The Complainant is a global online retailer of pet supplies and claims rights in the CHEWY mark established by its ownership of the above-described international portfolio of trademark and service mark registrations.<\/p>\n
The Complainant has an established Internet presence and is the owner of the domain name <chewy.com>, which resolves to its primary website.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name <chewycathome.com> was registered on September 27, 2025, and resolves to a website imitating the Complainant’s retail platform offering pet products.<\/p>\n
There is no information available about the Respondent except for that provided in the Complaint as amended, the Registrar’s WhoIs, and the information provided by the Registrar in response to the request by the Forum for details of the registration of the disputed domain name.<\/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 claims rights in the CHEWY trademark established by its ownership of the trademark and service mark registrations described above and contends that the requirements of the Policy have been met and that the disputed domain name should be transferred to it.<\/p>\n
The Complainant submits that it was founded in 2011 as a customer-service-focused online retailer for pet supplies. By 2023, the Complainant was ranked #362 in the Fortune 500 list of the world’s most important companies. In 2024, the Complainant was added to the Standard & Poor’s MidCap 500 list of most valuable midcap stocks. That year, the Complainant earned almost $12 billion in net sales, a 6% increase over the previous year, demonstrating its status as a highly successful global company, as exhibited in an annex to the Complaint.<\/p>\n
The Complainant adds that it provides its services through the domain name <chewy.com>, which incorporates the CHEWY trademark and serves as the Complainant’s primary website.<\/p>\n
The Complainant firstly alleges that the disputed domain name <chewycathome.com> is identical or confusingly similar to the CHEWY mark in which it has rights, arguing that the disputed domain name fully incorporates the Complainant’s CHEWY mark, adding only the words “cat” and “home,” and the ubiquitous generic Top-Level Domain (“TLD”) extension<.com><\/p>\n
Additionally, the Complainant contends that it is well-established that the use of a trademark in its entirety within a domain name at issue suffices to establish confusing similarity.<\/p>\n
As noted in the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), Section 1.7: “[I]n cases where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark, or where at least a dominant feature of the relevant mark is recognizable in the domain name, the domain name will normally be considered confusingly similar to that mark for purposes of UDRP standing<\/em>.”<\/p>\n Moreover, it is argued that the descriptive terms “cat” and “home” within the disputed domain name do not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element. This principle has been consistently applied in prior decisions, including Chewy, Inc. v. Bopan Zack<\/em>, CAC-UDRP-107505 (Apr. 28, 2025), where the panel held that the disputed domain name <chewy-outlet.com> incorporated the CHEWY mark in its entirety and that the addition of the generic term “outlet” and a hyphen did not prevent a finding of confusing similarity.<\/p>\n Furthermore, Complainant contends that it is an established practice to disregard the gTLD extension in a domain name, in this case <.com> since it is seen as a customary registration requirement. WIPO Overview 3.0, Section 1.11 confirms: “The applicable Top Level Domain [‘TLD’] in a domain name [e.g., ‘.com’, ‘.top’, ‘.club’, ‘.nyc’] is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test.”<\/p>\n Secondly, the Complainant alleges that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, arguing that:<\/p>\n The Complainant further argues that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, as evidenced by Registrar’s verification of the registration of the disputed domain name but instead, the Respondent is using the disputed domain name to infringe and cybersquat upon the Complainant’s rights in its globally famous CHEWY mark.<\/p>\n In this regard, the Complainant refers to a screen capture of the website to which the disputed domain name resolves, which is exhibited in an annex to the Complaint. The screen capture shows that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name as the address of an imitative retail website offering pet products under the CHEWY marks and featuring other items bearing the Complainant’s FRISCO brand. The Complainant submits that FRISCO is a proprietary brand owned and sold exclusively by the Complainant through the Complainant’s website at <www.chewy.com>.<\/p>\n The Complainant adds that the exhibited screen capture shows that the Respondent is monetizing the disputed domain name by trading on the goodwill associated with the CHEWY marks, via advertising and otherwise.<\/p>\n It is argued that such use of the disputed domain name within the address of the Respondent’s website is intended to confuse Internet users into visiting the Respondent’s website, where the Respondent purports to offer deals for competing retail goods, as shown in the exhibit annexed to the Complaint.<\/p>\n The Complainant adds that such use does not constitute any legitimate bona fide <\/em>sale of goods or services or legitimate non-commercial or fair use. This principle has been applied in Chewy, Inc. v. Bopan Zack<\/em>, CAC-UDRP-107505, where the panel found that the Respondent’s use of a domain name mimicking the Complainant’s official website and offering goods under the CHEWY name and logo without authorization was misleading and did not constitute legitimate or fair use under the Policy.<\/p>\n The Complainant adds that the Respondent cannot claim to be a reseller with a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name because the Respondent does not accurately disclose its lack of relationship or affiliation with the Complainant.<\/p>\n Thirdly, the Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.<\/p>\n It is contended that the Respondent intentionally registered the disputed domain name which prominently incorporates its famous CHEWY mark and is using the disputed domain name to direct Internet users to a competing retail website offering pet products under the CHEWY mark and featuring Complainant’s FRISCO-branded items, as exhibited in an annex to the Complaint.<\/p>\n It is further argued that the disputed domain name a long time after the Complainant established its trademark rights, the Respondent uses the disputed domain name as the address of an imitative retail website featuring the Complainant’s CHEWY and FRISCO-branded goods; <\/p>\n The evidence demonstrates that the Respondent knew of the Complainant’s rights in the CHEWY mark at the time of registration, because the Complainant’s CHEWY brand is globally recognized and has achieved a level of fame such that the Respondent cannot plausibly claim ignorance.<\/p>\n It is further argued by the Complainant that the disputed domain name is valuable only because of its association with the CHEWY brand, and there is no conceivable good faith use to which the Respondent could put the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n The Complainant adds that the exhibited screen capture of the website to which the disputed domain name resolves shows that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name to intentionally attract Internet users for commercial gain by operating an imitative retail website that uses the CHEWY mark in its domain name and features FRISCO-branded products.<\/p>\n The Complainant submits that by using the disputed domain name in this manner, the Respondent is creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s CHEWY mark as to source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement. WIPO Overview 3.0, Section 3.1.4 states that panels consistently find that registration of a domain name identical or confusingly similar to a famous trademark by an unaffiliated entity creates a presumption of bad faith.<\/p>\n The Complainant adds that such conduct disrupts the Complainant’s business by diverting customers and prospective customers away from the Complainant, evidencing bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iii). WIPO Overview 3.0, Section 3.1.3 confirms that the concept of “competitor” includes any person acting in opposition for commercial gain.<\/p>\n Respondent<\/p>\n No administratively compliant Response has been filed.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/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": " 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": [
"James Bridgeman (Presiding Panelist)"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2025-12-15 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " The Complainant is the owner of a portfolio of registered trademarks and service marks that include the following:<\/p>\n United States registered trademark CHEWY, registration number 5,028,009, registered on the Principal Register on August 23, 2016, for services in international class 35;<\/p>\n European Union Trade Mark (EUTM) CHEWY, registration number 016605834, registered on the Principal Register on August 10, 2017 for services in class 35;<\/p>\n United States registered trademark CHEWY, registration number 5,834,442, registered on the Principal Register on August 13, 2019, for services in international class 35.<\/p>",
"decision_domains": {
"chewycathome.com": "TRANSFERRED"
}
}\n