Rareseeds.mom, Rareseeds.live

The timeline behind rareseeds.mom

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 Baker Creek Heirloom Seed Co., LLC v Evgeniy Momaev Claim Number: FA2607002235201 PARTIES Complainant is Baker Creek Heirloom Seed Co., LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Richard Voytas of Voytas Law, Missouri, USA. Respondent is Evgeniy Momaev ("Respondent"), Germany. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES The domain names at issue are <rareseeds.mom> and <rareseeds.live>, ('the Domain Names') registered with Dynadot 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. Dawn Osborne as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on July 27, 2026; Forum received payment on July 28, 2026. On Jul 28, 2026 and Aug 4, 2026 respectively, Dynadot Inc confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <rareseeds.mom> and <rareseeds.live> Domain Names are registered with Dynadot Inc and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. 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 August 10 the Complainant amended the Complaint to include rareseeds.live. On August 11, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 31, 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@rareseeds.mom and postmaster@ rareseeds.live. Also on August 11, 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 September 1, 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. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the Domain Names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant The Complainant's contentions can be summarised as follows: The Complainant is the owner of the trade mark RARESEEDS registered, inter alia, in the USA for online services relating to seeds and gardening products since 2021. It owns and uses <rareseeds.com>. The Domain Names registered in 2026 are identical to the Complainant's mark adding only the gTLDs .com or .live which do not distinguish the Domain Names or either of them from the Complainant's trade mark. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names. Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Names or either of them and is not authorised by the Complainant. The Complainant says the Respondent is using the Domain Names to point to a web site that is a clone of the Complainant's web site, that this is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate commercial or fair use and it is bad faith registration and use disrupting the Complainant's business and confusing Internet users fraudulently for commercial gain in knowledge of the Complainant's trade mark and rights. The <rareseeds.live> domain name was registered four days after this Complaint was originally filed against the <rareseeds.mom> domain name. The Complaint has been amended to cover both Domain Names. The Panel notes that no evidence has been filed that proves that <rareseeds.live> points to a clone of the Complainant's web site and the contents of this web site are currently protected by a password. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS The Complainant is the owner of the trade mark RARESEEDS registered, inter alia, in the USA for online services relating to seeds and gardening products since 2021. <rareseeds.mom> (registered in 2026) is being used for a clone of the Complainant's site purporting to offer the Complainant's services. The Complainant did not file evidence showing that <rareseeds.live> (registered four days after the original Complaint in this case was filed in July 2026 against <rareseeds.mom>) points to a clone of the Complainant's site and <rareseeds.live> currently points to a site that cannot be viewed without a password. 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 Domain Names both consist of the Complainant's RARESEEDS mark (which is registered, inter alia, in USA for services relating to seeds and gardening products since 2021) and a gTLD. Gtlds do not serve to distinguish a domain name from a complainant's 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 Names are both identical for the purpose of the Policy to a mark in which the Complainant has rights. As such the Panel holds that Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant has not authorised the use of its mark. There is no evidence or reason to suggest the Respondent is commonly known by the Domain Names or either of them. 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). The Domain Names themselves inherently carry a risk of affiliation with the Complainant itself because their second level is identical to the Complainant's mark. There is no indication on either site connected to the Domain Names that no authorisation has been given from the Complainant for this connection. See Seiko Kabushiki Kaisha v. CS into Tech, FA 198795 (Forum Dec. 6, 2003) ("Diverting customers, who are looking for a site relating to the Complainant's mark, to a website unrelated to the mark is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor does it represent a non-commercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)."). Further the evidence is that <rareseeds.mom> has been pointed to a clone of the Complainant's site. The Panel finds this fraudulent, confusing and not amounting to a bona fide offering of goods and services or a legitimate non commercial fair use. See iFinex Inc. v Yuri Heifetz/Genie-Solution, FA 1789385 (Forum July 9, 2018) (holding that the respondent's mimicking the complainant's web site in order to cause existing or potential customers of the Complainant's to believe they are dealing with the complainant is prima facie evidence of the respondent's lack of rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name). Further, <rareseeds.mom> appears to be a typosquatting registration simply differing by a single letter 'c' from the Complainant's mark and its url at www.rareseeds.com. Typosquatting is an indication of a lack of rights or legitimate interests. See Chegg Inc. v. yang qijin, FA 1610050 (Forum Apr. 23, 2015) ("Users might mistakenly reach Respondent's resolving website by misspelling Complainant's mark. Taking advantage of Internet users' typographical errors, known as typosquatting, demonstrates a respondent's lack of rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)."). The Respondent has not answered this Complaint and has not rebutted the prima face case evidenced by the Complainant as set out herein. As such the Panelist finds that the Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Names or either of them and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy. Registration and Use in Bad Faith The use made of <rareseeds.mom> in relation to the Respondent's site is confusing and disruptive in that visitors to the site might reasonably believe it is connected to or approved by the Complainant as it copies the Complainant's web site wholesale without permission showing that the Respondent is aware of the Complainant and its rights and business. Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to its website at <rareseeds.mom> by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trade mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the web site attached to <rareseeds.mom> under Policy 4(b)(iv) likely to disrupt the business of the Complainant under Policy 4(b)(iii). See Allianz of AM. Corp v Bond, FA 680624 (Forum June 2, 2006) (finding bad faith registration and use where the respondent was diverting Internet users searching for the complainant to its own website). Further <rareseeds.mom> has been used for a clone of the Complainant's web site. Cloning a web site is phishing and is evidence of bad faith registration and use within the Policy 4(a)(iii) See Klabzuba Oil & Gas, Inc v LAKHPAT SINGH BHANDARI, FA 1625750 (Forum July 17, 2015). Additionally, <rareseeds.mom> seeks to take advantage of the situation where Internet users may make a typographical error due to its similarity to the Complainant's url at www.rareseeds.com. Typosquatting itself is evidence of relevant bad faith registration and use. See Diners Club int'l Ltd. v Domain Admin ****** It's all in the name ******, FA 156839 (Forum June 23, 2003) (registering a domain name in the hope that Internet users will mistype the Complainant's mark and be taken to the Respondent's site is registration and use in bad faith). Further both Domain Names carry a risk of affiliation with the Complainant as discussed above. Using such domain names to point to unrelated material appears to be in bad faith attracting Internet users looking for the Complainant for commercial gain and, thereby, disrupting the Complainant's business. See MySpace, Inc. v. Myspace Bot, FA 672161 (Forum May 19, 2006) (holding that the respondent registered and used the <myspacebot.com> domain name in bad faith by diverting Internet users seeking the complainant's website to its own website for commercial gain because the respondent likely profited from this diversion scheme). Further the <rareseeds.live> domain name was registered four days after this Complaint was filed in respect of <rareseeds.mom> indicating a pattern of bad faith activity in full knowledge of the Complainant's rights. NIKE, Inc., and Nike Innovate, C.V. v. Emile Boulanger, FA 1732458 (Forum July 3, 2017) (finding that registration of multiple domain names in a case satisfies the burden imposed by the Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii)). As such, the Panelist believes that the Complainant has made out its case that both Domain Names were 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 <rareseeds.mom> and <rareseeds.live> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Dawn Osborne, Panelist Dated: September 1, 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.