Decision for dispute CAC-UDRP-108219

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

Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations for CHEWY in jurisdictions around the world, such as:

• CHEWY.COM, U.S. registration number 4346308, registered on 4 June 2013 in class 35;
• CHEWY, U.S. registration number 5028009, registered on 23 August 2016 in class 35;
• CHEWY, U.S. registration number 5834442, registered on 13 August 2019 in class 13;
• CHEWY U.S. registration number 6788620, registered on 12 July 2022 in class 9;
• CHEWY, EU registration number 016605834 in Class 35, registered on 14 August 2017 in class 35; and
• CHEWY, Australian trademark registration number 2060121, registered on 2 January 2020 in class 35.

Founded in 2011, the Complainant is a large global company that provides pet supplies and pet wellness-related services, including pet food, treats, supplies, and veterinary pharmaceutical products and services through its online retail store. In 2024 it earned almost $12 billion in net sales.

The Complainant owns numerous registrations for the trademark CHEWY. Its domain name <chewy.com> was created in April 2004 and is used for its official website at https://www.chewy.com.

The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on 12 March 2026 using a privacy service. 

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.

-Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires the Complainant to prove each of the following three elements:

1. the disputed domain is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
2. the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and
3. the disputed domain name has been registered and used in bad faith.

IDENTICAL OR CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR

Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations for CHEWY that predate the registration of the disputed domain name.

The disputed domain name fully incorporates Complainant’s CHEWY mark, adding to it the words “pet” and “mart”. These generic words are closely associated with the Complainant’s business and do not avoid a finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the CHEWY mark. The Panel concludes the requirements of Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy have been met.

NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS

The Complainant has provided evidence to show its rights in the CHEWY mark and has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. The burden of proof now shifts to the Respondent to show that he has relevant rights.

The Respondent has not filed a Response, nor challenged any of the Complainant’s assertions. The Respondent is not commonly known as the disputed domain name nor licensed or authorised to use the CHEWY mark. The disputed domain name resolves to a website featuring the Complainant’s trademark and offers live pets and products and services similar to those offered by the Complainant, creating the false impression that it is an official CHEWY online store. Such use is not a bona fide offering nor a fair or legitimate noncommercial use of the disputed domain name.

The Panel concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name and that the Complainant has met the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

REGISTERED AND BEING USED IN BAD FAITH

The Complainant’s trademark is well-known and predates the registration of the disputed domain name. The Respondent has used a privacy service to conceal his identity. The disputed domain name resolves to a website purporting to offer live pets for sale under the CHEWY mark and logo. It is inconceivable that the Respondent did not know of the Complainant and its rights when he registered the disputed domain name.

The Panel concludes that the disputed domain name was both registered and is being used in bad faith and that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy have been met.