DECISION
Choice Labs, LLC v. lary slowman
Claim Number: FA2508002173160
PARTIES
Complainant is Choice Labs, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Joanna M. Myers of Howard & Howard Attorneys PLLC, Nevada, USA. Respondent is lary slowman ("Respondent"), Nevada, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <choicechewsedibles.com>, registered with HOSTINGER operations, UAB.
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.
James Bridgeman SC as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on August 22, 2025; Forum received payment on August 22, 2025.
On August 25, 2025, HOSTINGER operations, UAB confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <choicechewsedibles.com> domain name is registered with HOSTINGER operations, UAB and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. HOSTINGER operations, UAB has verified that Respondent is bound by the HOSTINGER operations, UAB 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 August 29, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 18, 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@choicechewsedibles.com.
Also on August 29, 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 September 21, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed James Bridgeman SC 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 disputed domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES' CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
Complainant claims rights in the CHOICE CHEWS trademark, based on its ownership of the State of Michigan, USA, trademark registration described below and extensive use of the mark in its business of manufacturing and retailing cannabis-infused edible products.
Complainant submits that it was founded in 2017 and has used the CHOICE CHEWS mark continuously in commerce since at least February 2019, which predates the registration of the disputed domain name by over six years.
Furthermore, Complainant asserts that it has invested substantial resources in promoting the CHOICE CHEWS brand, including advertising in print, broadcast media, and online platforms, and consequently has developed significant goodwill and consumer recognition in the brand.
Complainant further asserts that it has an established Internet presence established through its website <www.choicelabs.com>, and it has acquired both registered and common law rights in the CHOICE CHEWS mark.
Firstly, Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its CHOICE CHEWS mark as it contains Complainant's mark in combination with the generic term "edibles" and the generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") extension ".com".
Complainant argues that the addition of the generic term "edibles" and the generic Top Level ("gTLD") extension <.com> do not distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant's trademark. Complainant cites the decision of the panel in Marquette Golf Club v. Al Perkins, FA 1738263 (Forum July 27, 2017) ("When a respondent's domain name incorporates a mark in its entirety and merely adds a generic top-level domain (gTLD), ".com", then the Panel may find that the disputed domain name is identical to Complainant's mark.").
Complainant secondly alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because:
· Respondent registered the disputed domain name on April 2, 2025, long after Complainant acquired rights in the CHOICE CHEWS mark;
· Respondent is using the disputed domain name to attract Complainant's potential customers and redirect them to a website impersonating Complainant, for Respondent's financial gain;
· as shown in screen captures of the Complainant's website and Respondent's website, each of which are exhibited in an annex to the Complaint, Respondent's website adopts Complainant's distinct logos, trade dress, and branding, creating a false impression of affiliation;
· the exhibited website to which the disputed domain name resolves includes an "About Us" page, copyright notice, and purported payment options (PayPal, Apple Pay, Bitcoin, Venmo), none of which are legitimate or functioning;
· panels have declined to find a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of a domain name when a respondent diverts traffic to a site that imitates a complainant. See Dell Inc. v. Devesh Tyagi, FA 1785301 (Forum June 2, 2018) ("Respondent replicates Complainant's website and displays Complainant's products. The Panel finds that this use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) & (iii).");
· panels established under the Policy have consistently declined to find a bona fide offering of goods or services when a respondent diverts traffic to a site that imitates a complainant;
· there is no evidence that Respondent is commonly known by the name "Choice Chews";
· the WHOIS records and website content do not suggest any legitimate connection to the name. See Wells Fargo & Co. v. Onlyne Corp. Services11, Inc., FA 198969 (Forum Nov. 17, 2003) (respondent not commonly known by the domain name at issue where nothing in the WHOIS record suggests otherwise);
· Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use the CHOICE CHEWS mark in any manner.
Thirdly, Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name which incorporates Complainant's CHOICE CHEWS mark, was registered on April 2, 2025, long after Complainant established its rights in the CHOICE CHEWS mark.
Furthermore, Respondent has never used the disputed domain name in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services.
Instead, as shown in the exhibit annexed to the Complaint, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to divert Internet users to a fraudulent website offering goods identical to those of Complainant. See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. LaFaive, FA 95407 (Forum Sept. 27, 2000) ("[u]nauthorized providing of information and services under a mark owned by a third party cannot be said to be the bona fide offering of goods or services").
Complainant asserts that
· Respondent's website impersonates Complainant and uses Complainant's branding to deceive consumers;
· Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) provides that bad faith is evidenced when a domain name is used to intentionally attract, for commercial gain, Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark;
· Respondent's use of the disputed domain name to impersonate Complainant and sell counterfeit goods identical to Complainant's is a clear attempt to trade off the goodwill associated with the CHOICE CHEWS mark;
· Respondent's actions mislead consumers into believing that Respondent is affiliated with or endorsed by Complainant, which is not the case;
· Respondent's impersonation of Complainant and use of the disputed domain name for fraudulent purposes evidences bad faith.
Furthermore, Complainant submits that Respondent's actions constitute initial interest confusion, where consumers are misled into visiting Respondent's site under the false belief it is affiliated with Complainant. See Plycon Vanlines, Inc. v. Transport Leads / Transport Leads, LLC, FA 1633576 (Forum Sept. 16, 2015) ("bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) exists where a respondent uses a confusingly similar domain name to sell products and services similar to those offered by the complainant who holds rights in a mark").
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
FINDINGS
Complainant is a provider of retail services in the cannabis industry, specializing in edible products such as gummies and soft chews.
Complainant is the owner of Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (LARA) of the State of Michigan, USA, registered trademark CHOICE CHEWS, registration number 200000047, registered for goods in class 46 namely "edible soft chews containing cannabis."
Complainant has an established Internet presence and operates its official website at <www.choicelabs.com>.
The disputed domain name is <choicechewsedibles.com> was registered on April 2, 2025, and resolves to a website impersonating Complainant and offering goods for sale that are identical to those offered by Complainant, namely, edibles and gummies.
There is no information available about Respondent, except for that provided in the Complaint, the Registrar's WhoIs for the disputed domain name, and the Registrar's response to the request by Forum for details of the registration of the disputed domain name for the purpose of this proceeding.
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 provided convincing, uncontested evidence that it has rights in the CHOICE CHEWS mark, established by the ownership of the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (LARA) of the State of Michigan, USA, registered trademark CHOICE CHEWS, dated July 25, 2025, claiming first use on commerce on February 28, 2019.
The disputed domain name <choicechewsedibles.com> consists of Complainant's CHOICE CHEWS mark in its entirety, in combination with the descriptive word "edibles" together with the generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") extension <.com>.
It is well accepted that while each case is judged on its own merits, in cases where a domain name at issue incorporates the entirety of a complainant's trademark, the domain name at issue will normally be considered confusingly similar to that mark for purposes of the Policy.
Applying this principle this Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark.
In the circumstances of this proceeding, Complainant's mark is the dominant and only distinctive element in the disputed domain name; and neither the descriptive element "edibles" nor the gTLD <.com>, prevents a finding of confusing similarity with the CHOICE CHEWS mark.
This Panel finds therefore that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the CHOICE CHEWS mark in which Complainant has rights, and Complainant has therefore succeeded in the first element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Rights or Legitimate Interests
Complainant has made out a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights legitimate interests in the disputed domain name arguing that the disputed domain name resolves to a website that purports to impersonate Complainant.
It is well established that once a complainant makes out a prima facie case that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to prove its rights or legitimate interests.
Respondent has failed to discharge that burden and therefore this Panel must find that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Complainant has therefore succeeded in the second element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
Unusually Complainant relies on a State registration for the disputed domain name, viz. Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (LARA) of the State of Michigan, USA, registered trademark CHOICE CHEWS, registration number 200000047, registered for goods in class 46 namely "edible soft chews containing cannabis."
Notably the trademark registration relied upon is dated July 25, 2025, which post-dates the registration of the disputed domain name on April 2, 2025.
However relevantly Complainant's website promotes a product line "Dorks Gummies" with the statement "[g]et ready to dork out on flavour!..."
Furthermore, the certificate of registration of Complainant's trademark states that the "mark was first used in commerce anywhere on February 28, 2019, and was first used in commerce in Michigan on February 28, 2019."
It is further relevant that on Complainant's own official website at <www.choicelabs.com>, Complainant prominently posts the statement "Michican's #1 Selling THC Gummies".
In the particular circumstances of this case where the trademark registration relied upon postdates the registration of the disputed domain name, it is unfortunate that Complainant has not provided any supportive evidence of its claimed use of the CHOICE CHEWS prior to the registration of the disputed domain name.
However, notwithstanding that Complainant's trademark was not registered until after the registration of the disputed domain name, a number of factors indicate that the mark was in use, as claimed, prior to the registration of the disputed domain name, and that the registrant of the disputed domain name was aware of Complainant when the disputed domain name was chosen and registered.
CHOICE CHEWS is a distinctive trademark, and the disputed domain name is composed of Complainant's mark and a description of the products which Complainant uses the mark.
Furthermore, Respondent's website:
· prominently displays Complainant's logo;
· impersonates Complainant with statements such as "[a]t Choice Chews, we redefine the edible experience with expertly craft (sic) THC gummies and edibles design (sic) for optimal taste and effect";
· presents images of Complainant's CHOICE CHEWS and Complainant's new "Dork" branded goods branded goods;
· slavishly copies text from Complainant's specifically: "Dorks Gummies – Get ready to geek out on flavour! Our Dorks THC gummies are packed with a burst of bold tast and coated in crunch, colorful crushed pebble candy…" ;
· contains the copyright legend "Copyright 2025 @ Choice Chews";
· Respondent's website does not provide any details of Respondent, but throughout purports to create the impression that the website to which the disputed domain name resolves is hosted or maintained by Complainant, which Complainant has denied.
Also, relevantly Complainant's corporate name is Choice Labs, LLC, based in Las Vegas, USA, and Respondent purports to be Lary Slowman also of Nevada, USA; and Respondent has failed to enter any Response in this proceeding.
Furthermore, on the publicly available WhoIs for the disputed domain name, Respondent has not provided details of its identity. The registrant contact, the administrative contact, and the technical contact for the disputed domain name registration is "contact@privacyprotect.org".
Taking all factors into account, this Panel finds that on the balance of probabilities the disputed domain name is being used by Respondent to impersonate Complainant on Respondent's website.
Respondent's use of Complainant's trademark within the disputed domain name as the address of the resolving website, is, on the balance of probabilities, intentionally intended to attract and confuse Internet users and cause them to divert their Internet traffic intended for Complainant and misdirect it to Respondent's website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site, which constitutes bad faith for the purposes of the Policy.
In these circumstances it is of great concern that the evidence shows that Respondent's website purports to present payment options (PayPal, Apple Pay, Bitcoin, Venmo), notwithstanding that Complainant has averred that the links are not currently functioning.
As this Panel has found that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, Complainant has succeeded in the third element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
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 <choicechewsedibles.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
___________________________________________
James Bridgeman SC, Panelist
Dated: September 22, 2025
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page