DECISION

 

MyBhutan, LLC v. Chechay Nidup

Claim Number: FA2508002173761

 

PARTIES

Complainant is MyBhutan, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Jonathan A. Winter of Farber LLC, Connecticut, USA. Respondent is Chechay Nidup ("Respondent"), represented by Tika R. Basnet of Basnet Attorneys and Law, Bhutan.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <mybhutan.travel>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.

 

PANEL

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

 

Alan Limbury and Dennis A. Foster as Panelists and Gerald M. Levine as Chair.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on August 26, 2025. Forum received payment on August 26, 2025.

 

On August 27, 2025, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <mybhutan.travel> 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 August 28, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 17, 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@mybhutan.travel. Also on August 28, 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 September 17, 2025.

 

On September 23, 2025, pursuant to Respondent's request to have the dispute decided by a three-member Panel, Forum appointed Alan Limbury and Dennis A. Foster as Panelists and Gerald M. Levine as Chair.

 

On September 24, 2025, the Complainant filed a Supplemental Submission.

 

On September 30, 2025, the Respondent filed a "Surrebuttal" and the Complainant filed an Exhibit 5.

 

On September 30, 2025, the Panel issued a Procedural Order that no further submissions will be received into evidence.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

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

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

The Complainant states that

1.       it has been a leading boutique luxury travel designer and outfitter for the Country of Bhutan since 2013. It is the owner of a U.S. Trademark Registration under Registration No. 5391870 for the mark MyBhutan & Design which issued on January 30, 2018.

2.       the domain <mybhutan.travel> is confusingly similar to the Complainant's mark MYBHUTAN and domains <mybhutan.com>, <mybhutantravel.com>, <mybhutan.org> and other domains.

3.       Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in <mybhutan.travel> because Respondent is not authorized by Complainant to use Complainant's MYBHUTAN Mark in its domain names.

4.       there is no reason to use the domain <mybhutan.travel> other than to trade off Complainant's registered trademark, name, domain names and reputation in the industry; that Respondent has secured the domain primarily for the purpose of passing off on Complainant's well-known MYBHUTAN mark and to operate a competing website and intends to use the domain name to provide services that are in direct competition with Complainant.

5.       That Respondent had actual and/or constructive notice of Complainant's rights in the mark MYBHUTAN is evidence of bad faith registration and use. 

6.       Respondent is clearly directly engaged in trademark infringement, undoubtedly had actual notice of the MYBHUTAN trademark, and is unjustly profiting from the goodwill associated with Complainant's distinctive indicators. 

7.       By adopting the <mybhutan.travel> domain name, the Respondent is intentionally attempting to attract Internet users to its web site for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's unique and well-known MYBHUTAN trademark and service mark, and as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent's website or services.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent vehemently denies the allegations set forth in the Complaint and asserts that the registration and use of the domain name <mybhutan.travel> are legitimate and do not constitute trademark infringement or bad faith. Respondent states in particular,

1.       The Respondent, Chechey Nidup, is a Bhutanese national and tourism entrepreneur with more than 15 years of experience in Bhutan's tourism industry. The Complainant, MyBhutan, LLC, is a foreign-owned company registered in Puerto Rico, United States, with a primary focus on providing luxury travel experiences to international clients interested in visiting Bhutan.

2.       Due to Bhutan's Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) Regulations (Activities prohibited by the Royal Government of Bhutan) and the Tourism Rules and Regulations of Bhutan, tourism operations are placed on the negative list for foreign direct investors and foreign entities are not permitted to independently own or operate tourism businesses in Bhutan. This restriction exists to ensure that Bhutanese citizens retain majority ownership and control over tourism businesses operating within the country.

3.       To comply with Bhutanese legislation, MyBhutan, LLC engaged Chechey Nidup as an Independent Contractor pursuant to an Independent Contractor Agreement dated June 5th, 2019. Under this agreement, Chechey Nidup was tasked with supporting the Complainant's operations in Bhutan through business development, client and partner relations, and operational facilitation. Importantly, the agreement explicitly recognized Chechey Nidup as an independent contractor and not as an employee, partner, or agent of MyBhutan, LLC, thereby preserving her right to pursue her own independent business interests in Bhutan. 

4.       Over time, the partnership between MyBhutan, LLC and Chechey Nidup concluded naturally. After the engagement ended, Chechey Nidup chose to continue running her own tourism business independently, drawing on her professional experience and local expertise, as she had prior to working with MyBhutan, LLC. 

5.       The Respondent was not acting as an agent of MyBhutan, LLC when registering the domain for her own business; she was acting as an independent entrepreneur. Her intent was not to infringe or to act in bad faith, but to establish a legitimate business in her home country. The IC Agreement, when properly interpreted with due consideration for its complete nature, supports the Respondent's position that she has a legitimate right to register and use the domain for her own business purposes in Bhutan.

 

SUPPLEMENTARY SUBMISSIONS

COMPLAINANT

The Complainant's request to file "Supplemental arguments and evidence" is unusual in that nothing in the Response should have been unexpected. Yet, the Complainant appears to have been surprised by the Respondent's narrative in arguing that she has a right and legitimate interest in <mybhutan.travel> citing the parties' Independent Contractor Agreement and rules and regulations issued by the Royal Kingdom of Bhutan.   

That there existed a written agreement between the parties came as a surprise to the Panel because there is no mention of it in the Complaint and this absence misled the Panel into believing that the dispute was between two parties unknown to each other. As filed, the Complaint essentially argues that the Respondent registered a domain name that is identical to Complainant's registered mark, of which the Respondent had either "constructive or actual knowledge," and is or will be offering competing travel services in the Royal Kingdom of Bhutan through an infringing domain name <mybhutan.travel>. In short, Complainant claims that the Respondent is passing herself off as the Complainant. If this were all, the Complainant would need no more to state an actionable claim for cybersquatting.

In deciding whether to exercise discretion to receive the Supplementary Submission, the Panel begins by pointing out that unsolicited supplemental submissions are discouraged. As the Panel in Rollerblade, Inc. v. CBNO and Ray Redican Jr., Case No. D2000-0427 noted "[t]he Policy and Rules demonstrate a strong preference for single submissions by the parties absent extraordinary circumstances." The question here is: what are the extraordinary circumstances?

The Panel finds the factual circumstances now fully exposed and explained in the Supplementary Submission a significant addition to the record. On this issue, the WIPO Overview of Panel's Views on Selected UDRP Questions, 3.0, states at Sec. 4.6: "Paragraph 12 of the UDRP Rules expressly provides that it is for the panel to request, in its sole discretion, any further statements or documents from the parties it may deem necessary to decide the case."

Whether the Complainant ought to have fully presented its business relationship with the Respondent in its Complaint is a moot issue. The Respondent has not objected to the reception of the Supplementary Submission and the Panel deems it necessary in deciding the case to receive it into evidence.  

Having accepted the Supplementary Submission, the Panel finds it proper to set out Complainant's counter narrative: 

1.       To summarize, Respondent Nidup admits that she signed the  Independent Contractor Agreement with MyBhutan LLC which, among other things, requires her to not engage in the travel/tourism business for one year after termination of the relationship with MyBhutan LLC which concludes in August 2026.

2.       In addition to that restriction, Ms. Nidup is prohibited from using any MYBHUTAN trademarks or names or logos or other assets. The parties' agreement makes crystal clear the relationship between the parties, in particular, that Ms. Nidup had a limited license to use MyBhutan LLC's trademark for the duration of the Independent Contractor Agreement. That right was terminated on July 28, 2025.

3.       What is an even more glaring showing of bad faith is that Ms. Nidup registered the subject domain <mybhutan.travel> in 2024, well before the independent contractor agreement was terminated. Thus, she set in motion her intention to terminate the independent contractor agreement several months before notifying MyBhutan LLC because her intent was to continue to wrongfully use the MYBHUTAN name in violation of the clear terms of the agreement and to fraudulently retain and wrongfully convert and keep funds. (The Panel notes that the Registrar's verification shows that the creation date for the disputed domain name was August 5, 2025 which followed by a few days the Respondent's termination of the Independent Contractor Agreement. However, see below Complainant's late submission of Exhibit 5 showing a 2024 creation date with a different registrar).

4.       Simply put, Ms. Nidup is engaging in theft of both intellectual property and of money. The financial wrongdoings are explained in the letter attached under Exhibit CR6 and appendixes and is further detailed below. The trademark violations are simple: Ms. Nidup registered a domain in bad faith intending to knowingly use a domain she had agreed not to use. The MyBhutan LLC domain and trademark registrations pre-date Ms. Nidup's company's existence; and

5.       The registration of <mybhutan.travel> and Ms. Nidup's stated intent to continue operating in brazen violation of the independent contractor agreement was in furtherance of monetary fraud.

 

RESPONDENT

In its "SURREBUTTAL" the Respondent contends that

1.       While the ICA may have been drafted under U.S. law, the principle of lex loci contractus (the law of the place where the contract is made) or, more importantly, public policy exceptions, dictate that a contract cannot be enforced if it violates the fundamental public policy or statutory laws of the jurisdiction where it is to be performed. In this case, the performance of the ICA, particularly the non-compete and intellectual property clauses, directly conflicts with Bhutanese public policy regarding foreign ownership in the tourism sector and the non-registrability of generic/descriptive terms as trademarks.

2.       Bhutan maintains stringent regulations regarding foreign participation in its tourism sector, designed to preserve national interests and ensure local control. The Tourism Rules and Regulations 2024 unequivocally mandate that only Bhutanese nationals may apply for a tour operator license. 

3.       This lack of legal standing in Bhutan undermines their ability to claim legitimate business interests or trademark rights within the country. Therefore, the Complainant's attempts to enforce such clauses in a contract that was initially intended to circumvent the law constitute an overreach of jurisdiction and an affront to Bhutanese regulatory authority, carrying significant legal implications.

4.       Trademark rights are territorial. A U.S. trademark registration, such as Complainant's U.S. Registration No. 5391870 for "MyBhutan & B Design," does not automatically extend protection to Bhutan, especially when local law dictates otherwise.

COMPLAINANT'S EXHIBIT 5

Exhibit 5 is a Report from Domain Tools for <mybhutan.travel>. It shows that the Respondent initially created the domain with the Registrar Namecheap on February 27, 2024. It also shows a snapshot of the resolving website captured on April 3, 2025. NAMECHEAP remained the Registrar of record through March 2, 2025.

It remains to test these dueling contentions against the totality of facts of record which will follow below under the heads of the second and third elements of the Policy.

FINDINGS

1.       The Complainant has established that it has rights to MYBHUTAN and that <mybhutan.travel> is identical to that mark;

2.       The Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in <mybhutan.travel>; and

3.       The Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith.

 

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

Under Element 1 of the Policy the Complainant must pass two tests. The disputed domain name 1) must be either identical or confusingly similar to a mark and 2) the Complainant must demonstrate that it has rights. Taking the second test first, the  Complainant has established that it owns a design trademark in the term MYBHUTAN registered by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on January 30, 2018 Registration No. 5,391,870. The mark consists of a letter B made up of interconnected squares and triangles adjacent to the wording "MYBHUTAN". 

The determination of the first test is a simple side-by-side comparison of the disputed domain name and the trademark. In comparing the two, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark in that it reproduces the dominant feature of the mark. WIPO Overview of Panels Views on Selected UDRP Questions, 3.0 Sec. 1.7.

The Respondent's argument under this head is that "while there is an undeniable similarity in the 'MyBhutan' element, the addition of the '.Travel' TLD, combined with the Respondent's clear and demonstrable intent to operate a distinct, geographically localized business within Bhutan, significantly diminishes the claim of confusing similarity." This is an incorrect reading of the Policy. The UDRP does not recognize that a domain name identical or confusingly similar to a mark can fail under the first element because the respondent intends to offer services for "a distinct, geographically located business." 

Accordingly, the Complainant has satisfied Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. 

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

To establish the second of the three elements, the Complainant must first demonstrate that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. While the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the often impossible task of "proving a negative", requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. See Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2003-0455 ("Since it is difficult to prove a negative [. . .]  . . . a Complainant's burden of proof on this element is light." By "light" is meant that complainant satisfies its burden by offering a prima facie case that respondent has neither a right nor a legitimate interest.")

The Panel finds that the Complainant has adduced more than sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in <mybhutan.travel>. As such, the burden of persuasion shifts to the Respondent. The Policy sets forth the following nonexclusive list of circumstances any one of which, if proved, would satisfy Respondent's burden:

(i) "[B]efore any notice to you of the dispute, your 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) "[Y]ou (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights."

(iii) "[Y]ou are making a legitimate non-commercial 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."

If at all, the only circumstance applicable to the facts in this matter is paragraph 4(c)(i). The Respondent has neither been commonly known by the domain name nor does it claim to be making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the domain name. Rather, the Respondent asserts that it has rights or legitimate interests based on "Bhutan's Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) Regulations (Activities prohibited by the Royal Government of Bhutan) and the Tourism Rules and Regulations of Bhutan."

These official pronouncements, according to the Respondent "place tourism operations on the negative list for foreign direct investors, [in that] foreign entities are not permitted to independently own or operate tourism businesses in Bhutan. This restriction exists to ensure that Bhutanese citizens retain majority ownership and control over tourism businesses operating within the country."

More particularly (according to Respondent), the performance of the Independent Contractor Agreement, particularly the non-compete and intellectual property clauses, is unenforceable because it directly conflicts with Bhutanese public policy regarding foreign ownership in the tourism sector and the non-registrability of generic/descriptive terms as trademarks.

If, as the Respondent argues, the Royal Kingdom of Bhutan could declare contracts by foreign investors unenforceable then what would stop every jurisdiction from declaring likewise? The Panel is not persuaded of the merits of the Respondent's assertion of the Kingdom's law. The Respondent points to nothing in these official pronouncements that would affect the Complainant's exclusive rights to its trademark or give a local tourism business the right to take possession of the Complainant's trademark. Further, the Respondent has shown no legal basis for the assertion that MYBHUTAN is a generic or descriptive mark. It is a registered mark uniquely associated with the Complainant. 

The Respondent also has another arrow in her quiver that must be addressed. Five months before she signed the Independent Contractor Agreement, the Respondent obtained a license from the Bhutan Ministry of Industry, Commerce and Employment dated March 7, 2019, to operate as a travel agent under the name of MyBhutan. She claims that this license was acquired in her personal capacity.

Clearly, Respondent's securing a business license in her name recognized by the law of Bhutan is critical to her argument, if in fact she obtained it in her personal capacity rather than in anticipation of executing the Independent Contractor Agreement. Respondent's annexation of the License shows that she extended it on April 29, 2025, two months before terminating the Independent Contractor Agreement. It is plain from the evidence of record that the Respondent had already decided by that date to terminate the Independent Contractor Agreement. Indeed, in an email dated July 28, 2025 (the termination date) the Respondent stated that she had "stepped away from the work last year [that is, 2024] to focus on myself." It is apparent from the sequence of the Respondent's actions that "focus[ing] on herself meant "step[ping] back" into business.

Whatever for convenience the Respondent now says, its application for the License (but not its extension) appears to have been anticipated by the parties in the Independent Contractor Agreement. It could not have been otherwise because without the License under the MyBhutan name the Respondent would not have been able to fulfill her obligations under the Independent Contractor Agreement. This reading of the facts is consistent with the Royal Kingdom's relevant regulations. 

By the Respondent claiming that the "registration of MyBhutan.Travel was undertaken by Chechey Nidup in her individual capacity as the valid holder of the license for travel agency in Bhutan", she would have the Panel believe that in applying for the License it was unrelated to her forthcoming duties under the Independent Contractor Agreement. The Panel finds this farfetched as a convenient excuse now to justify her registration of <mybhutan.travel> on February 27, 2024 (not August 5, 2025, that she claims), after her termination of the Independent Contractor Agreement when she already knew in 2019 in anticipation of an agreement to retain her services that the Complainant owned trademark rights in the term MYBHUTAN.

Even if the Panel were to accept that the Respondent acquired the License in her "individual capacity" for use in a future business, it would not support a good faith registration of <mybhutan.travel> since at the time of the acquisition of the domain name she had actual notice of the Complainant's trademark even if in the unlikelihood she did not in March 2019.

For all of the foregoing reasons, the Panel finds that the Respondent has failed to rebut the presumptive evidence that she lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

Accordingly, the Complainant has satisfied Paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

The burden of proof at all times lies with the Complainant. Here, the Panel finds that the Complainant has submitted documentary evidence that the parties executed an Independent Contractor Agreement that included language protecting the Complainant's intellectual property rights.

In fact, the Respondent acknowledged the Complainant's trademark rights in a succession of emails between the parties in which she was tasked to file documentation of trademark rights with the Bhutan authorities and performed that task. Nevertheless, the Respondent contends that her registration and use of the disputed domain name is in good faith. Where a respondent appears, it is incumbent on the Panel to assess the merits of her position, particularly if the proof is shown to be of such a nature as to undermine the complainant's evidence.

"For the purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(iii), the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith

(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 who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that the 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 its website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the respondent's website or location or of a product or service on the respondent's website or location.

 

The Complainant's proof in this case focuses the Panel's attention on the third and fourth circumstances. As there is no proof that would support the other factors, the Panel will not address them.

The Complainant has demonstrated that Respondent's right to display or use its trademark is limited by the terms and conditions of the Independent Contractor Agreement and contends that whatever rights the Respondent enjoyed were terminated when she terminated that Agreement. As the Panel has already noted, there is no legal basis for concluding, as the Respondent does, that the Complainant's rights under US law do "not automatically extend protection to Bhutan, especially when local law dictates otherwise." It would not only be a perverse reading of the UDRP that any sovereign jurisdiction would have the right to negate a complainant's rights in its trademark, but inconsistent with the travaux preparatoires of the Policy. 

The disputed domain name presently resolves to a webpage that bears the Complainant's mark displaying a copyright notice that reads: "MyBhutan 2025." The Respondent announces her intention in her response to use the domain name to offer travel related services, thus setting herself up as a competitor. By commandeering the Complainant's  trademark for her business and website, the Respondent communicates to visitors throughout the world that she is or appears to have an affiliation with, and is sponsored or endorsed by the Complainant (para. 4(b)(iv)). The Domain Name's website clearly and intentionally impersonates the Complainant.

Although, the Respondent argues that her services are non-competitive and local, the fact is domain names have international currency. The same prospective clients who see two different websites with the same name will have a choice whether to accept the Complainant or the Respondent to arrange or perform travel services in Bhutan. Appropriating a complainant's trademark to provide the same travel associated services is a quintessential definition of cybersquatting. Whoever would choose the Complainant would now have the choice of choosing a domestic travel agent. This supports the Complainant's competition claim (para. 4(b)(iii)). The Panel notes, however, that this competition is in the context of the disputed domain name. Whether the Respondent would be liable as a competitor in the context of any other domain name is not for the Panel to say and would, in any event, be outside the scope of the Policy.

There is one further argument to dispose of, and that relates to the date of the registration of the disputed domain name. The Respondent is vehement in her rejection of the Complainant's statement in its Supplemental Submission that the domain name was registered in 2024. She states "The Complainant's assertion that Ms. Nidup registered the domain in 2024, indicating pre-termination bad faith, is factually incorrect. The Respondent registered <mybhutan.travel> on August 5, 2025 (Attached as Exhibit 6S), which is after the termination of her engagement with MyBhutan, LLC on July 28, 2025." But this assertion is untrue. The Respondent first registered <mybhutan.travel> with Namecheap on February 27, 2024. It was moved to GoDaddy on August 5, 2024. Panelists rely on the truthfulness of the parties in determining rights to disputed domain names. That has been found wanting here and is the final nail in concluding that the Respondent registered and is using <mybhutan.travel> in bad faith. 

The Panel does not address the Complainant's claim that the Respondent has engaged in monetary fraud as it is an issue outside the scope of the Policy.

For all the foregoing reasons, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.

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 <mybhutan.travel> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Alan Limbury and Dennis A. Foster, Panelists and Gerald M. Levine, Chair

Dated: October 6, 2025