Thermoflask.com

The timeline behind thermoflask.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 Takeya USA Corporation d/b/a ThermoFlask v. Sam K Claim Number: FA2602002205842 PARTIES Complainant is Takeya USA Corporation d/b/a ThermoFlask ("Complainant"), represented by Emma K. Morehart of Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP, Ohio, USA. Respondent is Sam K ("Respondent"), South Carolina, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <thermoflask.com> ('the Domain Name'), registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC. 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. Dawn Osborne as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 17, 2026; Forum received payment on February 17, 2026. On February 18, 2026, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <thermoflask.com> Domain Name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, LLC 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 24, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 16, 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@thermoflask.com. Also on February 24, 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 17, 2026 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Dawn Osborne 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. On March 18, 2026 the Panel issued an Order asking the Complainant to further clarify the issue of common law rights to show it had rights prior to the date of registration of the Domain Name. The Complainant provided further evidence on March 23, 2026 that the date of acquisition and, therefore, effective date of registration by the Respondent was no earlier than February 3, 2018, showing that the current Respondent acquired the Domain Name after the Complainant had obtained registration for its trade mark. In addition, the Complainant submitted evidence of its common law rights from 2015 and this evidence has been incorporated into the statement of the Complainant's contentions below. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the Domain Name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant The Complainant's contentions can be summarised as follows: The Complainant owns the trade mark THERMOFLASK registered, inter alia, in the USA for insulated containers for food and drink since 2016. The Complainant owns common law rights in the mark having commenced use in 2014 before the Domain Name was registered by a third party in 2016. The Domain Name, acquired by the current Respondent no earlier that February 3, 2018, is identical to the Complainant's Mark for the purposes of the Policy because it wholly incorporates it and is differentiated from it only by the addition of the gTLD .com. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, is not commonly known by it and is not authorised by the Complainant. The Domain Name is being used for a holding page containing the words "ThermoFlask lets you explore the world of ThermoFlask for ultimate refreshment" at the top in plain text associating the Respondent's site with the Complainant, mimicking the mid word capital F in ThermoFlask that the Complainant uses and using the word 'refreshment' to bring to mind the Complainant's business. This is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial fair use. It is registration and use in bad faith, passively holding the Domain Name and disrupting the Complainant's business. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS The Complainant owns the trade mark THERMOFLASK registered, inter alia, in the USA for insulated containers since 2016 with first use recorded as 2015 and has shown it owns common law rights in the mark since 2015 and before the Domain Name was registered by a third party in 2016. The Domain Name, acquired by the current Respondent no earlier that February 3, 2018, has been used for a holding page containing the words "ThermoFlask lets you explore the world of ThermoFlask for ultimate refreshment" at the top in plain text associating the Respondent's site with the Complainant by using the mid word capital F in ThermoFlask that the Complainant uses and by using the word 'refreshment' to suggest the business of drinks. 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 Domain Name acquired by, and, therefore, effectively registered by, the current Respondent in 2018 consists of the Complainant's THERMOFLASK mark (which is registered in USA since 2016 for insulated containers) and the gTLD .com. The gTLD .com does not distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant's prior mark. See Red Hat Inc v Haecke, FA 726010 (Forum July 24, 2006) (concluding that the redhat.org domain name is identical to the complainant's red hat mark because the mere addition of the gTLD was insufficient to differentiate the disputed domain name from the mark). Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Name is identical to the Complainant's registered mark for the purposes of the Policy. As such the Panel holds that Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Respondent is not authorised by the Complainant and does not appear to be commonly known by the Domain Name. See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA 1574905 (Forum Sept. 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark). In a previous case where the Domain Name was directed to a blank page displaying the message 'stop!' it was held that this was not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Wahl Clipper Corporation v. Theresa W Chavez, FA 1973154 (Forum Dec. 14, 2021) ("Complainant argues that Respondent fails to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the disputed domain names merely resolve to inactive websites displaying the message "Stop!" When Respondent is not using a disputed domain name in connection with an active website, the Panel may find that Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services."). Respondent in this case has also used the Domain Name for a holding page, but with the plain text at the top reading "ThermoFlask lets you explore the world of ThermoFlask for ultimate refreshment" at the top in plain text associating the Respondent's site with the Complainant mimicking the mid-word capital F in ThermoFlask that the Complainant uses, and by using the word 'refreshment' to bring to mind the Complainant's business. The Respondent thus appears to have not made demonstrable preparations to use the Domain Name since its registration and is using the Complainant's mark including its capital F in the middle in the effective masthead of the site and the word "refreshment" to associate its site with the Complainant which otherwise is a holding page. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent failed to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy 4(c)(i) or (iii). The Respondent has not answered this Complaint and has not rebutted the prima facie case evidenced by the Complainant herein. As such the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy. Registration and Use in Bad Faith The Domain Name, containing the Complainant's mark which has a reputation for insulated containers, is being passively held without any explanation, causing disruption to the Complainant's business. The Complainant's mark is registered and is not a descriptive term. The use of the Complainant's mark (expressed as registered with its capital F in the middle) as part of the masthead of the Respondent's site shows that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant, its rights, mark and goods. The overriding objective of the Policy is to curb the abusive registration of domain names in circumstances where the registrant seeks to profit from or exploit the trade mark of another. Passive holding of a domain name containing a mark with a reputation can be bad faith registration and use. See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows, D2000-0003 (WIPO Feb. 18, 2000) cited in Wahl Clipper Corporation v. Theresa W Chavez FA 1973154 (Forum Dec. 14, 2021) (where the Panel held that in case of the use of a domain name containing a complainant's mark with a reputation which had been used for a blank page featuring the message 'Stop!' without further explanation that this was unjustified disruption of a complainant's business where respondent provided no evidence whatsoever of any actual or contemplated good faith.) As such, the Panel holds that in this similar case the subject of this Complaint the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith and has satisfied the third limb of the Policy. 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 <thermoflask.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Dawn Osborne, Panelist Dated: March 23, 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.