DECISION

 

Chick-fil-A, Inc. and CFA Properties, Inc. v. Muhammad Hamza

Claim Number: FA2507002164458

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Chick-fil-A, Inc. and CFA Properties, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by J. Tucker Barr of Arnall Golden Gregory LLP, Georgia, USA. Respondent is Muhammad Hamza ("Respondent"), Pakistan.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <chickfila-menu-prices.com>, registered with NameCheap, Inc.

 

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.

 

Charles A. Kuechenmeister, Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on July 7, 2025; Forum received payment on July 7, 2025.

 

On July 8, 2025, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <chickfila-menu-prices.com> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, Inc. 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 July 9, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint setting a deadline of July 29, 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@chickfila-menu-prices.com. Also on July 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 30, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Charles A. Kuechenmeister 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 a Response or any other submittal from Respondent.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

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

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE:  Multiple Complainants

Two parties, CFA Properties, Inc. and Chick-fil-A, Inc., filed this administrative proceeding as Complainants. The rules governing multiple complainants are Rule 3(a) and the Forum's Supplemental Rule 1(e). Rule 3(a) states, "Any person or entity may initiate an administrative proceeding by submitting a complaint in accordance with the Policy and these Rules."  Forum's Supplemental Rule 1(e) defines "The Party Initiating a Complaint Concerning a Domain Name Registration" as the "single person or entity claiming to have rights in the domain name, or multiple persons or entities who have a sufficient nexus who can each claim to have rights to all domain names listed in the Complaint."  Previous panels have interpreted the Forum's Supplemental Rule 1(e) to allow multiple parties to proceed as one party where they can show a sufficient link to each other. For example, in Vancouver Org. Comm. for the 2010 Olympic and Paralymic Games & Int'l Olympic Comm. v. Malik, FA 666119 (Forum May 12, 2006), the panel stated:

 

It has been accepted that it is permissible for two complainants to submit a single complaint if they can demonstrate a link between the two entities such as a relationship involving a license, a partnership or an affiliation that would establish the reason for the parties bringing the complaint as one entity.

 

In this case, the Complainant states that CFA Properties, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Chick-fil-A, Inc.  Complainant submitted no documentary or other evidence specifically addressing this alleged corporate relationship, but the address given for both entities in the Complaint and several of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) registration certificates included in Complaint Exhibits 5 and 7 is the same, as is the telephone number given for both entities in the Complaint. The USPTO registration certificates for the CHICK-FIL-A marks included in Complaint Exhibits 5 and 7 all show CFA Properties, Inc., as the registered owner of those marks, as is alleged in the Complaint. The allegation of subsidiary relationship appears to be plausible, is not disputed and is taken as true. Subsidiary status establishes the required nexus between complainants. Skechers U.S.A., Inc. and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II v. kim seong su, FA1904001840242 (June 3, 2019) ("Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II is a wholly owned subsidiary of Skechers U.S.A., Inc.  . . . As the two Complainants in this case are in fact closely related, being part of the same company structure, the Panel accepts that the evidence in the Complaint is sufficient to establish a sufficient nexus or link between the Complainants, and the Panel will therefore treat them together as a single entity in this proceeding."), Bed Bath & Beyond Procurement Co, Inc. et al. v. shaoxuan li / lishaoxuan, FA1902001829423 (Forum Mar. 11, 2019). The same is true of intellectual property holding companies and their corporate parents. Guess? IP Holder L.P. and Guess?, Inc. v. New Ventures Services, Corp., FA1901001825019 (Forum Feb. 10, 2019) ("Complainant Guess IP Holder is a holding company concerned with Complainant Guess, Inc.'s intellectual property. The Panel therefore finds that the two Complainants (herein referred to collectively as Complainant) have a sufficient nexus to each other and to the matters complained of such that they shall be treated as if a single entity.").  It is thus proper for both Complainants to file and prosecute a single Complaint. The Panel will treat them as a single entity for the purposes of this proceeding. All references to "Complainant" in this Decision, even though in the singular, are to both named Complainants.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant has for more than fifty years used its CHICK-FIL-A mark to market its restaurant services, food products and related goods and services. It has rights in the CHICK-FIL-A mark based upon its registration of that mark with the USPTO.  Respondent's domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's mark because it fully incorporates Complainant's mark, merely omitting the hyphens and adding the descriptive terms "menu" and "prices," which enhance the confusing similarity, and a generic top-level domain (gTLD).

 

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. It is not associated or affiliated with Complainant and Complainant has not licensed or authorized Respondent to use its mark, Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name, and Respondent is not using the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use but instead is using it to host pay-per-click advertisements, promote traffic to its website, solicit personal information from site visitors, and publish false information about Complainant's business.

 

Respondent registered and uses the domain name in bad faith. It registered the domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant and its mark, it is using the domain name to attract for commercial gain Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of its website, and it registered the domain name primarily to disrupt Complainant's business.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

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 a complainant to prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order cancelling or transferring a domain name:

 

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

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

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

 

In view of Respondent's failure to submit a Response, pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules the Panel will decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations 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 as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent's failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true). Nevertheless, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. 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"), WIPO Overview 3.0, at ¶ 4.3 ("In cases involving wholly unsupported and conclusory allegations advanced by the complainant, . . . panels may find that—despite a respondent's default—a complainant has failed to prove its case."). The WIPO Overview 3.0 is not a definitive statement of applicable law or practice standards which governs any particular issue, but it does express a consensus among a significant number of UDRP panelists as to how particular issues typically are and should be resolved. This Panel accepts that consensus on this and other issues addressed later in this Decision.

 

The Panel finds as follows with respect to the matters at issue in this proceeding:

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The CHICK-FIL-A mark was registered to Complainant with the USPTO (Reg. No. 1,209,211) on September 14, 1982 (USPTO registration certificate included in Complaint Exhibit 5). Complainant's USPTO registration of its mark establishes its rights in that mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). DIRECTV, LLC v. The Pearline Group, FA 1818749 (Forum Dec. 30, 2018) ("Complainant's ownership of a USPTO registration for DIRECTV demonstrates its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).").

 

Respondent's domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's mark. It fully incorporates the mark, merely omitting the hyphens and adding descriptive terms, new hyphens and a gTLD. These changes do not distinguish the domain name from Complainant's mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).  Papa John's International, Inc. v. Keith Hatton / USA24K.com, FA 1647881 (Forum Dec. 29, 2015) ("Respondent's domain names are identical to the PAPA JOHN'S mark because they contain the entire mark, less the space and apostrophe, combined with only changes such as hyphens and the generic top-level domain (gTLD) '.org.'"). Yahoo! Inc. v. HEIDI BUI, FA 1638878 (Forum Oct. 26, 2015) (finding that punctuation is not significant in determining the similarity of a domain name and mark), MTD Products Inc v J Randall Shank, FA 1783050 (Forum June 27, 2018) ("The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark as it wholly incorporates the CUB CADET mark before appending the generic terms 'genuine' and 'parts' as well as the '.com' gTLD.").  The WIPO Overview 3.0, at ¶ 1.7, states that the test for confusing similarity "typically involves a side-by-side comparison of the domain name and the textual components of the relevant trademark to assess whether the mark is recognizable within the domain name."  Notwithstanding the changes described above, Complainant's mark is clearly recognizable within the domain name.

 

Further, the addition of descriptive terms that relate to a complainant can actually enhance confusion. That is the case with the domain name involved here. As noted by Complainant, the terms "menu" and "prices" are a key part of Complainant's restaurant business. Adding them to Complainant's mark in the domain name enhances the confusing similarity. PADI Americas, Inc. v. MPM Administration, FA 1783415 (Forum May 22, 2018) (finding the <padivacations.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to the complainant's PADI mark: "the inclusion of the suggestive term 'vacations' in the at-issue domain name only adds to any confusion between the domain name and Complainant's trademark since the term suggests Complainant's travel related services.").

 

For the reasons set forth above, the Panel finds that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the CHICK-FIL-A mark, in which Complainant has substantial and demonstrated rights. 

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

If a complainant makes a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden of production shifts to respondent to come forward with evidence that it has rights or legitimate interests in it. Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) ("Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests"). If a respondent fails to come forward with such evidence, the complainant's prima facie evidence will be sufficient to establish that respondent lacks such rights or legitimate interests. If the respondent does come forward with such evidence, the Panel must assess the evidence in its entirety. At all times, the burden of proof remains on the complainant. WIPO Overview 3.0, at ¶ 2.1.

 

Policy ¶ 4(c) lists the following three nonexclusive circumstances, any one of which if proven can demonstrate a respondent's rights or legitimate interests in a domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii):

 

(i)                      Before any notice to the respondent of the dispute, the respondent's use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services;

(ii)                      The respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if the respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or

(iii)                      The respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.

 

Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name because (i) it is not associated or affiliated with Complainant and Complainant has not licensed or authorized Respondent to use its mark, (ii) Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name, and (iii) Respondent is not using the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use but instead is using it to host pay-per-click advertisements, promote traffic to its website, solicit personal information from site visitors, and publish false information about Complainant's business.  These allegations are addressed as follows:

 

Complainant states that Respondent is not affiliated or connected with Complainant and that Complainant has not authorized or licensed Respondent to use its mark. Complainant has specific competence to make this statement, it is not controverted by any evidence in the record, and it is taken as true. In the absence of evidence that a respondent is authorized to use a complainant's mark in a domain name or that a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name, the respondent may be presumed to lack rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. IndyMac Bank F.S.B. v. Eshback, FA 830934 (Forum Dec. 7, 2006) (finding that the respondent failed to establish rights and legitimate interests in the <emitmortgage.com> domain name as the respondent was not authorized to register domain names featuring the complainant's mark and failed to submit evidence that it is commonly known by the domain name), Indeed, Inc. v. Ankit Bhardwaj / Recruiter, FA 1739470 (Forum Aug. 3, 2017) ("Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant's trademark in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of the at-issue domain name.").

 

The information furnished to Forum by the registrar lists the named Respondent as the registrant of the domain name. This name bears no resemblance to the domain name. Evidence could, of course, in a given case demonstrate that the respondent is commonly known by a domain name different from the name in which it registered the domain name, e.g., the case of a domain name incorporating the brand name of a specific product offered by and associated with the respondent. In the absence of any such evidence, however, and in cases where no response has been filed, UDRP panels have consistently held that WHOIS evidence of a registrant name which does not correspond with the domain name is sufficient to prove that the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name. Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Suzen Khan / Nancy Jain / Andrew Stanzy, FA 1741129 (Forum Aug. 16, 2017) (finding that respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names when the identifying information provided by WHOIS was unrelated to the domain names or respondent's use of the same), Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA1408001574905 (Forum Sept. 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark). The Panel is satisfied that the Respondent has not been commonly known by the domain name.

 

Complaint Exhibits 11, 12, 14, 16 and 18 contain screenshots of pages of the website resolving from the domain name. The site does not copy or attempt to mimic Complainant's site (screenshot of home page submitted as Complaint Exhibit 10) and in fact is quite different from Complainant's site in general appearance. Five of the pages contain a disclaimer printed in red font at the top stating, "Disclaimer: It's informational site about Chick-fil-A, we are not associated or affiliated with Chick-fil-A officials [sic]."  The "About Us" page (Complaint Exhibit 12) states "We are a food lover of Chick-fil-A, our mission is to be your go-to source for all things Chick-fil-A."  The site does not offer commentary or critique of Complainant's products, merely information about them. The site sponsor is not identified on any of the pages. Some of the pages display a copyright notice at the bottom which names the copyright holder as CFA, Inc., while others name the copyright holder as "Chick-fil-A Menu with Prices."  There is no representation that the site is Complainant's. A "How to Order Chick-fil-A" script on Complaint Exhibit 18 instructs the visitor to visit any Chick-fil-A location. Nowhere on any of the pages is opportunity given to order Complainant's products from the website. From the foregoing it is evident that Respondent is not holding itself out or passing off as Complainant, and indeed the Complaint does not allege that it is.

 

The factors which Complainant asserts demonstrate a lack of rights or legitimate interests are (i) Respondent's use of the domain name for pay-per-click links and (ii) the fact that Respondent's website gives false information about a number of Complainant's products. Complaint Exhibit 11 contains an ad for the <hotels.com> website but there is no evidence of a hyperlink to that site. There is a hyperlink to a United States-based financial institution on two of the pages displayed on Complaint Exhibit 16. This supports Complainant's allegation of a pay-per-click scheme, albeit somewhat limited in scope. Using a confusingly similar domain name to display pay-per-click advertising is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(iv). Vance Int'l, Inc. v. Abend, FA 970871 (Forum June 8, 2007) (concluding that the operation of a pay-per-click website at a confusingly similar domain name does not represent a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, regardless of whether or not the links resolve to competing or unrelated websites or if the respondent is itself commercially profiting from the click-through fees).

 

Complainant also argues that Respondent's website displays false or inaccurate information about Complainant's products. Respondent's site does display prices along with specific menu items. Because of variations in the circumstances of its numerous restaurants located throughout the United States and other countries, Complainant does not publish national pricing on its website because not all menu items are available at every location, and prices may vary from location to location. Complaint Exhibit 13 is a screenshot of the online ordering pages for Complainant's Colony Square location in Atlanta, Georgia. The prices shown there are in fact different from the prices shown on Respondent's website (Complaint Exhibit 11) for the same items. Complaint Exhibit 17 is a screenshot of the ingredients of a chicken sandwich given on Complainant's website at <chick-fil-a.com>. The ingredients of the same sandwich shown on Respondent's website (Complaint Exhibit 16) are materially different in that while Complainant's description is detailed and specific, Respondent's is general in nature and does not name specific vitamins and other compounds listed by Complainant.  Finally, Respondent's website (Complaint Exhibit 18) purports to furnish information about the nutritional value and caloric content of some of Complainant's products. Complainant states on its website (Complaint Exhibit 15) that it "has made a reasonable and good-faith effort to calculate nutrition and ingredient information based on standard product formulations and serving sizes," but that there may be variation in the ingredients, serving sizes, and preparation methods for menu items across the brand system. Customers are directed to their local restaurant's menu to view information specific to that restaurant. Complainant further alleges that Respondent's providing false information about the nutritional value and ingredients of Complainant's products without a similar disclaimer is not only misleading but also potentially dangerous to its customers. Providing useful, accurate information about the goods or services of another can constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or be a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, but using a confusingly similar domain name to publish false or inaccurate information about a Complainant's goods or services cannot. There is no evidence that Respondent's actions in this regard are malicious or intentional, but if a website undertakes to provide information about the goods or services of another, doing so without making a genuine, good faith effort to ensure that the information is correct is not sufficient to confer rights or legitimate interests.

 

Complainant argues that by soliciting users' names and email addresses on the "Contact Us" page (Complaint Exhibit 14), which does no more than solicit comments or questions about the website and information about interest in "partnering" with the site sponsor, Respondent engages in phishing, which is a fraudulent attempt to obtain sensitive information such as username, passwords and credit card details by disguising oneself as a trustworthy entity in an electronic communication.  Email addresses would not normally qualify as the sensitive type of information associated with phishing. None of the pages on Respondent's website solicits banking or credit card information such as account number, passcode, expiration date or security code, nor is there any other evidence of active solicitation of sensitive, private information on Respondent's website. Phishing is not proven.

 

Notwithstanding its failure to prove phishing, Complainant has made its prima facie case. On the evidence discussed above, and in the absence of any evidence from Respondent, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name.

 

Registration or Use in Bad Faith

Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) requires Complainant to prove that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Policy ¶ 4(b) sets forth a nonexclusive list of four circumstances, any one of which if proven would be evidence of bad faith use and registration of a domain name. They are as follows:

 

(i)                      circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant which is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the respondent's documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or

(ii)                      the respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

(iii)                      the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or

(iv)         by using the domain name, the respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the respondent's web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the respondent's web site or location or of a product of service on the respondent 's web site or location.

 

The concept of bad faith as illustrated in the above four subparagraphs necessarily involves a subjective intent on the part of a respondent knowingly to trade upon the goodwill of the complainant. The respondent must intentionally have targeted the complainant's mark. Such subjective intent would in turn require that the respondent actually knew of the complainant and its rights in the relevant mark when it registered the domain name. Renu Medispa, LLC v Angela Sattler/Aesthetics, FA2503002143814 (Forum April 28, 2025) ("A foundational question under ¶ 4(a)(iii) is whether or not Respondent had knowledge of Complainant or its claimed trademark at the time it registered the disputed domain name.").

 

In attempting to discern actual knowledge and a subjective bad faith intent, panels have looked at many different types of evidence, including but not limited to use of a domain name in direct competition with a trademark owner, impersonation, the parties operating in the same market segment, the parties being physically located in the same general geographic area, a pattern of bad faith conduct, actual prior association between or among the parties, and the distinctive or famous nature of the trademark, suggesting that any similarity is not happenstance. Importantly, allegations about a respondent's subjective intention are not evidence in this regard.

 

In cases where no Response has been filed, it can be difficult to determine whether a respondent registered a domain name with actual knowledge of the complainant and its rights in the mark. In this case, however, Complainant's mark is famous as a source indicator for Complainant, it being a leading brand for restaurants featuring chicken in recent years (Information about Complainant submitted as Complaint Exhibit 8). More importantly, Respondent must have had actual knowledge of Complainant in order to create a website purporting to provide information about CHICK-FIL-A products on its website. Respondent's registration of the domain name was no happenstance. It had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the incorporated mark when it registered the domain name in July 2024 (WHOIS printout submitted as Complaint Annex 3 shows registration date).

 

This does not, however, in and of itself demonstrate bad faith registration and use. While Respondent's site contains two instances of a probable pay-per-click hyperlink, each instance occurs on a single page of a website which contains some 116 pages more or less (sum of the number of pages appearing on Complaint Exhibits 11, 12, 14, 16 and 18). These hyperlinks appear to be largely incidental to the website's primary purpose of furnishing information about Complainant's products. It is simply too much of a reach to say that Respondent is attempting for commercial gain to attract Internet users to its site if the only revenue-generating elements on the site consist of these two links, both of which are to the same entity.

 

Secondly, bad faith as contemplated by the Policy requires the complainant to prove that the respondent has taken action it knows is wrongful as against the complainant. In the context of this case, in order to obtain a finding of bad faith registration and use, Complainant must show that Respondent knew that the information about Complainant's pricing and products on its website was false and intentionally published it notwithstanding. While Respondent's site contains misinformation about Complainant's pricing and menu items, there is no evidence that Respondent is intentionally publishing information it knows to be false or inaccurate. Further, as stated above, there is no evidence of malicious intent, no evidence of Respondent profiting commercially from its website.  Indeed, Respondent's website is fully and enthusiastically supportive of Complainant and its products. The Panel is aware of the potential for disruption of Complainant's business resulting from Respondent's conduct, but the Policy requires a showing of specific intent, and the evidence falls far short of demonstrating that. 

 

For the reasons set forth above, the Panel finds that Complainant has failed to prove that Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

DECISION

Complainant having failed to establish all three elements required under the Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <chickfila-menu-prices.com> domain name REMAIN WITH Respondent.

 

 

Charles A. Kuechenmeister, Panelist

August 7, 2025