Kennychesney.shop, Kennychesney.store

The timeline behind kennychesney.shop

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 Kenny Chesney v. Cuong Phan / Huy Hoang Claim Number: FA2602002205278 PARTIES Complainant is Kenny Chesney ("Complainant"), United States, represented by Alexandra A. Holt of Greenberg Traurig, LLP, United States. Respondents are Cuong Phan and Huy Hoang ("Respondents"), Vietnam. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES The domain names at issue are <kennychesney.shop> and <kennychesney.store>, 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. David E. Sorkin as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 13, 2026; Forum received payment on February 13, 2026. On February 16, 2026, Namecheap, Inc. confirmed by email to Forum that the <kennychesney.shop> and <kennychesney.store> domain names are registered with Namecheap, Inc.; that Respondent Cuong Phan is the current registrant of <kennychesney.shop>; and that Respondent Huy Hoang is the current registrant of <kennychesney.store>. Namecheap, Inc. has verified that Respondents are bound by the Namecheap, Inc. registration agreement and have 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 23, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 16, 2026 by which Respondents could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondents' registrations as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@kennychesney.shop and postmaster@kennychesney.store. Also on February 23, 2026, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondents of the email addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondents via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondents' registrations as technical, administrative, and billing contacts. Having received no response from Respondents, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On March 17, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed David E. Sorkin 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[s]" 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 Respondents. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondents to Complainant. PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE RESPONDENTS Complainant alleges that the disputed domain names are effectively under the control of a single person or entity operating under multiple aliases. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") provides that a "complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder." Complainant notes numerous commonalities between the disputed domain names. They are identical but for the top-level domain and were registered with the same registrar using the same privacy registration service. The underlying registration information for the two domain names includes Gmail email addresses, similar telephone numbers, and physical addresses in Hanoi, Vietnam. The <kennychesney.store> domain name previously resolved to a website that was nearly identical to the website to which the <kennychesney.shop> domain name currently resolves. Having considered Complainant's allegations and noting that neither Respondent has come forward to dispute the allegation that they are one person or entity acting under multiple aliases, nor to object to the consolidation of the disputed domain names in a single proceeding, the Panel considers it appropriate to treat the disputed domain names as being under the common control of a single person or entity (hereinafter "Respondent"). See Electronic Arts Inc. v. Huy Hoang, Cuong Phan, D2025-3009 (WIPO Sept. 16, 2025) (finding domain names registered by what appear to be the same respondents as those in this proceeding to be under common control in similar circumstances). PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant is a musician, entrepreneur, and author who has sold more than 30 million albums worldwide and is ranked No. 1 on Billboard's Top Country Artists of the 21st Century chart. Complainant has used KENNY CHESNEY in connection with his music and official merchandise for more than 30 years. Complainant owns longstanding United States trademark registrations for KENNY CHESNEY in standard character form. The disputed domain names <kennychesney.store> and <kennychesney.shop> were registered in January 2024 and January 2026, respectively, in the name of a privacy registration service on behalf of Respondent. The <kennychesney.shop> domain name is being used for a website that offers for sale unauthorized and unlicensed merchandise bearing Complainant's name, likeness, tour and album titles, lyrics, and other indicia associated with Complainant. The <kennychesney.store> domain name previously resolved to a nearly identical website. Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names and is not authorized to use Complainant's mark. Complainant contends on the above grounds that each of the disputed domain names <kennychesney.shop> and <kennychesney.store> is confusingly similar to his KENNY CHESNEY mark; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names; and that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS The Panel finds that each of the disputed domain names is identical to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; and that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. 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 Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions, § 4.3 (version 3.1, 2026), available at https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview; UDRP Perspectives on Recent Jurisprudence, §§ 0.2, 0.8 (updated June 2, 2025), available at https://udrpperspectives.org/; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (dismissing complaint where complainant failed to "produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations"). Identical and/or Confusingly Similar The disputed domain names <kennychesney.store> and <kennychesney.shop> incorporate Complainant's registered KENNY CHESNEY trademark, omitting the space and adding the ".store" or "shop" top-level domain. Such alterations are normally disregarded for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. See, e.g., Whit Wave IP LLC v. Saratovskaya Oblast, FA 2109069 (Forum Aug. 22, 2024) (finding <whitneyhouston.shop> identical to WHITNEY HOUSTON). The Panel considers the disputed domain names to be confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights. Rights or Legitimate Interests Under the Policy, the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, and then the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc. v. Entertainment Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). The disputed domain names incorporates Complainant's registered mark without authorization, and their only apparent use has been for misleading websites that attempt to pass off as Complainant and offer for sale unauthorized and unlicensed merchandise. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., Whit Wave IP LLC v. Saratovskaya Oblast, supra (finding lack of rights or interests in similar circumstances); Belting Bronco Merchandising Inc. v. Fahad Bin Khalid, FA 2089309 (Forum Apr. 11, 2024) (same). Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain names, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of such rights or interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered a domain name "primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor." Under paragraph 4(b)(iv), bad faith may be shown by evidence that "by using the domain name, [Respondent] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent's] web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [Respondent's] web site or location or of a product or service on [Respondent's] web site or location." Respondent used a privacy registration service, multiple aliases, and what the Panel infers to be at least partially fictitious underlying registration information to register two domain names incorporating Complainant's name and registered mark, and has used the domain names for misleading websites that attempt to pass off as Complainant to promote unauthorized and unlicensed merchandise. Such circumstances are indicative of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See, e.g., Whit Wave IP LLC v. Saratovskaya Oblast, supra (finding bad faith registration and use in similar circumstances); Belting Bronco Merchandising Inc. v. Fahad Bin Khalid, supra (same). The Panel so finds. DECISION Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <kennychesney.shop> and <kennychesney.store> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. David E. Sorkin, Panelist Dated: March 18, 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.