NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM

DECISION

Chewy, Inc. v. Yehor Miezientsev / Golden Gate Partners Corp

Claim Number: FA2506002158696

PARTIES

Complainant is Chewy, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Douglas N. Masters of Loeb & Loeb LLP, Illinois, USA. Respondent is Yehor Miezientsev / Golden Gate Partners Corp ("Respondent"), Wyoming, USA.

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <getchewie.co>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

David P. Miranda, Esq., as Panelist.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 2, 2025; Forum received payment on June 2, 2025.

On June 2, 2025, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <getchewie.co> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, LLC registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").

On June 3, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 23, 2025 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@getchewie.co. Also on June 3, 2025, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.

A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on June 20, 2025.

Complainant's Reply dated June 25, 2025; and Respondent's Opposition dated June 26, 2025 were received and considered.

On June 24, 2025, pursuant to the Parties' requests to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed David P. Miranda, Esq., as Panelist.

Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2.

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

For over a decade, Complainant has provided pet products and pet wellness-related goods and services under the CHEWY Marks, including pet food, treats, supplies, accessories, veterinary pharmaceutical products and services, and philanthropic services in relation to monetary donations to pet rescues, shelters and charities. Complainant operates one of the largest online retail stores under the CHEWY Marks with over 9 million square feet of fulfillment warehouse space. It manages fulfillment centers in 16 locations, corporate offices in four locations, and customer service centers in four locations across the United States, including in Florida, Massachusetts, Arizona, Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Ohio, North Carolina, Texas, Minnesota, Washington, Tennessee, Colorado, and Georgia. Complainant employs more than 17,000 people and offers over 130,000 products and services offerings from over 3,500 brands. In its 2024 fiscal year, Complainant had net sales of $11.86 billion. The company maintained over 20.5 million active customers in 2024. It is currently featured on the Fortune 500 for 2024, ranked 362nd. Complainant continues to be an incredibly popular, trusted, and valuable brand, having been ranked 26th on Forbes' "The Halo 100: 2022."

Complainant began using the CHEWY Marks well before February 26, 2024, the registration date of the disputed Domain Name. Complainant's history dates back to 2011, when it was founded by Ryan Cohen and Michael Day as a customer-focused online retailer for pet supplies. By 2017, Complainant had achieved approximately $2 billion in revenue and accounted for 51% of online pet food sales in the United States. In May 2017, PetSmart acquired Complainant for $3.35 billion. The company went public in 2019 under the ticker symbol CHWY. Since then, Complainant has expanded into providing veterinary, telehealth, and pet wellness services. Therefore, Complainant has used the CHEWY Marks for over a decade.

Complainant owns multiple trademark applications and registrations for the CHEWY Marks in the U.S. and globally; examples of Complainant's U.S. registrations are listed below:

Mark	Int'l Class	Reg. No.	Reg. Date	Status
CHEWY.COM	35	4,346,308	June 4, 2013	Registered/ Incontestable
CHEWY	35	5,028,009	Aug. 23, 2016	Registered/ Incontestable
CHEWY	9	6,788,620	July 12, 2022	Registered
CHEWY	35	5,834,442	Aug. 13, 2019	Registered
CHEWY	18, 25	6,847,058	Sept. 13, 2022	Registered
CHEWY CLAUS	43	7,380,887	May 7, 2024	Registered
CHEWY GIVES BACK	36, 43, 44	6,654,425	Feb. 22, 2022	Registered
CHEWY HEALTH	35, 42, 44	6,268,490	Feb. 9, 2021	Registered

Complainant contends these registrations are valid, subsisting and in full force and effect. These marks were registered since before February 26, 2024, the registration date of the Domain Name at issue.

Complainant also maintains an active Internet presence and maintains Internet websites at domain names incorporating the CHEWY Marks, including, but not limited to, <chewy.com>. Complainant's websites serve as a primary marketing and informational tool for Complainant and as a primary point of communication between Complainant, its customers and investors. For example, the website at https://www.chewy.com is Complainant's main corporate website that provides key information about Complainant, its CHEWY Marks and Complainant's products and services.

Complainant contends Respondent is not using or preparing to use the Domain Name or a name corresponding to the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the Domain Name within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii), and has registered and used the domain in bad faith.

B. Respondent

Respondent contends the disputed domain name was registered by Respondent in connection with the launch of its first product-a durable soccer ball toy designed specifically for dogs. At the time, Respondent operated as a single-product, family-owned business. In choosing a name that reflected the nature and function of the product, Respondent coined the name "Chewie," a term commonly and generically used in the pet industry to refer to chewable toys.

The term "chewie" is a generic descriptor rooted in the English verb ''to chew" and is commonly used in everyday language to describe objects that are chewable. "Chewie" is an informal term for a chewable treat or toy for pets.

Respondent's website at getchewie.co employs distinct branding, including a logo featuring a dog paw, unique fonts, and a color palette that bears no resemblance to the Complainant's branding.

C. Additional Submissions

Complainant disputes Respondent's argument that the coexistence of the Disputed Domain Name with Complainant's rights in the CHEWY Marks for just over a year (since February 26, 2024, the registration date of the Disputed Domain Name) without instances of actual consumer confusion suggests that confusion is unlikely to arise. Such a short period of coexistence is not an indicator of consumer confusion. Furthermore, in a proceeding brought under the UDRP Policy, there is no requirement that complainant produce any evidence of actual confusion between its mark and the respondent's domain name, nor that the complainant prove the same.

FINDINGS

Complainant has established each of the elements required under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, and as such the domain name at issue shall be transferred from Respondent to the Complainant.

DISCUSSION

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:

(1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and

(2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

(3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Complainant is filing this proceeding to recover the disputed Domain Name <getchewie.co> registered and used in violation of its rights. The Disputed Domain Name is currently active and contains an active website with the online retail store selling pet products, including pet clothing, pet shoes, pet toys, pet bedding and other pet accessories ("Infringing Website").

Complainant has established rights in its famous CHEWY Marks through long and continuous use of the marks in commerce in the U.S. and globally, as well as through registration of the CHEWY Marks with the trademark authorities in both the U.S. and foreign jurisdictions for over a decade. The <getchewie.co> Domain Name was registered on February 26, 2024, long after Complainant's rights in the CHEWY Marks had already been established.

UDRP panels have found respondents' domain names incorporating intentional misspellings of complainants' marks confusingly under similar circumstances. See, e.g. Indeed, Inc. v. Daniel Wood / dc motors & co, FA 1798578 (Forum Sept. 3, 2018), "misspelling a complainant's mark, either by adding or deleting letters, may not sufficiently mitigate any confusing similarity between a disputed domain name and mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)."); see also Ecolab USA Inc. v. Tomasz Kluz / Ekolab s.c. Tomasz i Aleksandra Kluz, FA 1386906 (Forum June 3, 2011) (finding <ekolab.info> confusingly similar to ECOLAB); Pfizer Inc. v. Phizer's Antiques, D2002-0410 (WIPO July 3, 2002) (finding the <phizer.com> domain name phonetically equivalent and confusingly similar to the PFIZER mark); VeriFone Inc. v. Whois Protection Service LLC, FA 1225808 (Forum Nov. 10, 2008) (finding the <veriphone.com> domain name phonetically equivalent and confusingly similar to complainant's VERIFONE mark). Thus, the panel finds the domain name confusingly similar to Complainant's marks.

Rights or Legitimate Interests

There is no evidence that Respondent has been known by the names "Get Chewie" or "Chewie" incorporated in the Domain Name before Complainant adopted its CHEWY Marks. Complainant's first use of the CHEWY Marks dates back to at least 2011, which is well before the registration of Respondent's Domain Name on February 26, 2024.

The name of Respondent is "Yehor Miezientsev" and the name of his organization is "Golden Gate Partners Corp." The Domain Name was registered in 2024, which is over ten years after Complainant adopted its CHEWY Marks and after Complainant's marks became well-known.

Complainant has satisfied its burden and made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed Domain Name. Respondent has not shown that it has rights or legitimate interests in the subject Domain Name.

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant's CHEWY Marks has been in use over a decade before Respondent adopted a confusingly similar mark, "Chewie," for use with a competing pet business and registered the Disputed Domain Name. As found by prior UDRP panels, Respondent knew or must have known of Complainant's trademark rights. See, e.g. Chewy, Inc. v. Redacted for Privacy / Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf, FA 2084352 (Forum Apr. 1, 2024).

Complainant's CHEWY Marks and the Disputed Domain Name in question are confusingly similar on their face. This confusing similarity exists regardless of the type of site to which the Internet surfer is directed when selecting the domain name. The initial interest confusion caused by the similarity between Complainant's CHEWY Marks and the Disputed Domain Name is not dispelled or remedied by the disclaimer in question. By the time an Internet surfer has selected <getchewie.co> and is then directed to the Infringing Website, they have already been confused. Cisco Technology, Inc. v. Dmitri Snytkine a/k/a ExamNotes.Net, FA 105863 (Forum Apr. 26, 2002).

Respondent registered the Domain Name in bad faith because by using the disputed Domain Name with the Infringing Website, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Infringing Website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's CHEWY Marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Infringing Website by Complainant.

Respondent is using the Domain Name to misleadingly divert and lure internet users and Complainant's prospective customers to the Infringing Website using a mark confusingly similar to the well-known CHEWY Marks and offering competing pet products for sale. For the above reasons, the panel finds Respondent has registered and used the domain in bad faith.

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <getchewie.co> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

David P. Miranda, Esq., Panelist

Dated: July 8, 2025