DECISION

 

BEAST HOLDINGS, LLC v. Mary Jones / Microsoft

Claim Number: FA2506002159385

 

PARTIES

Complainant is BEAST HOLDINGS, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Ryan Kaiser, Illinois, USA. Respondent is Mary Jones / Microsoft ("Respondent"), Germany.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <beastcaze.com>, registered with Web Commerce Communications Limited dba WebNic.cc.

 

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

 

Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 5, 2025; Forum received payment on June 6, 2025.

 

On June 6, 2025, Web Commerce Communications Limited dba WebNic.cc confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <beastcaze.com> domain name is registered with Web Commerce Communications Limited dba WebNic.cc and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Web Commerce Communications Limited dba WebNic.cc has verified that Respondent is bound by the Web Commerce Communications Limited dba WebNic.cc 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 9, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 30, 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@beastcaze.com. Also on June 9, 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.

 

Having received no response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On July 1, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Ho-Hyun Nahm, 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. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

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

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

i) MrBeast, whose legal name is James Donaldson, is a globally recognized content creator renowned for high-budget challenge videos and philanthropic giveaways, followed by more than 330 million subscribers on YouTube and over 100 million followers on TikTok. Since at least 2015, Complainant has continuously used the MRBEAST trademark in connection with Class 41 services, and since 2019 and 2020, respectively, in relation to Class 25 goods and a design mark. These MRBEAST marks have become widely recognized by consumers as identifying services and goods exclusively associated with Complainant, reflecting substantial goodwill and brand value. Complainant holds rights, inter alia, in the MRBEAST mark by virtue of its registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 5,930,575, registered December 10, 2019). The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark.

 

ii) Respondent holds no rights or legitimate interests in the MRBEAST mark and has no affiliation with, or authorization from, Complainant. Complainant's trademark rights clearly predate the registration of the disputed domain name, which has been used for a fraudulent phishing website that falsely purports to be in partnership with Complainant, featuring his image and the associated design mark. Such conduct does not give rise to any rights or legitimate interests.

 

iii) Respondent has intentionally employed the disputed domain name to divert users for commercial gain by generating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's MRBEAST marks as to the source, sponsorship, or affiliation of Respondent's website and associated services, thereby misappropriating Complainant's goodwill. The website linked to the disputed domain name falsely implies an affiliation with Complainant, incorporates Complainant's panther logo and embedded media, and is designed to deceive consumers. Respondent's awareness of Complainant's rights at the time of registration constitutes strong evidence of bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

1. Respondent registered the disputed domain name on May 10, 2025.

 

2. Complainant has established rights in the MRBEAST mark through its registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 5,930,575, registered December 10, 2019).

 

3. The webpage associated with the disputed domain name falsely conveys an affiliation with Complainant, displays Complainant's panther logo and embedded content, and is intentionally designed to mislead consumers.

 

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.

 

In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules.  The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) ("Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint").

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Complainant asserts rights in the MRBEAST mark through its registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 5,930,575, registered December 10, 2019). Registration of a mark with the USPTO is typically considered valid evidence of rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). As Complainant has submitted a valid trademark registration issued by the USPTO, the Panel determines that Complainant has thereby established rights in the MRBEAST mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Complainant contends that the disputed domain name, <beastcaze.com>, is confusingly similar to its MRBEAST mark in terms of appearance, pronunciation, and overall impression, and is intended to deceive consumers into believing that Respondent's website is in some way affiliated with, sponsored by, or approved by Complainant, which it is not.

 

The Panel notes that the disputed domain name incorporates the dominant element BEAST, which is a key component of Complainant's MRBEAST mark, combined with a misspelled variation of the descriptive term "case" and the ".com" gTLD. In light of the foregoing, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's MRBEAST mark within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Section 2.1, WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 ("Where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element.").

 

Complainant argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the  disputed  domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name nor has Respondent been authorized by Complainant to use Complainant's mark; and Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant. Relevant information, such as WHOIS information, can be used as evidence to show a respondent is or is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). The Panel notes that the unmasked WHOIS information lists "Mary Jones / Microsoft" as the registrant, and there is no evidence in the record to suggest Respondent was authorized to use the mark. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

Additionally, Complainant argues that Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or for any legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Prior to the removal of content from the associated webpage, the site misleadingly suggested an affiliation with Complainant, featured Complainant's panther logo and embedded materials, and was deliberately structured to deceive consumers by imitating Complainant's offerings. Respondent created a deceptive imitation of Complainant's website.

 

Under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii), the use of a disputed domain name to offer competing or related services by way of passing off is generally not regarded as a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor as a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Netflix, Inc. v. Irpan Panjul , 3corp.inc, FA 1741976 (Forum Aug. 22, 2017) ("The usage of Complainant's NETFLIX mark which has a significant reputation in relation to audio-visual services for unauthorized audio-visual material is not fair as the site does not make it clear that there is no commercial connection with Complainant and this amounts to passing off . . . As such the panelist finds that Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name."); see also DaVita Inc. v. Cynthia Rochelo, FA 1738034 (Forum July 20, 2017) ("Passing off in furtherance of a phishing scheme is not considered a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use.").

 

The Panel therefore finds that Respondent's use of the disputed domain name to mimic Complainant's site does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii).

 

The Panel concludes that Complainant has established a prima facie case based on the foregoing considerations. All of the above circumstances support the finding of a prima facie showing against Respondent. As Respondent has failed to submit a Response or otherwise contest Complainant's prima facie case, the Panel finds that Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant asserts that Respondent has intentionally employed the disputed domain name to divert users for commercial gain by generating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's MRBEAST marks as to the source, sponsorship, or affiliation of Respondent's website and associated services, thereby misappropriating Complainant's goodwill. The website associated with the disputed domain name misleadingly suggests a connection with Complainant, displays Complainant's panther logo and embedded media, and is deliberately crafted to deceive Internet users.

 

Under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), the use of a disputed domain name to pass off as Complainant and offer similar or competing services may constitute evidence of bad faith attraction for commercial gain. See Ripple Labs Inc. v. Jessie McKoy , Ripple Reserve Fund, FA 1790949 (Forum July 9, 2018) ("finding bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv) where the respondent used the disputed domain name to resolve to a website that passed off as the complainant and offered online cryptocurrency services in direct competition with the complainant's business"). The Panel finds that Respondent's conduct in impersonating MRBEAST and diverting Internet users seeking Complainant's services disrupts Complainant's commercial activities and is intended to generate monetary gain. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv).

 

Complainant further contends that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name with knowledge of Complainant's rights in the MRBEAST mark. While constructive knowledge alone is insufficient for a finding of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii), actual knowledge of another's trademark rights, inferred from the fame of the mark and Respondent's conduct, may suffice. See Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014) ("The Panel notes that although the UDRP does not recognize 'constructive notice' as sufficient grounds for finding Policy paragraph 4(a)(iii) bad faith, the Panel here finds actual knowledge through the name used for the domain and the use made of it."); see also AutoZone Parts, Inc. v. Ken Belden, FA 1815011 (Forum Dec. 24, 2018) ("Complainant contends that Respondent's knowledge can be presumed in light of the substantial fame and notoriety of the AUTOZONE mark, as well as the fact that Complainant is the largest retailer in the field. The Panel here finds that Respondent did have actual knowledge of Complainant's mark, demonstrating bad faith registration and use under Policy paragraph 4(a)(iii).").

 

The Panel notes that MRBEAST, whose legal name is James Donaldson, is an internationally recognized content creator known for large-scale challenge videos and charitable initiatives, commanding an audience of more than 330 million subscribers on YouTube and over 100 million followers on TikTok. Since at least 2015, Complainant has continuously used the MRBEAST mark, which has become widely known to consumers as identifying Complainant as the exclusive source of the associated services and goods, thus generating substantial goodwill and brand recognition prior to the registration of the disputed domain name.

 

Based on the notoriety of Complainant's mark and Respondent's imitation of Complainant's website, the Panel infers that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's trademark rights at the time of registration. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used 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 <beastcaze.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

 

Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist

Dated: July 5, 2025