Decision for dispute CAC-UDRP-108985

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, Chewy, Inc., owns numerous registrations for the CHEWY mark, including the United States trademark CHEWY.COM (Reg. No. 4,346,308), registered on June 4, 2013, the United States trademark CHEWY No. 5,028,009, registered on August 23, 2016, and the United States trademark CHEWY No. 5,834,442, registered on August 13, 2019, as well as registrations in the European Union and Australia.

The Complainant is a United States online retailer of pet food, pet supplies and pet wellness products and services, founded in 2011. It operates its main website at <chewy.com>, a domain name created in April 2004.

The disputed domain name <chewysell.com> was registered on August 19, 2026. It resolves to a website that displays the Complainant's CHEWY logo, reproduces the Complainant's own marketing text, offers pet products for sale, and invites Internet users to log in and to enter payment card details at checkout.

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 Panel agrees with the Complainant that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademarks CHEWY.COM and CHEWY. The disputed domain name <chewysell.com> wholly incorporates the trademark, and the addition of the word “sell” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity, since it only suggests that the website is a sales channel of the Complainant (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8).

The Panel finds that the Complainant has established prima facie that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not licensed or otherwise authorized by the Complainant to use the CHEWY mark, and nothing in the record suggests that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name resolves to a website that imitates the Complainant's online store by using its logo and marketing text, which cannot be a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Use of a domain name for illegitimate activity such as impersonation can never confer rights or legitimate interests (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1).

The Complainant's CHEWY mark is well known and was registered long before the disputed domain name was registered in 2026. Previous CAC panels have found bad faith in comparable circumstances where a domain name was used for a website imitating the Complainant's online store (see CAC Case No. 107505, Chewy, Inc. v. Bopan Zack; CAC Case No. 107614, Chewy, Inc. v. Anne Dudley). Given the reputation of the mark and the content of the website, the Panel finds that the Respondent knew of the Complainant and its trademark when registering the disputed domain name (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4).

The disputed domain name is used for a website that copies the Complainant's logo and marketing text, offers pet products for sale, and solicits login details and payment card information. The Respondent thereby intentionally attempts to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the website, which is bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, and disrupts the Complainant's business within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy. The collection of login and payment card data through an impersonating website is, in addition, a use of the disputed domain name in bad faith (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4).

On these bases, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name was both registered and used in bad faith.