The Complainant, Chewy, Inc., is a well-known online retailer providing pet-related goods and services through its main website at <chewy.com>. The CHEWY brand has become highly recognized in the United States and internationally. The Complainant uses the CHEWY mark in connection with the sale of pet food, supplies, and wellness products.<\/p>\n
On March 31, 2025, the disputed domain name <chewy-outlet.com> was registered through the Dynadot registrar. The disputed domain name incorporates the CHEWY mark in its entirety, adding only the descriptive term “outlet.”<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name resolves to a website that imitates the Complainant’s branding, including unauthorized use of the CHEWY name and logo, and promotes products purporting to originate from the Complainant. The Respondent has also used related Facebook advertising to attract Internet users. The Complainant states that it has no affiliation with the Respondent and has not authorized the use of its marks or branding.<\/p>", "other_legal_proceedings": "
The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name <<\/span>chewy-outlet.com>.<\/span><\/p>",
"no_response_filed": " COMPLAINANT:<\/span><\/p>\n 1. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the protected mark<\/p>\n The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name <chewy-outlet.com> is confusingly similar to its CHEWY trademark. It argues that the disputed domain name incorporates the CHEWY mark in its entirety, with the only difference being the addition of the generic term “outlet” and the \".com\" top-level domain.<\/p>\n Relying on established UDRP precedent, the Complainant submits that the use of a trademark in its entirety within a domain name is sufficient to establish confusing similarity. The Complainant further contends that the addition of a descriptive term such as “outlet” and the inclusion of the top-level domain does not eliminate the likelihood of confusion, nor does it prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the Policy.<\/p>\n Accordingly, the Complainant maintains that it has satisfied the first element of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n <\/span>2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name<\/span> The Complainant argues that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name long after the CHEWY trademark became well known and has used it to operate an imitative website that misrepresents itself as an official Chewy outlet. The site uses the CHEWY mark and logo without authorization and offers similar goods and services, while related Facebook advertisements reinforce the false impression of affiliation. The Complainant submits that this use is misleading and commercially exploitative and does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use under the Policy.<\/p>\n Citing the WIPO Overview and relevant precedent, the Complainant contends that the Respondent’s conduct amounts to impersonation, which cannot give rise to any rights or legitimate interests. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Complainant maintains that it has satisfied the second element of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.<\/span><\/p>\n 3. The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith<\/p>\n The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name <chewy-outlet.com> was registered and is being used in bad faith. It asserts that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name and related Facebook advertising to direct Internet users to a website that imitates the Complainant’s official site and offers similar pet products and services under the CHEWY mark. The Complainant argues that such conduct constitutes disruption of its business and unfairly trades on the goodwill associated with its CHEWY trademark, thereby falling within paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy.<\/p>\n In addition, the Complainant maintains that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website to which the disputed domain name resolves, in violation of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. The Complainant emphasizes that the website mimics the appearance and branding of its own, uses the CHEWY name and logo without authorization, and presents itself falsely as a Chewy outlet.<\/p>\n The Complainant further asserts that its CHEWY mark is widely known and distinctive, and that the Respondent could not plausibly have been unaware of the Complainant’s rights. The disputed domain name is only valuable due to its association with the CHEWY brand, and there is no evidence of any good faith use.<\/p>\n Accordingly, the Complainant submits that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith and has satisfied the third element of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.<\/span><\/p>\n Therefore, the Complainant contends that the requirements of the Policy have been met and that the disputed domain name should be transferred to it. RESPONDENT:<\/span> 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).<\/p>",
"no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": " 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).<\/p>",
"bad_faith": " 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).<\/p>",
"procedural_factors": " 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.<\/p>",
"decision": "Accepted",
"panelists": [
"Barbora Donathová"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2025-05-29 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " The Complainant, Chewy, Inc., has provided evidence of its ownership of registered trademark rights in the CHEWY mark in multiple jurisdictions. These include registrations in the United States, the European Union, and Australia. Notable among them are:<\/p>\n U.S. Reg. No. 4,346,308 for CHEWY.COM (registered June 4, 2013);<\/p>\n<\/li>\n U.S. Reg. No. 5,028,009 for CHEWY (registered August 23, 2016);<\/p>\n<\/li>\n EU Reg. No. 016605834 for CHEWY (registered August 10, 2017); and<\/p>\n<\/li>\n AU Reg. No. 2060121 for CHEWY (registered August 10, 2020).<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n The Complainant has used the CHEWY mark in commerce since at least 2012 in connection with online retail services relating to pet products. <\/p>",
"decision_domains": {
"chewy-outlet.com": "TRANSFERRED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}
The Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name <chewy-outlet.com>. The Complainant states that it has never authorized the Respondent to use the CHEWY trademark, and there is no affiliation or relationship between the parties. The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor is there any evidence of legitimate use.<\/p>\n
<\/span><\/p>\n
NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.<\/span><\/p>",
"rights": "\n