DECISION

 

POLLO OPERATIONS, INC. v. Richard A. Block

Claim Number: FA2509002177608

 

PARTIES

Complainant is POLLO OPERATIONS, INC. ("Complainant"), represented by Janet C. Moreira of Caldera Law, Florida, USA. Respondent is Richard A. Block ("Respondent"), Kentucky, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <pollolisten.cfd>, registered with Namecheap, Inc.

 

PANEL

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

 

Steven M. Levy as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on September 17, 2025; Forum received payment on September 17, 2025.

 

On September 18, 2025, Namecheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <pollolisten.cfd> 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 September 22, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 14, 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@pollolisten.cfd. Also on September 22, 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 October 15, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Steven M. Levy 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 has been in the restaurant and food industry since as early as 1988, both in the United States and internationally. It is the exclusive owner of U.S. federally registered trademarks incorporating the word "Pollo" (e.g., POLLO TROPICAL, MY POLLO, POLLO TIME!, POLLO TROPICAL EXPRESS, POLLO PANTRY) (collectively the "POLLO Marks"), many of which have been deemed incontestable. These include United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") Reg. No. 1795420 dated September 28, 1993; Reg. No. 5763897 dated May 28, 2019; Reg. No. 5840314 dated August 20, 2019; and Reg. No. 6185608 dated October 27, 2020. Some of the POLLO Marks have been used and promoted since as early as 1990 around the world, by Complainant, in connection with the provision, offering for sale, sale, marketing, advertising, and promotion of its restaurants and related goods/services. Complainant is also the owner of many domain names that incorporate the word "Pollo" and it uses the domain name <pollolistens.com> - which redirects to the domain name <pollocares.com> - to host a customer satisfaction survey platform for its restaurants.

 

The <pollolisten.cfd> domain name is confusingly similar to the POLLO Marks in that it incorporates the word "Pollo" followed by the generic word "listen" and the ".cfd" TLD. It is also nearly identical to Complainant's own <pollolistens.com> address.

 

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name where it is not commonly known by the domain name and it hosts a website that claims to provide instructions regarding the completion of the POLLO TROPICAL survey but which creates the misleading impression of an official feedback or survey platform affiliated with Complainant.

 

The disputed domain name was registered and is used in bad faith as Respondent had prior knowledge of Complainant's Marks and based on the above-mentioned activity.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

-       Complainant owns trademark rights in the POLLO Marks but the <pollolisten.cfd> domain name is not confusingly similar to such Marks owing to the generic nature of the word "pollo", the rights to which are disclaimed in most of the registrations for the Marks;

-       Complainant has not provided sufficient evidence upon which the Panel can find that it owns rights to the term "pollolistens" or "pollolistens.com".

 

DISCUSSION

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."

 

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Complainant asserts rights in the POLLO Marks through its registrations with the USPTO. Registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to demonstrate rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See DIRECTV, LLC v. The Pearline Group, FA 1818749 (Forum Dec. 30, 2018) ("Complainant's ownership of a USPTO registration for DIRECTV demonstrate its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).") Complainant provides copies of its USPTO registration certificates. Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has rights in its asserted Marks under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Next, Complainant argues that Respondent's <pollolisten.cfd> domain name is confusingly similar to the POLLO Marks because it incorporates the word "Pollo" and adds the generic term "listen" as well as the ".cfd" TLD. It adds that this is intended to mimic Complainant's <pollolistens.com> address. The Panel has reviewed the USPTO registration certificates which have been submitted into evidence and notes that seventeen of them, all marks that include a space between the word "Pollo" and other text, were registered with the disclaimer "No claim is made to the exclusive right to use the following apart from the mark as shown: 'POLLO'". The word "pollo" means "chicken" in the Spanish language. This disclaimer is absent only in those four registrations consisting of a combination of graphic elements and text, where no space is present after the word "Pollo" (e.g., POLLOTROPICAL and Design, Reg. Nos. 6053888 and 6053889; POLLOTIME and Design, Reg. Nos. 6119480 and 6119481). Both UDRP Panels and many Courts have declined to find confusion where only the disclaimed element of a mark is present in the disputed domain name or mark. See, e.g., Lone Star Steakhouse v. Longhorn Steaks, 106 F.3d 355 (11th Cir. 1977) ("Plaintiff has no federal registration word the words 'Lone Star' by themselves. In determining whether a composite mark such as LONE STAR CAFÉ [disclaiming the word 'Café'] is entitled to protection, courts do not assess the individual parts of the name. * * * Instead, the validity of a composite mark is determined by looking at the mark as a whole.") Also, WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, ("WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0"), at par. 1.2.3 ("[I]f the similar elements of the domain name are made up exclusively of disclaimed terms, trademark rights under the Policy may not be found unless the complainant can show sufficient secondary meaning in the disclaimed terms"); UDRP Perspectives on Recent Jurisprudence, § 1.5 (updated June 2, 2025), available at https://udrpperspectives.org) ("Where an asserted registration consists of a design mark and the relevant words have been disclaimed apart from the mark as a whole, this requires the Complainant to provide additional evidence that the words have acquired a secondary meaning and, thus, status as a trademark as required by policy.")

 

Here, the only element of the POLLO Marks contained in the <pollolisten.cfd> domain name is "Pollo". Most of Complainant's registrations disclaim any rights to the word "Pollo" apart from the marks as a whole and the remaining four that do not contain the disclaimer are for composite marks that include graphics and lack a space between the word "Pollo" and the additional text. Even in these marks, however, the graphics separate the word "Pollo" from the remaining text by a palm tree design and so the visual impression is of two words. The Panel noted that a recent UDRP complaint against the domain name <pollolistens.cfd> was denied with the Panel stating that "[t]he Domain Name takes only the disclaimed part of the Complainant's registered mark 'POLLO' meaning chicken over which the Complainant does not have exclusive rights." POLLO OPERATIONS, INC. v. Abdullah Ansari, FA 2178578 (Forum Oct. 16, 2025). This Panel agrees with the finding in that case.¹

 

Next, Complainant has not demonstrated that it owns trademark rights in the phrase "Pollo Listens". The Complaint notes that "Complainant's POLLOLISTENS.COM domain name directs to the domain name POLLOCARES.COM that prominently uses the POLLO TROPICAL® Trademarks" and this is followed by a screenshot of the <pollocares.com> website. The term "Pollo Listens" does not appear on this screenshot and there is no other evidence in the record to show its use by Complainant. The Panel thus views Complainant's <pollolistens.com> domain name as an address mechanism and is unable to determine how it is used or whether it has developed any reputation or trademark rights.

 

By a preponderance of the evidence presented in this particular case, the Panel finds that Complainant has not demonstrated that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the POLLO Marks under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Despite the finding in the previous section, it is worth noting that Respondent's website at the <pollolisten.cfd> domain name appears to be an informational page discussing Complainant's restaurants and its customer surveys. It displays the headline "Pollolistens.com – Pollo Tropical Survey – Get Free Coupon" followed by photos of Complainant's restaurants, a copy of the POLLO TROPICAL graphic logo, and text discussing Complainant's restaurants. It also contains links titled "Take Pollo Tropical Survey" and "Take Pollolistens Survey" although the submitted evidence does not show where these links lead. Finally, the site includes a section titled "Steps to take Denny's Survey at www.Pollolistens.com" followed by further discussion of the Complainant's customer survey and this appears to indicate that the site was copied from a template used to target another restaurant. While the evidence presented is incomplete and inconclusive, it seems likely that this is a Splog (a "Spam Blog") which masquerades as an informational website. See, e.g., Fiberweb Geosynthetics Limited v. osa bun/ Whois Privacy Shield Services, D2015-0048 (WIPO Mar. 16, 2015) ("the Respondent's use of the Domain Name in connection with a 'splog' (i.e., a spam blog which the author uses to promote affiliated websites to increase the search engine ranking or to sell links or ads) is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under the Policy. See Western Union Holdings, Inc. v. Anna Valdieri, WIPO Case No. D2006-0884; and MBI, Inc. v. Moniker Privacy Services/Nevis Domains LLC., WIPO Case No. D2006-0550.") 

 

Further, there is no evidence that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. The WHOIS record identifies as "Richard A. Block" and there is no evidence that it is known otherwise.

 

In light of the above, the Panel finds it highly likely that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

As noted above, the presented evidence regarding the activity at Respondent's website is incomplete and inconclusive. However, the content of Respondent's website makes it clear that Respondent had prior knowledge of Complainant and its POLLO Marks at the time that it registered the disputed domain name and further investigation into the site could lead to the conclusion that it is a Splog and that the domain name is being used in bad faith.

 

DECISION

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 <pollolisten.cfd> domain name REMAIN WITH Respondent.

 

 

 

Steven M. Levy, Panelist

Dated: October 20, 2025