Kingshawaiian-schedule.com + 4 more domains

The timeline behind kingshawaiian-schedule.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

How each disputed name was decided in this proceeding.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION King's Hawaiian Holding Company, Inc. v. Dalbi Byrd / sofia gak / aaa Claim Number: FA2602002204936 PARTIES Complainant is King's Hawaiian Holding Company, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Brian M. Wheeler of Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo, California, USA. Respondent is Dalbi Byrd / sofia gak / aaa ("Respondent"), USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES The domain names at issue are <kingshawaiian-schedule.com>, <schedule-kingshawaiian.com>, <book-kingshawaiian.com>, <calendar-kingshawaiian.com>, and <meet-kingshawaiian.com>, registered with NameCheap, Inc. 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. Héctor Ariel Manoff as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 11, 2026; Forum received payment on February 11, 2026. On February 12, 2026, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <kingshawaiian-schedule.com>, <schedule-kingshawaiian.com>, <book-kingshawaiian.com>, <calendar-kingshawaiian.com>, and <meet-kingshawaiian.com> domain names are registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. 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 February 18, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 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@kingshawaiian-schedule.com, postmaster@schedule-kingshawaiian.com, postmaster@book-kingshawaiian.com, postmaster@calendar-kingshawaiian.com, and postmaster@meet-kingshawaiian.com. Also, on February 18, 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 March 11, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Héctor Ariel Manoff 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE RESPONDENTS Complainant has alleged that the domain names at issue are effectively controlled by the same person and/or entity and have submitted evidence to prove that (Exhibit B): * The disputed domains share the same registrar, NAMECHEAP INC. * The domain names were registered within days of each other (four of them on January 16, 2026 and one on January 22, 2026. * KING'S HAWAIIAN is incorporated in its entirety in each disputed domain name along with the inclusion of generic or descriptive related to scheduling or calendar: <kingshawaiian-schedule.com>, <schedule-kingshawaiian.com>, <book-kingshawaiian.com>, <calendar-kingshawaiian.com>, and <meet-kingshawaiian.com>. * All disputed domain names have similar landing pages without substantive content. This Panel finds that the five disputed domain names: <kingshawaiian-schedule.com>, <schedule-kingshawaiian.com>, <book-kingshawaiian.com>, <calendar-kingshawaiian.com>, and <meet-kingshawaiian.com>, have similar structure (Complainant's trademark plus generic related terms). In addition, taking into account that all were registered within the same week and that they also share the Registrar and the fact that no timely Response has been received, the Panel finds support for accepting the Complaint filed in respect of all the domain names in dispute. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant 1- Complainant, King's Hawaiian, is a market-leading provider of baked goods and bakery and restaurant services. 2- Complainant has made and sold KING'S HAWAIIAN sweet rolls and baked goods under trademark KING'S HAWAIIAN for decades. 3- Complainant owns KING'S HAWAIIAN trademark which was registered in 1983, with a 1979 date of first use. 4- King's Hawaiian operates its official website at <kingshawaiian.com>. 5- Respondent created the disputed domain names in 2026. 6- KING'S HAWAIIAN is incorporated in each disputed domain name and with the inclusion of generic or descriptive words that relate to scheduling or calendar. 7- Complainant has not licensed, authorized, or otherwise permitted Respondent to use the King's Hawaiian trademarks. 8- The disputed domain names resolve to a blank landing page with no goods or services offered, no active content, and no bona fide use. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant, King's Hawaiian Holding Company, Inc., owns KING'S HAWAIIAN trademark and has used it in connection with baked goods and bakery and restaurant services since 1979. Complainant also operates the domain name <kingshawaiian.com> to promote its products and services. Respondent has registered the disputed domain names in 2026. 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 Panel finds that the disputed domain names, <kingshawaiian-schedule.com>, <schedule-kingshawaiian.com>, <book-kingshawaiian.com>, <calendar-kingshawaiian.com>, and <meet-kingshawaiian.com>, are nearly identical and confusingly similar to Complainant's KING'S HAWAIIAN trademark and domain name <kingshawaiian.com> (Exhibit C). All of them include Complainant's trademark along with a generic term (schedule, calendar, meet, book), in one case an additional hyphen, and the gTLD .com (Exhibit B). The Panel concludes that despite the differences (a hyphen and the generic term), the disputed domain names can lead the consumers into confusion about the products identified. See Acme Lift Company, L.L.C. v. VistaPrint Technologies Ltd, FA 1607039 (Forum Apr. 11, 2015) (stating, "Where a respondent has created a domain name in an effort to visually deceive Internet users via a simple misspelling (and when such misspellings are visually similar to the mark), a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) is appropriate."). See also Lucasfilm Entertainment Company Ltd. LLC v George Ring, FA 1673825 (Forum June 7, 2016) (finding that, although a respondent's domain name <lukasfilm.com> incorporated the LUCASFILM mark of another and merely substituted a 'k' for the 'c,' it was nonetheless confusingly similar to that mark). The Panel finds that it is clear that Respondent knew that KING'S HAWAIIAN belonged to Complainant. Respondent has just added generic terms. The Panel finds that the domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant's mark since the additional elements are not sufficiently distinctive. See Microsoft Corporation v. Thong Tran Thanh, FA 1653187 (Forum Jan. 21, 2016) (determining that confusing similarity exists where [a disputed domain name] contains Complainant's entire mark and differs only by the addition of a generic or descriptive phrase and top-level domain, the differences between the domain name and its contained trademark are insufficient to differentiate one from the other for the purposes of the Policy); see also, 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"). The Panel concludes that the domain name is almost identical and confusingly similar to Complainant marks under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) ("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"). The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <kingshawaiian-schedule.com>, <schedule-kingshawaiian.com>, <book-kingshawaiian.com>, <calendar-kingshawaiian.com>, and <meet-kingshawaiian.com>, domain names because Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use the KING'S HAWAIIAN mark. See Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) ("lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant's mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)"). In addition, WHOIS information does not suggest that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name (Exhibit B). This Panel finds that Respondent has never been commonly known by the domain names. In addition, Respondent has neither filed a response nor submitted evidence to prove that Respondent has any trademark rights in the kingshawaiian-schedule.com>, <schedule-kingshawaiian.com>, <book-kingshawaiian.com>, <calendar-kingshawaiian.com>, and <meet-kingshawaiian.com> domain names. Respondent has neither refuted nor submitted evidence on the Complainant's grounds. In addition, Respondent has not filed proof to show that the use of the domains is a bona fide offering of goods. This Panel finds that the purpose of the disputed domain names is to try to show that they are associated with Complainant and that Respondent is not using the domain name in connection with a legitimate noncommercial use or fair use under Policy 4(c)(iii). This Panel agrees with Complainant that Respondent is not using the domain name in connection with a legitimate noncommercial use or fair use under Policy 4(c)(iii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith The Panel finds that the disputed domain names were registered after Complainant's KING'S HAWAIIAN trademark's first use (1979) and trademark registration date (1983) (Exhibit C). Respondent registered the domains in January 2026 (Exhibit B). Since the disputed domain names include Complainant's trademark along with generic terms, the Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registered the domain name and that registrations were done in bad faith. The disputed domains' homepages do not currently resolve to any active content; however, it can also be considered a bad faith sign. See Robert Half Inc. v. Rose Diaz / Robert half staffing FA 2111371(Forum, Sept. 12, 2024) "Respondent's passive holding of <rosediazroberthalfstaffing.org> demonstrates Respondent's bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See also CommScope, Inc. of North Carolina v. Zhuang Yan / WANGYONG, FA 1764026 (Forum Feb. 14, 2018) ("Respondent's domain names do not have resolving websites. Using a domain name to resolve to an inactive website (or no website at all) indicates bad faith registration and use"). Prior Panels have considered it reasonable to infer bad faith registration and use when facing conflicts involving inactive domain names without evidence of preparations for use. See Health Catalyst, Inc. v. Javid Henry FA 2158701 (Forum July 1, 2025), ("Respondent registered a domain name incorporating Complainant's registered mark. Respondent does not appear to have made any active use of the domain name, nor to have engaged in preparations for such use, and has failed to come forward with any explanation for the selection of the name or its intended use. Under the circumstances, the Panel considers it reasonable to infer that Respondent registered the domain name intending to use it in a manner calculated to create and exploit confusion with Complainant and its mark, likely either by using the domain name to attract or defraud Internet users seeking Complainant or by selling the domain name to Complainant or a competitor, and that Respondent is maintaining the domain name for that purpose. See, e.g., Blink Health Inc. v. Asif Khan / BlinkRXhealth, supra (finding bad faith registration and use in similar circumstances). The Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith"). In addition, the Panel points out that Respondent has neither refuted nor submitted evidence on the Complainant's grounds about use in bad faith. The Panel concludes that Respondent has the intention of creating an association with Complainant and its products and services. This Panel concludes that Respondent has registered the domain names with the intent to attract and divert Internet users to the corresponding websites for its own benefit. See Carey Int'l, Inc. v. Kogan, FA 486191 (Forum July 29, 2005) ("[T]he Panel finds that Respondent is capitalizing on the confusing similarity of its domain names to benefit from the valuable goodwill that Complainant has established in its marks. Consequently, it is found that Respondent registered and used the domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)."); The Panel determines that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith 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 <kingshawaiian-schedule.com>, <schedule-kingshawaiian.com>, <book-kingshawaiian.com>, <calendar-kingshawaiian.com>, and <meet-kingshawaiian.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Héctor Ariel Manoff, Panelist Dated: March 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.