The Complainant operates one of the largest online retail stores and provides pet supplies and pet wellness-related services through its online retail platform, including pet food, treats, supplies, and veterinary pharmaceutical products and services. It was founded in 2011 as a customer-service-focused online retailer for pet supplies. By 2023, it was ranked #362 in the Fortune 500 list of the world’s most important companies, and in 2024, it was added to the Standard & Poors MidCap 500 list of most valuable midcap stocks. The Complainant also provides pet supplies and pet wellness-related services through its domain name incorporating the CHEWY trademark, which serves as the Complainant’s primary website and makes substantial use of the CHEWY mark. The Complainant’s domain name <chewy.com> was created in April 2004.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name was registered on November 2, 2025, and it resolves to an imitative website offering Chewy goods under the CHEWY marks.<\/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.<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "
COMPLAINANT:<\/p>\n
The Complainant contends that the requirements of the Policy have been met and that the disputed domain name should be transferred to it.<\/p>\n
(i) The Complainant holds rights in the trademark CHEWY, as set forth in the “Identification of Rights” section above. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s CHEWY trademark, as it incorporates the CHEWY mark in its entirety, followed by the generic word “sale,” a hyphen, and the “.top” gTLD. <\/p>\n
(ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Respondent is neither licensed nor otherwise authorized to use the Complainant’s CHEWY mark, nor is the Respondent commonly known by the disputed domain name. Moreover, the Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for any bona fide<\/em> offering of goods or services, nor for any legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, the disputed domain name resolves to an imitative website offering pet-related products under the CHEWY marks, and the Respondent falsely presents its website as an official Chewy online shop or source of pet-related goods. The Respondent does not accurately and prominently disclose its lack of affiliation with the Complainant, thereby falsely declaring itself to be Chewy. Such conduct can never constitute a legitimate interest under the Policy. <\/p>\n (iii) The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, thereby satisfying the cumulative requirement under the Policy that both bad faith registration and bad faith use be established. The Respondent registered the disputed domain name incorporating the well-known and widely recognized CHEWY trademark despite having no rights or legitimate interests in doing so. The website to which the disputed domain name resolves impersonates or passes itself off as an official website of the Complainant, prominently displaying the CHEWY mark in connection with the purported sale of pet-related products. The Respondent failed to provide any accurate or prominent disclaimer of its lack of affiliation with the Complainant. The Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitute bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy, as the Respondent is using the disputed domain name to direct Internet users to an imitative website purporting to offer pet-related products, thereby unfairly trading on the goodwill associated with the Complainant’s CHEWY marks. The Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name also constitute bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. The Respondent has intentionally attracted Internet users for commercial gain by offering pet-related goods through its competing imitative website, creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s CHEWY marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the disputed domain name. <\/p>\n RESPONDENT:<\/p>\n No administratively compliant Response has been filed.<\/p>",
"rights": " 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": " Language of the Proceedings<\/strong><\/p>\n The Panel notes that the Registration Agreement is written in Chinese, thereby making Chinese the default language of the proceedings. However, the Complainant has requested that the proceedings be conducted in English. Under UDRP Rule 11(a), the Panel has the discretion to determine the appropriate language of the proceedings, considering the particular circumstances of the case. See Section 4.5, WIPO Overview 3.0, see also Lovehoney Group Limited v. Yan Zhang<\/em>, CAC 103917 (CAC August 17, 2021) (finding it appropriate to conduct the proceeding in English under Rule 11, despite the Registration Agreement designating Japanese as the required language). <\/p>\n The Complainant presents the following arguments in support of its request:<\/p>\n (i) The Respondent’s registration agreement is also published in English;<\/p>\n (ii) The Respondent’s resolving website is in English and duplicates branding from the Complainant’s English-language home page, thereby clearly targeting an English-speaking audience. <\/p>\n Pursuant to UDRP Rule 11(a), the Panel finds the Complainant’s arguments persuasive. After considering the specific circumstances of this case, and in the absence of a Response or any objection to the Complainant’s request regarding the language of the proceedings, the Panel determines that the proceedings shall be conducted in English.<\/p>\n 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": [
"Mr. Ho-Hyun Nahm Esq. (Presiding Panelist)"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2025-12-11 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " The Complainant is the owner of the trademark CHEWY, registered in the United States, the European Union, and Australia, inter alia<\/em>, as follows:<\/p>\n • CHEWY (U.S. Reg. 5028009), in Class 35, registered on August 23, 2016.
• CHEWY (EU Reg. 016605834), in Class 35, registered on August 10, 2017.
• CHEWY (AU Reg. 2060121), in Class 35, registered on January 2, 2020.<\/p>",
"decision_domains": {
"sale-chewy.top": "TRANSFERRED"
}
}