Decision for dispute CAC-UDRP-107824

The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name.

The Complainant owns several trademark registrations for the word “CHEWY”, including:

• US Reg. no. 5,028,009 “CHEWY” (word) in Class 35, used in commerce since 2016 and registered on August 23, 2016;

• US Reg. no. 5,834,442 “CHEWY” (word) in Class 35, used in commerce since 2018 and registered on August 13, 2019;

• US Reg. no. 6,788,620 “CHEWY” (word) in Class 9, used in commerce since 2016 and registered on July 12, 2022.

The disputed domain name was registered on March 3, 2024, i.e., the Complainant’s trademark registrations cited above predate the registration of the disputed domain name.

The Complainant operates a major online retail store for pet supplies and pet wellness-related services under www.chewy.com, selling products such as pet food, treats, supplies, and veterinary pharmaceutical products. Founded in 2011, the Complainant earned almost US$ 12 billion in net sales in 2024.

The disputed domain name redirects to a website which displays the Complainant's "CHEWY" logo, claims to be operated by the Complainant “Chewy, Inc.” and appears to offer pet supplies under the Complainant’s “CHEWY” trademark. The Complainant alleges that this website is an imitative website which the Respondent operates without the Complainant’s permission. The website is the same as the one that previously resolved at <chewy-outlet.com>, a domain name also registered by the same Respondent that was the subject of the Complainant's successful UDRP action a few months ago in Chewy, Inc. v. Bopan Zack, CAC-UDRP-107505.

The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and that the Respondent is not related to the Complainant in any way. The Respondent does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with, the Complainant. Neither license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s “CHEWY” trademark, or to apply for registration of the disputed domain name.

The Complainant contends that the requirements of the Policy have been met and that the disputed domain name should be transferred to it.
No administratively compliant Response has been filed.

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy).

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Respondent to have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy).

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).

The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.

The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s “Chewy” trademark. The addition of the descriptive term “-deals” does not alter the designation's overall impression of being connected to the Complainant’s trademark and is not sufficient to escape the finding that the domain name is confusingly similar to the “CHEWY” trademark.

The Panel also finds that the Complainant successfully submitted prima facie evidence that the Respondent has made no use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor is the Respondent making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, nor is the Respondent commonly known under the disputed domain name. Although using the domain name to operate a lookalike website while impersonating the Complainant may be considered an "offering of goods or services," it is not a bona fide offering. This prima facie evidence was not contested by the Respondent.

The Panel further finds that the Complainant has successfully submitted prima facie evidence that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith, namely by offering pet-related products through its competing imitative website and thereby intentionally attempting to attract, for commercial gain, internet users to this website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent's website (paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy). Again, this prima facie evidence was not contested by the Respondent.

In summary, this Panel agrees with the CAC panel decision in the previous dispute between the same parties over the very similar domain name <chewy-outlet.com> (Chewy, Inc. v. Bopan Zack, CAC-UDRP-107505).