Bostonpizzamenu.website

The timeline behind bostonpizzamenu.website

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 Boston Pizza Royalties Limited Partnership v. ravibhai parmar Claim Number: FA2601002200737 PARTIES Complainant is Boston Pizza Royalties Limited Partnership ("Complainant"), represented by Hunter Parsons of Border Ladner Gervais LLP, Canada. Respondent is ravibhai parmar ("Respondent"), India. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <bostonpizzamenu.website>, 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. Richard Hill as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 20, 2026; Forum received payment on January 20, 2026. On January 21, 2026, HOSTINGER operations, UAB confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <bostonpizzamenu.website> 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 January 22, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 11, 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@bostonpizzamenu.website. Also on January 22, 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 12, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Richard Hill 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 states that, since 1964, it, its predecessors, and related companies, including licensed franchisees have used the business name and trademark "Boston Pizza" in connection with their casual dining restaurants and sports bars across North America. Since 1996, Complainant, its predecessors, and related companies, including licensed franchisees have used the domain name <www.bostonpizza.com> for their website and in email addresses used by their employees. Complainant's website has attracted between approximately 288 million views or hits from 2020 to 2025, and 35.8 million visits (i.e. guests navigating multiple pages on the website) from 2022 to 2025. Complainant asserts rights in the mark BOSTON PIZZA through its registration in Canada in 1970. Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its BOSTON PIZZA mark as it incorporates the mark in its entirety, merely adding the generic/descriptive term "menu", together with the ".website" generic top-level domain ("gTLD"). According to Complainant, Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor did Complainant authorize it to use its mark in any way. Respondent fails to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use in connection with the disputed domain name. Instead, the resolving website impersonates Complainant by purporting to provide "the most up-to-date menu details" of Complainant; it provides descriptions and purported prices of Complainant's products; it displays a disclaimer stating that it is not affiliated with Complainant. Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith as Respondent attempts to impersonate Complainant. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in its mark. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant owns the mark BOSTON PIZZA and uses it to operate casual dining restaurants and sports bars. Complainant's rights in its mark date back to 1970. The disputed domain name was registered in 2025. Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark. The resolving website attempts to impersonate Complainant, purporting to provide "the most up-to-date menu details" of Complainant; it provides descriptions and purported prices of Complainant's products; it displays a disclaimer stating that it is not affiliated with Complainant. 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 disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's BOSTON PIZZA mark in its entirety, merely adding the generic/descriptive term "menu", together with the ".website" gTLD. The addition of a gTLD and a descriptive term and a hyphen fails sufficiently to distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognisable 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 Vanguard Group Inc. v. Proven Fin. Solutions, FA 572937 (Forum Nov. 18, 2005) (holding that the addition of both the word "advisors" and the gTLD ".com" did not sufficiently alter the disputed domain name to negate a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). Therefore the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. LY Ta, FA 1789106 (Forum June 21, 2018) (concluding a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name where the complainant asserted it did not authorize the respondent to use the mark, and the relevant WHOIS information indicated the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name). Here, the WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as "ravibhai parmar". Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). The resolving website displays a disclaimer stating that it is not affiliated with Complainant. According to paragraph 3.7 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0): "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". Further, paragraph 2.15 of the WIPO Overview states: "to support a claim to rights or legitimate interests under the UDRP, the use of a disputed domain name must in any event not be abusive of third-party trademark rights." For the reasons given below, the Panel finds that Respondent's use of the disputed domain name is abusive of Complainant's trademark rights; the Panel also finds bad faith registration and use. Consequently, the mere existence of the disclaimer does not establish that Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent attempts to confuse Internet users into thinking that Respondent is associated with Complainant: the resolving website purports to provide "the most up-to-date menu details" of Complainant; it provides descriptions and purported prices of Complainant's products; the disclaimer is insufficiently prominent to avoid such confusion. Use of a disputed domain name to create a false impression that a respondent is associated or affiliated with a complainant is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). Indeed, according to paragraph 2.5 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0): "Fundamentally, a respondent's use of a domain name will not be considered 'fair' if it falsely suggests affiliation with the trademark owner …". See 201 Folsom Option JV, L.P. and 201 Folsom Acquisition, L.P. v. John Kirkpatrick, D2014-1359 (WIPO, Oct. 28, 2014); see also Ripple Labs Inc. v. Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund, FA 1790949 (Forum July 9, 2018) (finding the respondent did not use the domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services per Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) where the website resolving from the disputed domain name featured the complainant's mark and various photographs related to the complainant's business). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent has failed to use the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). And the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant's contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant's mark. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent's failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain name. Indeed, as already noted, consumers visiting the resolving website are likely to be confused as to whether Respondent and/or its website are affiliated in some way with Complainant; and/or the disputed domain name or the associated website is endorsed, authorized, or sponsored by Complainant, none of which are true. This is a form of bad faith use of the disputed domain name. See Bank of America Corp. v. Out Island Props., Inc., FA 154531 (Forum June 3, 2003) (bad faith established "[s]ince the disputed domain names contain entire versions of Complainant's marks and are used for something completely unrelated to their descriptive quality, a consumer searching for Complainant would become confused as to Complainant's affiliation with the resulting search engine website."). Thus the Panel finds bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). Further, Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant's mark: the resolving website displays descriptions and purported prices of Complainant's products, and it explicitly refers to Complainant. While constructive notice is insufficient to demonstrate bad faith, actual knowledge of a complainant's rights in a mark prior to registration may be evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Custom Modular Direct LLC v. Custom Modular Homes Inc., FA 1140580 (Forum Apr. 8, 2008) ("There is no place for constructive notice under the Policy."); see also Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014) ("The Panel notes that although the UDRP does not recognize 'constructive notice' as sufficient grounds for finding Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith, the Panel here finds actual knowledge through the name used for the domain and the use made of it."); see also Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name). The Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the mark prior to Respondent's registration of the disputed domain name and that this constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). 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 <bostonpizzamenu.website> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Richard Hill, Panelist Dated: February 12, 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.