Petfoodexperss.com

The timeline behind petfoodexperss.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 Pet Food Express, LLC v. Jessica Mendoza / AVENS LLC Claim Number: FA2601002201268 PARTIES Complainant is Pet Food Express, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Catherine L. Rifai of Munck Wilson Mandala, LLP, Texas, USA. Respondent is Jessica Mendoza / AVENS LLC ("Respondent"), New Jersey, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <petfoodexperss.com>, registered with Tucows Domains 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. James Bridgeman SC as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 22, 2026; Forum received payment on January 22, 2026. On January 23, 2026, Tucows Domains Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <petfoodexperss.com> domain name is registered with Tucows Domains Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Tucows Domains Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Tucows Domains 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 26, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 17, 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@petfoodexperss.com. Also on January 26, 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 19, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed James Bridgeman SC 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 disputed domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant claims rights in the PET FOOD EXPRESS trademark established by its ownership of the portfolio of trademark registrations described below and extensive use of the mark as a retailer of pet foods and supplier of related services, including on its website on the Internet. Complainant submits that it has used the PET FOOD EXPRESS mark since at least 1986 and that, through continuous promotion in advertising, publications, social media, and an online presence, the mark has become a well‑known source identifier for a retail supplier of pet food, pet products, and a resource for information about Complainant's services and products. Furthermore, Complainant submits that the website at <petfood.express>, is its primary website and facilitates online ordering and delivery services, and that it also owns <petfoodexpress.com>, which resolves to <petfood.express>. Complainant adds that it owns and operates a chain of sixty-seven PET FOOD EXPRESS retail stores in the United States; it partners with more than 100 non‑profit animal rescue groups; and manages pet adoption centers within its stores, which activities are presented as part of the goodwill associated with its mark. Complainant further asserts that, in addition to offering its products for sale, its website at <www.petfood.express>, features and highlights pet product and pet brand reviews and provides written resources and advice to pet‑owners from experts, which content is presented as also contributing to the reputation and recognition of the PET FOOD EXPRESS mark among consumers. Complainant firstly argues that the disputed domain name <petfoodexperss.com> is identical or confusingly similar to its PET FOOD EXPRESS mark because it incorporates the mark in its entirety, with only a minor misspelling caused by transposing the letters "re" and "er" in "express," and contends that such a minimal alteration creates confusing similarity. Secondly Complainant submits that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests arguing that · Complainant's prior rights in, and longstanding use of PET FOOD EXPRESS dating back to at least 1986, long predate the registration of the disputed domain name on December 14, 2025; · Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use the PET FOOD EXPRESS mark in any manner, including in a domain name; · Complainant's acquisition of its legitimate domains <petfood.express> and <petfoodexpress.com> long predate the registration of the disputed domain name; · Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and there is no evidence of Respondent's use of the name "pet food express" or "pet food experss" for any bona fide purpose; · Respondent registered the disputed domain name without Complainant's knowledge or permission; · before notice of this dispute, Respondent did not use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; · copy email correspondence which is exhibited in an annex to the Complaint shows that Respondent is using the disputed domain name to perpetrate a fraudulent email phishing scheme impersonating Complainant, which cannot constitute a bona fide offering or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, citing Bittrex, Inc. v. Operi Manaha, FA 1815225 (Forum Dec. 10, 2018) (use of a domain in an email‑based phishing scheme is not a bona fide offering of goods or services and does not confer rights or legitimate interests); · such use by Respondent of <petfoodexperss.com> in the address of phishing emails directed at Complainant's employees, such as an exhibited email message to Complainant's VP of HR requesting payroll changes is neither legitimate nor noncommercial or fair; Blackstone TM L.L.C. v. Mita Ireland Ltd., FA 1314998 (Forum Apr. 30, 2010) (attempting to phish for users' personal information is neither a bona fide offering under ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under ¶ 4(c)(iii)); · Respondent is availing of a privacy service to conceal its identity, n the published WhoIs for the disputed domain name; Thirdly Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Complainant argues that at the time of registration of the disputed domain name <petfoodexperss.com> on December 14, 2025, Respondent had both constructive and actual knowledge of Complainant and its PET FOOD EXPRESS mark. In this regard, Complainant points to its portfolio of service mark registrations set out below, including the long‑standing U.S. registration dating from April 9, 1996, and submits that these registrations provided constructive notice of Complainant's rights prior to the registration of the disputed domain name. It is further asserted that since 1996 Complainant has had an established Internet presence, and its website at <www.petfood.express> to which its domain name <petfoodexpress.com> resolves, has served as Complainant's primary website long before the disputed domain name was registered in December 2025. Complainant adds that Respondent's selection of the disputed domain name that differs from PET FOOD EXPRESS only by the transposition of the adjacent letters "re" and "er" in "express" demonstrates intentional typosquatting at the point of registration. In addition, Complainant notes that the registrant's identity details were redacted on the Registrar's WhoIs at the time of registration data collection and submits that the use of a privacy mechanism is a further indicator consistent with bad‑faith registration when viewed alongside the other circumstances. Complainant states that Respondent has not used the disputed domain name to establish a website but instead has used it to create an email account to send fraudulent emails impersonating Complainant's personnel, including an email to Complainant's Vice President of Human Resources requesting that salary payment arrangements be changed, with additional similar emails documented. In the annexes to the Complaint, Complainant provides a representative message sent by Respondent, and a table of further instances. Complainant contends that this conduct constitutes use in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because it is intended to create a likelihood of confusion with the PET FOOD EXPRESS mark as to source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement in order to mislead recipients for financial gain. Complainant emphasizes that the email address format derived from <petfoodexperss.com> is nearly identical to Complainant's legitimate domain <petfoodexpress.com>, differing only by the transposition of the letters "re" and "er". The supporting exhibits include the Registrar information, WHOIS materials, and the phishing email evidence, as exhibited in annexes to the Complaint. Finally, Complainant notes that, due to the immediate harm posed by the disputed domain name's email use, it filed an abuse complaint with the Registrar on January 9, 2026, requesting deactivation. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant is a retailer of pet foods and supplier of related services, under the PET FOOD express mark for which it holds the following portfolio of trade mark registrations: · United States registered service mark PET FOOD EXPRESS, registration number 1,966,120, registered on the Principal Register on April 9, 1996, services in international class 42; · United States registered service mark PET FOOD EXPRESS, registration number 4,961,065, registered on the Principal Register on May 17, 2016, for pet Class 45); · Canadian registered Trade Mark PET FOOD EXPRESS, registration number TMA1,017,355, registered on March 14, 2019. Complainant has an established Internet presence and maintains its primary website at <petfood.express>, which supports its online ordering and delivery services. Complainant also owns <petfoodexpress.com>, which redirects to its primary site. The disputed domain name <petfoodexperss.com> was registered on December 14, 2025. It does not resolve to any active website but has been used to create an email account from which Respondent has sent email messages in a phishing scheme targeting Complainant's employees, including emails impersonating Complainant's staff and attempting to redirect salary payments. The only information available to the Panel is that which is provided in the Complaint, as amended, together with the Registrar's WHOIS information for the disputed domain name and the verification information supplied to Forum by the Registrar for purposes of this proceeding. 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 Complainant has provided convincing evidence that it has rights at common law Complainant claims common law rights in the PET FOOD EXPRESS mark established by its ownership of the portfolio of registrations described below. Furthermore, Complainant has shown that it has acquired a substantial protectable goodwill and reputation in the mark providing retail and other services in its chain of 67 retail outlets and on its website at <www.petfood.express>. Complainant's PET FOOD EXPRESS mark is clearly recognizable in the disputed domain name which consists of Complainant's mark in its entirety, with merely the letters "re" and "er" transposed. It is well established that a panel may make a finding of confusing similarity for the purposes of the Policy when the entirety of a complainant's mark is reproduced in its entirety within the disputed domain name and in the circumstances of this proceeding the principle may be applied to the disputed domain name which contains a minor, and probably intentional misspelling of the mark. The generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") extension <.com> does not add any distinguishing character to the disputed domain name as it would be considered by Internet users as a necessary technical requirement for a domain name. This Panel finds therefore that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the PET FOOD EXPRESS mark in which Complainant has rights and Complainant has therefore succeeded in the first element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant has made out a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as set out in Complainant's detailed submissions above. In particular, the uncontested evidence is that Respondent has not established a website using the disputed domain name but instead has used it to create an email account from which phishing email messages have been sent to unsuspecting employees of Complainant impersonating a member of Complainant's senior management. It is well established that once a complainant makes out a prima facie case that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to prove its rights or legitimate interests. Respondent has failed to discharge that burden and therefore this Panel must find that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Complainant has therefore succeeded in the second element of the test in Policy paragraph 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith The disputed domain name <petfoodexperss.com> is almost identical to Complainant's PET FOOD EXPRESS service mark with only the letters "re" transposed to "er". At the time of the registration of the disputed domain name on December 14, 2025, Complainant had long established rights in the PET FOOD EXPRESS mark. Complainant's first registration of the service mark was almost 30 years before the registration of the disputed domain name. The form of the disputed domain name being a misspelling of Complainant's mark, is hardly a coincidence. PET FOOD EXPRESS is a distinctive combination of elements. It is improbable that the registrant of the disputed domain name unintentionally chose and registered Complainant's mark in its entirety, albeit with a single transposition of letters, as the disputed domain name. On the balance of probabilities, the registrant of the disputed domain name engaged in typosquatting by registering a misspelling of Complainant's as the disputed domain name, which is evidence of registration and use in bad faith under the Policy. Having considered the evidence, the Panel finds that the registrant chose and registered the disputed domain name in bad faith to take predatory advantage of Complainant, its name, service mark and goodwill intending to create confusion by the use of the mark. Furthermore, the uncontested evidence is that Respondent has used the disputed domain name to create an Internet account from which Respondent has sent phishing emails to Complainant's employees purporting to impersonate their fellow employees on a number of occasions. As an example, Complainant has exhibited an illustrative copy of one of the email messages sent from an address <[name]@petfoodexperss.com>. The recipient was an employee of Complainant; and the sender purported to also be an employee of Complainant, but is not. The email stated: "Dear Cathy, I hope you are well. I would like to request a change of my salary payment method. Please let me know the steps to proceed and if you need any information from me. Thank you for your assistance. Best regards, [the name and title of the purported sender appears in the signature of the email message]" The email message is clearly sent in bad faith intending to perpetrate a phishing fraud on Complainant. The Panel finds therefore that on the balance of probabilities the registrant of the disputed domain name engaged in typosquatting by registering a misspelling of Complainant's as the disputed domain name. As the Panel has found that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, Complainant has succeeded in the third and final element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) and its application must be granted. 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 <petfoodexperss.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. _______________________________________________ James Bridgeman SC, Panelist Dated: February 19, 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.