using Respondent's bank account information. The fact that Respondent engaged in identity theft and email fraud using the <griffiths-foods.com> domain name plainly demonstrates Respondent's bad faith registration and use of the <griffiths-foods.com> domain name. See Funding Circle Limited v. tim mcelwain / timmcelweain, FA 2003934 (Forum Aug. 4, 2022) ("Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to facilitate [a] phishing scheme designed to swindle funds from Complainant's customers. Such use of the confusingly similar domain name indicates Respondent's bad faith under the Policy."); see also, Abbvie, Inc. v. James Bulow, FA 1701075 (Forum Nov. 30, 2016) ("Respondent uses the <abbuie.com> domain name to impersonate Complainant's CEO. Such use is undeniably disruptive to Complainant's business and demonstrates bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii), and/or Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)"); see also Microsoft Corporation v. Terrence Green / Whois Agent / Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc., FA 1661030 (Forum Apr. 4, 2016) (finding the Respondent's use of the disputed domain names to send fraudulent emails supported a finding of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)). Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the GRIFFITH FOODS mark when it registered <griffiths-foods.com> as a domain name. Respondent's prior knowledge is apparent given GRIFFITH FOODS' notoriety and given Respondent's use of the domain name to pretend that email originating with Respondent was from an employee of Complainant. Respondent's actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in GRIFFITH FOODS further demonstrates Respondent's bad faith. See Lemon Inc. v. Sumer Singh, FA 2110519 (Forum Sept. 5, 2024 ("registration of a disputed domain name with actual knowledge of another's trademark rights is sufficient to establish bad faith, and can be shown by the notoriety of the mark and the use the Respondent makes of the disputed domain name"); see also, Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name). 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 <griffiths-foods.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist Dated: February 11, 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.