Kingranchsaddleshopco.shop

The timeline behind kingranchsaddleshopco.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.

DECISION King Ranch IP, LLC v. Gary Mendoza Claim Number: FA2607002232142 PARTIES Complainant is King Ranch IP, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Alicia Morris Groos of Pirkey Barber PLLC, Texas, USA. Respondent is Gary Mendoza ("Respondent"), Arizona, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <kingranchsaddleshopco.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. Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on July 10, 2026; Forum received payment on July 10, 2026. On July 13, 2026, Dynadot Inc confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <kingranchsaddleshopco.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 July 17, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 6, 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@kingranchsaddleshopco.shop. Also on July 17, 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 August 7, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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 name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant contends in part as follows: Complainant King Ranch IP, LLC is a subsidiary of King Ranch, Inc., and a member of King Ranch, Inc.'s diversified family of companies. Complainant's family of companies operates an 825,000-acre working ranch in South Texas, as well as many other businesses across the United States. Complainant has been in operation for more than 170 years. It offers ranching services, cattle and horse breeding, live animals, saddles, a horse track, hunting services and leather goods. In addition, Complainant's family of companies has expanded to other lines of business, including apparel, sporting goods, home furnishings and décor, and various other gift and household items. Complainant sells these products under the marks KING RANCH and KING RANCH SADDLE SHOP (the "Saddle Shop Mark") in retail stores and on its website. King Ranch enjoys extensive common-law rights in trademarks and service marks used in connection with its various businesses. These marks include the distinctive, source-identifying house mark KING RANCH, which has been used for well over a century, and the Saddle Shop Mark, which has been in use for many years, and obviously long prior to Respondent's May 6, 2026 registration of the at-issue domain name. Complainant's owns multiple United States federal trademark registrations for its KING RANCH mark. Use of <kingranchsaddleshopco.shop>. Respondent is using the at-issue domain name to impersonate and imitate King Ranch and its retail storefront and thereby trick visitors out of their money or personal information, or for some other scam. Respondent is not authorized by or affiliated with King Ranch, but the website prominently features the KING RANCH and Saddle Shop Mark in the header and footer, and Respondent claims on the site to sell KING RANCH products. It appears that every single listing on the website is a Complainant product, and that nearly all bear the KING RANCH mark or other marks belonging to Complainant. The at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's marks. The at-issue domain name fully incorporates both the KING RANCH mark and the Saddle Shop Mark. Respondent has merely added the generic suffix "Co," which has no distinctive value. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. Respondent has not used, nor made any demonstrable preparations to use, the at-issue domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Instead, Respondent is using the at-issue domain name to impersonate Complainant, using its KING RANCH mark and Saddle Shop Mark in the header and footer, and misappropriating Complainant's copyrighted product images, product descriptions, and other material from Complainant's legitimate website at http://krsaddleshop.com to create a mirrored facsimile and deceive visitors into believing that Respondent is Complainant or is affiliated with Complainant, and to trick visitors into interacting with the site and has intentionally chosen the at-issue domain name to make this facsimile appear legitimate and affiliated with Complainant when it is not. Respondent is using the at-issue domain name to divert would-be buyers and sales of Complainant's products away from Complainant and its authorized distributors. This diversion to an unauthorized website is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i); it also is not a legitimate noncommercial use. Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). Respondent's use of the domain name misappropriates the goodwill in KING RANCH's marks in a manner that injures Complainant and monetarily benefits Respondent. Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name at issue. Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted Respondent to use its KING RANCH mark or Saddle Shop Mark. Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name. Respondent is impersonating Complainant to purportedly offer products for sale in what is certainly a scam. Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith. Respondent is using the at-issue domain name for a website that mirrors Complainant's official KING RANCH SADDLE SHOP online store without any authority or permission from Complainant, giving the false impression that Respondent's website is Complainant's website or is otherwise owned or controlled by Complainant. Complainant had rights in its KING RANCH mark and Saddle Shop Mark for many years before the Respondent registered the at-issue domain name in May 2026. The fact that Respondent is misusing KING RANCH marks in the at-issue domain name and on the Respondent's <kingranchsaddleshopco.shop> website, and is copying Complainant's copyrighted product images, product descriptions, and other website materials on a mirrored site demonstrates that Respondent was aware of Complainant and its business at the time of registration. Respondent's prior actual and constructive knowledge of a complainant's mark indicates that the respondent registered and used the at-issue domain name in bad faith. Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent's website by using the KING RANCH mark and Saddle Shop Mark in the at-issue domain name, such that visitors are likely to be confused as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent's website, in violation of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to trade off of the goodwill in the KING RANCH mark and Saddle Shop Mark, divert would-be customers from Complainant's website to Respondent's website, and thereby profit from the purported sale of KING RANCH products. Respondent is not an authorized reseller or distributor of COMPLAINANT's products, and any such sales are unauthorized. In fact, to Complainant's knowledge, Respondent has no legitimate source of Complainant's products. Bad faith may be found under the Policy when a domain name registrant takes advantage of the recognition a trademark owner has for its mark and profits thereby. Further, Respondent is likely using or intending to use the at-issue domain name for phishing or some other scheme involving visitors' personal information. The facsimile website contains a "Contact" form at https://kingranchsaddleshopco.shop/contact, which Respondent presumably uses to collect information about Complainant's customers who intended to visit Complainant's website. Respondent uses Complainant's trademarks and copyrighted materials to falsely suggest an affiliation with Complainant. This includes prominent and consistent use of the KING RANCH mark, Saddle Shop Mark, and other trademarks belonging to Complainant throughout the site, along with Complainant's copyrighted product photos, product descriptions, and other materials, and statements on various webpages and descriptions claiming that Respondent developed the products. Respondent's use of a proxy service to mask its identity gives rise to a rebuttable presumption of bad faith. Respondent's bad faith is also evidenced by the facts that it owns no trademark or other intellectual property rights in the domain name, that the domain name does not consist of the legal name of or a name commonly used to identify Respondent, that Respondent has not used the domain name in connection with the bona fide offering of any goods or services, that Respondent has made no bona fide noncommercial or fair use of Complainant's marks in a site accessible under the domain name, and that Respondent's domain name is confusingly similar to KING RANCH mark and Saddle Shop Mark. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant has trademark rights in the KING RANCH mark. Complainant's rights in KING RANCH predate Respondent's registration of the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant nor authorized to use Complainant's trademarks in any capacity. Respondent uses the at-issue domain name for a website that mirrors Complainant's official KING RANCH SADDLE SHOP online store without any authority or permission from Complainant. 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 3.1 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 at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights. Complainant shows that it has multiple registrations for its KING RANCH trademark with the USPTO. Any of Complainant's trademark registrations is sufficient to demonstrate Complainant's rights in a mark under the Policy. See BGK Trademark Holdings, LLC & Beyoncé Giselle Knowles-Carter v. Chanphut / Beyonce Shop, FA 1626334 (Forum Aug. 3, 2015) (asserting that Complainant's registration with the USPTO (or any other governmental authority) adequately proves its rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). Respondent's <kingranchsaddleshopco.shop> domain name contains Complainant's KING RANCH trademark less the mark's domain name impermissible space. The mark is followed by the terms "saddle," "shop," and "co," with all followed by the ".shop" top-level to complete the domain name. The differences between the <kingranchsaddleshopco.shop> domain name and Complainant's KING RANCH trademark are insufficient to distinguish the domain name from Complainant's mark for the purposes of the Policy. Therefore, the Panel finds pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) that Respondent's <kingranchsaddleshopco.shop> domain name is confusingly similar to KING RANCH. See 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."). Rights or Legitimate Interests 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. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond, absent evidence of Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances Complainant's prima facie showing acts conclusively. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant's trademark in any capacity and as discussed below there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. See Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC v. Taha Shaikh / Tskdesigners, FA 1814475 (Forum Nov. 25, 2018) (finding no rights or legitimate interests in <spectrumfeature.com> because complainant never gave respondent permission to use the mark in any manner and "Panels may use these assertions as evidence that no rights or legitimate interests exist in a disputed domain name."). WHOIS information for <kingranchsaddleshopco.shop> leads to finding that "Gary Mendoza" is the domain name's registrant and there is nothing in the record that tends to prove that Respondent is otherwise known by <kingranchsaddleshopco.shop>. As such, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name). Respondent uses the confusingly similar <kingranchsaddleshopco.shop> domain name to address a website that mirrors Complainant' official krsaddleshop.com website. Respondent thus passes itself off as Complainant and is undoubtedly benefiting from internet traffic meant for Complainant that is misdirected to Respondent's copycat website. Respondent's uses of <kingranchsaddleshopco.shop> is neither indicative of a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor of a non-commercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See 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)."). Given the forgoing, Respondent lacks rights and lacks legitimate interests in respect of <kingranchsaddleshopco.shop>. Registration and Use in Bad Faith As discussed below without being exhaustive, Respondent acted in bad faith. Respondent's at-issue domain name addresses Respondent's <kingranchsaddleshopco.shop> website which mirrors Complainant official Saddle Shop website. There, the confusingly similar domain name together with its associated website deceives internet users into falsely believing that the at-issue domain name and website are sponsored by, or authorized by, Complainant. Respondent's <kingranchsaddleshopco.shop> website advertises KING RANCH merchandise and purported to sell KING RANCH merchandise. Respondent's use of <kingranchsaddleshopco.shop> is disruptive to Complainant's business and designed to attract internet users so that Respondent may capitalize on the confusion it created between its <kingranchsaddleshopco.shop> domain name and Complainant's KING RANCH trademark. Respondent's use of the <kingranchsaddleshopco.shop> domain name and its referenced website demonstrate Respondent's bad faith registration and use of <kingranchsaddleshopco.shop> under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum Dec. 27, 2017) (finding bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) 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."); see also, Allianz of Am. Corp. v. Bond, FA 680624 (Forum June 2, 2006) (finding bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent was diverting internet users searching for the complainant to its own website and likely profiting). Additionally, Respondent's mirrored website contains a "Contact" form at https://kingranchsaddleshopco.shop/contact, which Respondent presumably uses to deceptively collect private data from website visitors. Using a contact form to phish for private information further indicates Respondent's bad faith. See Google Inc. v. Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp., FA 1622862 (Forum Aug. 10, 2015) (finding that the respondent's apparent use of the disputed domain name in furtherance of a 'phishing' scheme further established its bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)). Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the KING RANCH mark when Respondent registered <kingranchsaddleshopco.shop> as a domain name. Respondent's actual knowledge is apparent given the KING RANCH mark's notoriety and given Respondent's use of the domain name to mirror Complainant's genuine website. Respondent's registration and use of a confusingly similar domain name with knowledge of Complainant's rights in KING RANCH further demonstrates Respondent's bad faith. See Lemon Inc. v. Sumer Singh, FA 2110519 (Forum Sept. 5, 2024) ("registration of a disputed domain name with actual knowledge of another's trademark rights is sufficient to establish bad faith and can be shown by the notoriety of the mark and the use the Respondent makes of the disputed domain name"); see also, Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name). 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 <kingranchsaddleshopco.shop> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist Dated: August 10, 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.