Forceofnaturemeatsstore.shop

The timeline behind forceofnaturemeatsstore.shop

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 Force of Nature, LLC v. Chase Winchester Claim Number: FA2606002229100 PARTIES Complainant is Force of Nature, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Joshua G. Jones of Prince Lobel Tye LLP, Texas, USA. Respondent is Chase Winchester ("Respondent"), New York, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <forceofnaturemeatsstore.shop>, registered with Dynadot 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. Charles A. Kuechenmeister, Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 24, 2026; Forum received payment on June 24, 2026. On June 24, 2026, Dynadot Inc confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <forceofnaturemeatsstore.shop> domain name is registered with Dynadot Inc and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Dynadot Inc has verified that Respondent is bound by the Dynadot 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 June 29, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint setting a deadline of July 20, 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@forceofnaturemeatsstore.shop. Also on June 29, 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 July 21, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Charles A. Kuechenmeister 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 a Response or any other submittal from Respondent. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant produces and distributes meat products. It has rights in the FORCE OF NATURE mark based upon its registration of that mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Respondent's <forceofnaturemeatsstore.shop> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the FORCE OF NATURE mark. It fully incorporates the mark, merely adding the ".shop" top-level domain. This change does not distinguish the domain name from Complainant's mark. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its mark, Respondent has not been commonly known by the domain name, and it is not using the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use because the domain name resolves to a website that impersonates and competes with Complainant. Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith. It registered the domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant's mark, it is using the domain name to attract for commercial gain Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of its website, it is using it to disrupt Complainant's business, and it registered the domain name using a privacy service. B. Respondent Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted 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 a complainant to prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order cancelling or transferring a domain name: (1) the domain name registered by the respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and (2) the 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, pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules the Panel will decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations 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. Nevertheless, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory allegations unsupported by competent evidence. The Panel finds as follows with respect to the matters at issue in this proceeding: Identical and/or Confusingly Similar The FORCE OF NATURE mark was registered to Complainant with the USPTO (Reg. No 6,048,753) on May 5, 2020 (USPTO registration certificate included in Complaint Exhibit B). Complainant's registration of its FORCE OF NATURE mark with the USPTO establishes its rights in that mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Respondent's <forceofnaturemeatsstore.shop> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the FORCE OF NATURE mark. It fully incorporates the mark, merely omitting spaces and adding the descriptive terms "meats" and "store" and the ".shop" generic top-level domain (gTLD). These changes do not distinguish the domain name from Complainant's mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Further, the addition of descriptive terms that relate to a complainant can actually enhance confusion. That is the case with the domain name involved here. The terms "meats" and "store" could well lead an Internet user to conclude that the resolving website would be an online retail outlet for Complainant's products. Adding them to Complainant's mark in the domain name enhances the confusing similarity. For the reasons set forth above, the Panel finds that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the FORCE OF NATURE mark, in which Complainant has substantial and demonstrated rights. Rights or Legitimate Interests Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult task of "proving a negative," requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. Accordingly, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with competent, relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. At all times, the burden of proof remains on the complainant. Guggenheim Capital, LLC v. John Hawkins, Louvre Abu Dhabi Museum Case No. DAI2026-0035 Policy ¶ 4(c) lists the following three nonexclusive circumstances, any one of which if proven can demonstrate a respondent's rights or legitimate interests in a domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii): (i) The respondent has used or has made demonstrable preparations to use the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or (ii) the respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if the respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) the respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue. Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name because (i) Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its mark, (ii) Respondent has not been commonly known by the domain name, and (iii) it is not using the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use because the domain name resolves to a website that impersonates and competes with Complainant. These allegations are addressed as follows: Complainant states that it has not authorized or licensed Respondent to use its mark. Complainant has specific competence to make this statement, it is unchallenged by any evidence before the Panel and is taken as true. While evidence that a respondent is not authorized to use a complainant's mark is not dispositive, it is relevant to the circumstances listed in Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii) and supports a finding that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. The information furnished to Forum by the registrar lists the named Respondent as the registrant of the domain name. This name bears no resemblance to the domain name. Evidence could, of course, in a given case demonstrate that the respondent is commonly known by a domain name different from the name in which it registered the domain name, e.g., the case of a domain name incorporating the brand name of a specific product offered by and associated with the respondent. In the absence of any such evidence, however, UDRP panels have consistently held that WHOIS evidence of a registrant name which does not correspond with the domain name is sufficient to prove that the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name. Respondent has not been commonly known by the domain name. Complaint Exhibit E contains screenshots of the website to which the domain name resolves. All of the pages prominently display the stylized FORCE OF NATURE mark and feature photos of products branded as Complainant's, many of which are exact duplicates of photos appearing on Complainant's website at <forceofnature.com> (screenshot submitted as Complaint Exhibit C). Respondent's website clearly presents as that of Complainant. Nowhere does it state or even suggest that it is not sponsored by Complainant. The site unquestionably represents itself and passes off as that of Complainant. Passing off as a complainant and offering to sell the complainant's products does not qualify as a bona fide offering of goods or services within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), or as a legitimate noncommercial or fair use within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(iv). Ripple Labs Inc. v. NGYEN NGOC PHUONG THAO, FA 1741737 (Forum Aug. 21, 2017) ("Respondent uses the [disputed] domain name to divert Internet users to Respondent's website… confusing them into believing that some sort of affiliation exists between it and Complainant… [which] is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)."); Yahoo Assets LLC v. Zanybh Solutions, FA 2022077 (Forum Dec. 12, 2022) ("As the Panel agrees that Respondent appears to be passing off as Complainant to draw Internet traffic, the Panel finds that Respondent lacks any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii)."). Complainant has made its prima facie case. On the evidence discussed above, and in the absence of any evidence from Respondent, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) requires Complainant to prove that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Policy ¶ 4(b) sets forth a nonexclusive list of four circumstances, any one of which if proven would be evidence of bad faith use and registration of a domain name. They are as follows: (i) circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant which is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the respondent's documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or (ii) the respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) by using the domain name, the respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the 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 the respondent's web site or location or of a product of service on the respondent 's web site or location. The concept of bad faith as illustrated in the above four subparagraphs necessarily involves a subjective intent on the part of a respondent knowingly to trade upon the goodwill of the complainant. The respondent must intentionally have targeted the complainant's mark. Such subjective intent would in turn require that the respondent actually knew of the complainant or its rights in the relevant mark when it registered the domain name. Constructive notice does not suffice. In attempting to discern actual knowledge and a subjective bad faith intent, panels have looked at many different types of evidence, including but not limited to use of a domain name in direct competition with a trademark owner, impersonation, the parties operating in the same market segment, the parties being physically located in the same general geographic area, a pattern of bad faith conduct, actual prior association between or among the parties, the distinctive nature of the trademark, and the extent to which the trademark has been publicized and is known as a source indicator for the complainant. Unsupported allegations about a respondent's subjective intent are not evidence in this regard. The evidence in this case conclusively demonstrates that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant when it registered the domain name in May of 2026 (WHOIS printout submitted as Complaint Exhibit D shows registration date). Complainant had by then been using the FORCE OF NATURE mark at least since the 2019 first use date shown on the USPTO registration certificate for its mark included in Complaint Exhibit B. More tellingly, Respondent had to have had actual knowledge of Complainant and its mark in order to impersonate it with the domain name and the resolving website. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant when it registered the domain name and selected it with the intent to target this Complainant. The evidence of Respondent's conduct discussed above in the rights or legitimate interests analysis supports a finding of bad faith registration and use based upon the grounds articulated in the Policy and upon additional grounds adopted by UDRP panels over the years. First, by passing off as Complainant and offering to sell products advertised as those of Complainant, Respondent is using the confusingly similar domain name to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its web site by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of that website. Commercial gain is intended or results from the sale of goods from the website. Respondent's conduct fits squarely within the circumstances described in Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) and is manifest evidence of bad faith registration and use. Xylem Inc. and Xylem IP Holdings LLC v. YinSi BaoHu YiKaiQi, FA 1612750 (Forum May 13, 2015) ("The Panel agrees that Respondent's use of the website to display products similar to Complainant's, imputes intent to attract Internet users for commercial gain, and finds bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)."). Next, as discussed above, Respondent is using the domain name to pass off as Complainant. This does not fit precisely within any of the scenarios listed in Policy ¶ 4(b) but that paragraph recognizes that mischief can manifest in many different forms and takes an open-ended approach to bad faith, listing some examples without attempting to enumerate all its varieties. The non-exclusive nature of Policy ¶ 4(b) allows for consideration of additional factors in an analysis for bad faith, and passing off as a complainant, in and of itself, is evidence of bad faith. Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum Dec. 27, 2017) (finding bad faith where "Respondent registered and uses the <lbittrex.com> domain name in bad faith by directing Internet users to a website that mimics Complainant's own website in order to confuse users into believing that Respondent is Complainant or is otherwise affiliated or associated with Complainant."). Complainant alleges that Respondent's conduct also falls within the circumstances described in Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) reads as follows: "you [the respondent] have registered the domain name primarily for the purposes of disrupting the business of a competitor" (emphasis supplied). By using the domain name to divert internet traffic intended for Complainant to its own site and advertising Complainant's goods for sale, Respondent is clearly disrupting the business of Complainant. And, by purportedly offering products similar to or the same as those offered by Complainant, Respondent is also competing with Complainant. There is, however, another aspect of the concept of competition to be considered. In order for a respondent's conduct to fall within Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii), the competition must exist before the domain name is registered. Otherwise, the respondent's conduct would not fall within the language of ¶ 4(b)(iii), paraphrased as "you registered the domain name primarily to disrupt the business of a competitor." The competition must exist before the registration. In this case there is no evidence that Respondent was competing with Complainant prior to its registration of the domain name, and it appears that any actual competition between them arose only after Respondent registered and began using it. Even then, it is questionable whether disrupting the Complainant's business was Respondent's primary purpose in registering the domain name. On the contrary, the evidence strongly suggests that Respondent's primary motive was not so much to harass or annoy an existing commercial adversary as it was to trade upon Complainant's goodwill and reputation and profit commercially by creating confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of its site, which is properly addressed under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). Respondent's conduct does not fall within the circumstances stated in Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). That said, using a confusingly similar domain name to attract Internet traffic to a web site which passes off as and disrupts the business of a complainant is still bad faith. Respondent's conduct creates reputational risks, a likelihood of Complainant having to deal with complaints from customers who were deceived by Respondent's site, and the potential loss of customers. Given the non-exclusive nature of Policy ¶ 4(b), using a confusingly similar domain name to disrupt the business of a complainant by passing off as and competing with that complainant is sufficient evidence of bad faith to meet the requirements of Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). The disruptive impact its conduct would have upon Complainant's business is obvious and was certainly known to Respondent. Respondent intentionally went forward with its plans in spite of that, and this demonstrates bad faith independently of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). Red Wing Shoe Company, Inc. v. wei zhang / Magdalena Jennifer / Mu Yan / Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico, FA 1873163 (Forum Jan. 3, 2020). Complainant argues that Respondent's registration of the domain name with a privacy or proxy service is also evidence of bad faith. Many UDRP panels, especially in the years first following the adoption of the Policy, accepted this argument. More recently, however, in light of many instances of abuse of information gained from domain name registrations, many registrants, and indeed even registrars themselves, have opted to use privacy services. The WIPO Overview 3.1, at ¶ 3.6, acknowledges that there are recognized legitimate uses of privacy and proxy services, and in 2018 the European Union adopted its General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) which potentially subjects entities around the world to stiff penalties in the interest of protecting personal identifying information of European Union citizens worldwide. Domain name registrars offer and recommend data privacy services to domain name registrants to protect their data, and domain name registrants are with increasing frequency using such services. In summary, there are any number of reasons a registrant might choose to use a privacy service that do not involve bad faith, and the use of such services cannot be taken ipso facto as evidence of bad faith. Rovio Entertainment Corporation v. baobin chi, Case No. D2021-0888 (WIPO May 26, 2021) (". . . the mere fact that the WhoIs details of a respondent are protected by a privacy filter alone cannot be sufficient to support a finding of bad faith within the meaning of the third limb of paragraph 4(a)."). Any inference of bad faith based upon the use of a privacy service would most likely involve some notion that the respondent did so in order to hinder or delay the filing of an administrative proceeding seeking transfer. The use of a privacy service may cause some minor delay after the administrative proceeding is commenced, to enable the provider to obtain previously screened registrant information from the registrar, but it does not impose any real deterrent to the filing of a case. UDRP cases are in the nature of in rem proceedings. The Panel has jurisdiction over the domain name and can enter any orders contemplated by the relevant policy as to the domain name without personal jurisdiction over the respondent. In this case, there is no evidence to support any contention that Respondent's use of a privacy service to register the domain name was for any improper or unlawful purpose. Respondent's use of a privacy service is not evidence of bad faith. For the reasons set forth above, the Panel finds that Respondent registered or is using the domain name in bad faith within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). DECISION Complainant having established all three elements required under the Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <forceofnaturemeatsstore.shop> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Charles A. Kuechenmeister, Panelist July 22, 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.