DECISION
Munchies, LLC v. hovik pashayan
Claim Number: FA2507002166234
PARTIES
Complainant is Munchies, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Wali U. Raja of Jarrals Law, North Carolina, USA. Respondent is hovik pashayan ("Respondent"), California, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <munchies.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
PANEL
Alan L. Limbury, as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on July 17, 2025. Forum received payment on July 17, 2025.
On July 18, 2025, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <munchies.com> 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 July 21, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 11, 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@munchies.com. Also on July 21, 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 August 12, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Alan L. Limbury 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
Complainant, Munchies, LLC, is the owner, by assignment, of all rights in and to the United States registered trademark MUNCHIES, Reg. No. 5,958,761 for "Electronic cigarette liquid (e-liquid) comprised of flavorings in liquid form, other than essential oils, used to refill electronic cigarette cartridges." Complainant has used the MUNCHIES mark in U.S. commerce since at least May 20, 2017.
The <munchies.com> domain name is identical to the MUNCHIES mark in which Complainant has superior rights in that the domain name contains the exact mark followed by the generic.com TLD.
Respondent lacks rights or a legitimate interest in the <munchies.com> domain name. Respondent is not a licensee of Complainant and has no affiliation with Complainant. Upon information and belief, Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name and has never used it in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services. Although the domain name was originally registered in 1998, there is no evidence that Respondent has ever made legitimate use of it. Instead, Respondent has kept the domain passively held and is currently offering it for sale for $500,000. This conduct indicates Respondent's lack of rights or legitimate interests and supports a finding of bad faith.
The domain name is listed for sale for a substantial price, demonstrating an intent to profit from the goodwill associated with Complainant's mark. Respondent's use of a privacy shield and passive holding further support a finding of bad faith. Respondent is attempting to profit by attracting Complainant or others willing to pay an inflated price for a domain corresponding to a well-known mark. These facts, coupled with Respondent's lack of rights or legitimate interests, lead to the inevitable conclusion that Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith, within the meaning of ¶ 4(b)(i) and (iv) of the Policy.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
FINDINGS
Complainant has failed to establish all the elements entitling it to relief.
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 has shown that it has rights in the MUNCHIES mark, namely USPTO Registration No. 5,958,761, registered to a previous owner on January 14, 2020, claiming first use in commerce on 20 May, 2017. The mark was assigned to Complainant on February 24, 2025.
The Panel finds Respondent's <munchies.com> domain name to be identical to Complainant's MUNCHIES mark, since the inconsequential ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD") may be ignored under this element. See, for example, Rollerblade, Inc. v. Chris McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000).
Complainant has established this element.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides that any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate Respondent's rights or legitimate interests to the domain name for purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(ii):
(ii) Respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert customers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
The <munchies.com> domain name was registered on June 5, 1998, many years prior to the first use in commerce and registration of Complainant's MUNCHIES mark and its subsequent assignment to Complainant. It resolves to a webpage headed: "Celebrate flavor! Discover delicious bites at munchies.com!" where it is offered for sale for $500,000.
The Panel finds that "munchies" is a common dictionary word meaning "edibles" and that the registration of such words for sale without intent to trade off the goodwill of the owner of a corresponding trademark is a legitimate business. Here, the MUNCHIES mark was not used in commerce until almost 19 years after the registration of the domain name, so it is inconceivable that Respondent could have had Complainant, its predecessor or its MUNCHIES mark in mind when registering the domain name. Accordingly, the Panel finds that, before any notice to Respondent of the dispute, Respondent has used the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of services, namely the sale of the domain name. This demonstrates Respondent's rights or legitimate interests to the domain name for purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
Complainant has failed to establish this element.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy is expressed in the conjunctive: "the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith" and Paragraph 4(b) sets out four illustrative circumstances, which, though not exclusive, shall be evidence of the registration and use of the domain name in bad faith for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii), namely:
(i) circumstances indicating that you have registered or you have acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) you have 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 you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your 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 your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location.
The circumstances set out above in relation to the second element satisfy the Panel that Respondent could not have been aware of Complainant's MUNCHIES mark when Respondent registered the <munchies.com> domain name and that Respondent did not register and is not using the domain name in bad faith.
REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKING
Reverse Domain Name Hijacking ("RDNH") is defined in Rule 1 as "using the Policy in bad faith to attempt to deprive a registered domain-name holder of a domain name". Rule 15(e) provides, in part:
"If after considering the submissions the Panel finds that the complaint was brought in bad faith, for example in an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking or was brought primarily to harass the domain-name holder, the Panel shall declare in its decision that the complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding."
As noted, the <munchies.com> domain name was registered in 1998, many years prior to the first use in commerce and registration of the MUNCHIES mark by Complainant's predecessor and its subsequent assignment to Complainant in February, 2025. The descriptive character of the domain name and the short time between the assignment of the mark to Complainant and the filing of its Complaint in this proceeding persuade the Panel that, despite Complainant being legally represented, the Complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding
DECISION
Complainant having not established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <munchies.com> domain name REMAIN WITH Respondent.
Alan L. Limbury, Panelist
Dated: August 13, 2025
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page