The Complainant, the Protein Brewery B.V is a Netherlands-based biotechnology company founded in January 2020, specialising in the development and production of sustainable, plant-based protein ingredients through advanced fermentation technology.<\/p>\n
The trademark and name THE PROTEIN BREWERY were already in use in the food technology sector prior to the registration of the disputed domain name, according to the Complainant.<\/p>\n
The Complainant submitted the following documents to prove the abovementioned facts:<\/p>\n
The Respondent is Deepak Daftari, the CEO of DD Web Vision Pvt. Ltd., based in Kolkata, India, specialised in domain name investment and buy‑side brokering.<\/p>\n
He began investing in domains in 2005 and has curated a portfolio that includes CoFounder.com, Mischief.com, and Majesty.com. He is also an investor across tech and food sectors, and is involved in health‑adjacent ventures.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name <theproteinbrewery.com> was registered on December 31, 2020 and was purchased by the Respondent in January 2021, as stated by the Respondent himself.<\/p>\n
The Respondent submitted the following documents:<\/p>\n
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": "
A- Complainant’s Contentions<\/p>\n
The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is identical to its registered trademark THE PROTEIN BREWERY. The disputed domain name wholly reproduces the Complainant’s distinctive trademark, differing only by the absence of spaces, which is standard in domain name formatting, and the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain “.com”.<\/p>\n
The Complainant further contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has never been authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted to use the Complainant’s trademark, nor is the Respondent commonly known by the name “The Protein Brewery.” The disputed domain name has not been used in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services, but merely resolves to a parking page offering the domain name for sale for USD 15,000, which exceeds the Respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs. Such use does not constitute a legitimate non-commercial or fair use under the Policy.<\/p>\n
Finally, the Complainant submits that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The domain name was registered nearly one year after the Complainant’s trademark registration and after the Complainant had already established significant commercial activity and reputation under the trademark THE PROTEIN BREWERY. Given the timing and circumstances, the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant’s rights at the time of registration. The Respondent’s passive holding of the domain name combined with its explicit offer for sale demonstrates that the primary purpose of the registration was to sell the domain name to the Complainant or a competitor for valuable consideration in excess of registration costs, constituting bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy. The circumstances of this case further fall within established UDRP precedent on bad faith passive holding.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
B- Respondent’s Contentions<\/p>\n
The Respondent contends that the disputed domain name <theproteinbrewery.com> is composed exclusively of common, dictionary words that are descriptive in the food, nutrition, and fermentation industries. The terms “protein” and “brewery” are widely used to describe fermentation-based protein production, and their combination, preceded by the determiner “the,” does not uniquely identify the Complainant. As such, the disputed domain name is inherently descriptive and not exclusively associated with the Complainant.<\/p>\n
The Respondent submits that it has rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent recalls the principle of “first-come, first-served”. The domain name was acquired in January 2021 as part of a long-standing and bona fide domain-name investment business focused on registering and holding descriptive and commercially valuable domain names. According to the Registrant, registering and holding common-word domain names for resale constitutes a legitimate business activity under the Policy, provided there is no targeting of a specific trademark owner. The Respondent denies having registered the disputed domain name with the Complainant or its trademark in mind and states that it was unaware of the Complainant at the time of acquisition.<\/p>\n
The Respondent further argues that the disputed domain name has not been registered or used in bad faith. There is no evidence that the Respondent had actual knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark at the time of registration, and constructive knowledge is insufficient under the Policy. The Respondent did not solicit the Complainant to sell the domain name; rather, he thinks that the Complainant approached him with an unsolicited offer to purchase the domain name. A general offer to sell a domain name composed of descriptive terms, or responding to a purchase inquiry, does not constitute bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy. Moreover, the doctrine of passive holding is inapplicable, as the disputed domain name is descriptive, does not target a well-known or highly distinctive mark, and is capable of plausible good-faith use.<\/p>\n
Finally, the Respondent submits that the Complaint constitutes an attempt at reverse domain name hijacking, having been brought only after the Complainant failed to acquire the disputed domain name through commercial negotiations, despite the absence of evidence of bad faith registration or use.<\/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>\n
The Respondent has NOT<\/strong> shown the disputed domain name isn’t 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>\n The Respondent has NOT<\/strong> shown that he has 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>\n The Respondent has NOT<\/strong> shown the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in good 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>\n The Panel observes that the Complainant appears to be relatively unfamiliar with UDRP proceedings, whereas the Respondent demonstrates a high degree of familiarity with the procedure.<\/p>",
"decision": "Accepted",
"panelists": [
"Nathalie Dreyfus"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2025-12-19 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " The Complainant has proved to own the following trademark rights, inter alia:<\/p>\n The Complainants also owns the following domain name:<\/p>\n\n
\n