Decision for dispute CAC-UDRP-108294

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 is the registered owner of several trademark registrations, in particular the following marks on which the Complaint is based:

• BLUE BOTTLE COFFEE, United States federal trademark serial number 85958262 registered on 21 January 2014, for services in class 35;
• BLUE BOTTLE COFFEE, United States federal trademark serial number 88471899, registered on 11 August 2020, for goods in class 30;
• BLUE BOTTLE COFFEE, EUIPO trademark, registration number 018165426, registered on 22 August 2020, for goods and services in classes 09, 16, 25, 30, 35 and 43.

The Complainant is one of the largest multinational food and beverage groups of companies, with about 275 000 employees worldwide. The Nestlé Group markets its products in 190 countries, has about 275 000 employees worldwide, and a physical presence in 80 countries.

In 2017, the Nestlé Group acquired a majority of stake in the company Blue Bottle Coffee LLC, integrating Blue Bottle Coffee into the Nestlé Group.

Accordingly, the Complainant owns not only a large portfolio of "BLUE BOTTLE COFFEE"-trademarks worldwide but also a multitude of related domain names, such as <bluebottlecoffee.com> since 5 August 2002.

The Respondent registered the disputed domain name <bluebottleecoffee.com> on 23 August 2025. It currently resolves to an active, commercial website, impersonating the Complainant by offering coffee beans and coffee related products under the name “BLUE BOTTLE COFFEE” and the Complainant’s trademarked logo.

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.

1. 

The Panel finds that the disputed domain name <bluebottleecoffee.com> is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.

In fact, the disputed domain name entirely contains the Complainant’s trademark BLUE BOTTLE COFFEE, with the addition of the vowel "e" after the word "bottle". The Panel considers this obvious misspelling to be insufficient to render the disputed domain name different from the Complainant’s registered trademark, which remains clearly recognisable within the disputed domain name.

2.

In the absence of any Response, or any other information from the Respondent indicating otherwise, the Panel further holds that the Complainant successfully presented a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

In particular, the Complainant's undisputed allegations and evidence show that the Respondent is not affiliated with, nor authorised by the Complainant in any way, and he is not related to the Complainant’s business in any way. Furthermore, the Respondent has not demonstrated any preparations to use the disputed domain name - which currently resolves to an active, commercial website, impersonating the Complainant - in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services. Finally, the Panel has not been presented any evidence that could lead it to conclude that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name or that he has acquired trademark rights. Notably, the Respondent is not listed in the Whois database under the disputed domain name. 

3.

The Panel finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

It is evident from the Complainant’s documented allegations that the disputed domain name resolves to an active, commercial website, that impersonates the Complainant by offering coffee beans and coffee-related products under the name “BLUE BOTTLE COFFEE” and using the Complainant’s trademarked logo. It is therefore evident to the Panel that the Respondent was positively aware of the Complainant’s mark and products. Consequently, and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Panel is therefore convinced that the Respondent also knew that the disputed domain name included the Complainant’s trademark when registering the disputed domain name.

The further documented circumstances surrounding registration and use of the disputed domain name - which have not been contested by the Respondent -confirm the Panel's findings that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith:

• The nature of the disputed domain name which incorporates the Complainant’s mark identically and with only inserting one additional vowel. The Panel considers this to be an obvious typo (see above) and holds that using such an evident misspelling is intended to confuse the users and therefore indicates bad faith (cf. CAC Case no. 100740 <ARCELORNNITTAL.COM>).
• The Respondent's failure to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use or rights/legitimate interests;
• The implausibility of any good faith use to which the disputed domain name, containing the Complainant's trademark identically and with an additional vowel, may be put;
• The Respondent not disclosing its contact details and providing false or inaccurate contact information when registering the disputed domain name, as evidenced by the CAC’s inability to deliver the written notice to the provided address.

In the light of the above, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy.