DECISION

 

True Leaf LLC d/b/a True Leaf Market v. Dmytro Zima

Claim Number: FA2509002179039

 

PARTIES

Complainant is True Leaf LLC d/b/a True Leaf Market ("Complainant"), represented by Joshua S. Rupp of Kirton McConkie, Utah, USA. Respondent is Dmytro Zima ("Respondent"), Ukraine.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <mountainvalleyseedcompany.com>, registered with Cosmotown, Inc.

 

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

 

Carol Stoner, Esq., as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on September 25, 2025; Forum received payment on September 25, 2025.

 

On September 29, 2025, Cosmotown, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <mountainvalleyseedcompany.com> domain name is registered with Cosmotown, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Cosmotown, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Cosmotown, 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 30, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 20, 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@mountainvalleyseedcompany.com. Also on September 30, 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 October 1, 2025.

 

On October 1,  2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Carol Stoner, Esq.,  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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name <mountainvalleyseedcompany.com> be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

 

Complainant contends that the trademark(s) or service mark(s) on which this Complaint is based is / are at least:

 

The MOUNTAIN VALLEY SEED COMPANY mark registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") on August 21, 2018 (U.S. TM Reg. No. 5,547,311), filed on August 16, 2017, and specifying a date of first use of March 1, 2015 in connection with "Plant seeds"; and

 

The MOUNTAIN VALLEY SEED CO. mark registered with the USPTO on March 27, 2018 (U.S. TM Reg. No. 5,432,150), filed on August 16, 2017, and specifying a date of first use of July 1, 2012 in connection with "Plant seeds."

 

Complainant alleges that True Leaf LLC d/b/a True Leaf Market ("True Leaf Market"), a Utah limited liability company, was established in 1974 and provides various goods and services throughout the United States. Among other goods and services, for example, True Leaf Market provides

plants, plant seeds (and particularly non-GMO seeds, including vegetable garden seeds, herb seeds, flower seeds, grain seeds, Asian seeds, and so forth), grains, starts, and other horticultural and greenhouse products and related goods, supplied and/or services (hereinafter, collectively, "True Leaf Market's Products and Services" or "Seed Products and Services."

 

Complainant alleges that True Leaf Market has become an industry leader in the garden and seed market, with significant accrued consumer recognition and goodwill and over a million customers. In addition to other retail outlets, True Leaf Market markets and sells its Seed Products and Services on its own website (https://trueleafmarket.com/, "True Leaf Market's Website") as well as on Amazon.com ("Amazon").

 

Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. Complainant's MOUNTAIN VALLEY SEED COMPANY Marks are federally registered trademarks owned and controlled by Complainant, along with the common law rights, therein.

 

Complainant further alleges that Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use the MOUNTAIN VALLEY SEED COMPANY Marks, or any variations thereof, in any way.

 

Complainant lastly alleges that Respondent has registered and has used its MOUNTAIN VALLEY SEED COMPANY Marks in bad faith.

 

Complainant alleges that in addition to extensive common law rights, Complainant's MOUNTAIN VALLEY SEED COMPANY Marks are registered with the USPTO. Moreover, Complainant has been using the MOUNTAIN VALLEY SEED COMPANY Marks in the United States starting in 2017 and 2018, marking as many as eight (8) years of continuous and uninterrupted use such that the MOUNTAIN VALLEY SEED COMPANY

 

Marks are exclusively associated or otherwise connected with Complainant.

 

In view of the foregoing, Complainant alleges that Respondent has registered the Domain Name in bad faith. Complainant's MOUNTAIN VALLEY SEED COMPANY Marks were registered with the USPTO on March 27, 2018 and August 21, 2018. [See Annex B.] The Domain Name, on the other hand, was only first registered many years later, on October 1, 2024. [See Annex F.]

 

Complainant alleges that Respondent's bad faith is particularly evident under ICANN Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) inasmuch as Respondent is using the Domain Name to (a) direct Internet users to Respondent's website where products and services in direct competition with True Leaf Market's Products and Services are offered, which in turn causes confusion and otherwise disrupts Complainant's business, and skims affiliate advertising commissions and otherwise deceive, mislead, and confuse True Leaf Market's customers and consumers on Amazon.

 

Complainant lastly alleges that Respondent's bad faith is particularly manifest in Respondent's blatant copying and use of Complainant's identical designs, logos, slogans, images, and the like, including True Leaf Market's identical TRUE LEAF MARKET Marks and True Leaf Market Logo Marks (as well as artwork), on Respondent's website, further attempting to trade on True Leaf Market's reputation and mislead, deceive and confuse True Leaf Market's customers and consumers.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent alleges that the domain name <mountainvalleyseedcompany.com> was used solely for participation in the Amazon Associates Program. That it was never used for any bad faith purposes, to mislead users, or for any other improper or malicious purposes.

 

Respondent alleges that at the time of registration and during the use of the domain name, there was no intent to act in bad faith. That the sole purpose of the domain was to create a platform for participation in Amazon Affiliate Marketing, not to exploit or infringe upon the Complainant's trademark rights.

 

Respondent acknowledges the Complainant's lawful rights in the trademark and related intellectual property. Respondent states that, if necessary, they are willing to transfer the domain name to the Complainant.

 

Respondent respectfully requests the Panel to consider that the Respondents acted in good faith and are willing to cooperate in resolving this matter.

 

FINDINGS

1.       The domain name <mountainvalleyseedcompany.com> registered by the 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 <mountainvalleyseedcompany.com> domain name; and

 

3.       The domain name <mountainvalleyseedcompany.com> has been registered and is being used 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

Plaintiff has viewed Complainant's Exhibit B, consisting of registration certificates for the Marks.

 

The Panel rules that registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") suffices to establish rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See DIRECTTV LLC v. The Pearline Group, FA 12818749 (Forum Dec. 30, 2018) ("Complainant's ownership of a USPTO registration for DIRECTTV demonstrates its right in such mark for the purposes of ¶ 4(a)(i)"). Therefore, this Panel concludes that Complainant has rights in the MOUNTAIN VALLEY SEED COMPANY MARKS.

 

Here, Respondent's domain name of <mountainvalleyseedcompany.com> is identical to Complainant's marks of MOUNTAIN VALLEY SEED COMPANY, which marks clearly possess prior rights.

 

Panel rules that URDP Policy ¶(4)(a)(i) has been satisfied because Respondent's domain name of <mountainvalleyseedcompany.com> is identical and/or confusingly similar to one or more of Complainant's established and registered MOUNTAIN VALLEY SEED COMPANY marks.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp., FA 7680200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a Complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy UDRP Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Complainant has alleged that Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use the MOUNTAIN VALLEY SEED COMPANY Marks, or any variations thereof. And Panel notes that Respondent has offered no evidence that Complainant has authorized its use of Complainant's federally registered marks.

 

Complainant's Exhibit E shows that Respondent's domain name resolves to an active website which advertises, promotes and purports to sell True Leaf's Market Products and services. Panel has compared Respondent's website (Exhibit E) to Complainant's website (Exhibit D) and noted the extreme similarity. For instance, Respondent's inauthentic website also says that True Market was established in 1974.

 

Respondent, in its Reply, said, "That the sole purpose of the domain was to create a platform for participation in Amazon affiliate marketing." However, it is disingenuous to use Amazon's Affiliate Marketing Program as a defense, when Respondent has provided no inkling of its designation as an active Amazon Affiliate. That is, Respondent pro-offered no website

featuring original content; offered no proof that Respondent had applied    and been accepted into Amazon's Affiliate program; and most tellingly,        features no disclosure on its website declaring that, "As an Amazon         Associate, I earn a commission from qualifying purchases" nor does         Respondent display affiliate links that clearly link to Amazon.

 

Respondent has no legitimate rights, nor legitimate interests in the domain name of <mountainvalleyseedcompany.com>.

 

Respondent does not use <mountainvalleyseedcompany.com> for a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use, as Respondent diverts internet traffic to Respondent's commercial website. See Summit Group, LLC  v. LSO, Ltd., FA758981 (Forum Sept.14, 2006) (finding that the Respondent's use of the Complainant's LIFESTYLE Lounge mark to redirect internet users to respondent's own website for commercial gain does not constitute either a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4c(i) or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4c(iii).

 

Panel rules that the totality of Complainant's evidence constitutes a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name of <mountainvalleyseedcompany.com>.

 

Panel therefore concludes, that Respondent has not shouldered its shifted burden to show that Respondent does indeed, have rights or legitimate interests so as to satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Panel rules that Complainant has offered credible evidence that Respondent has registered and used Complainant's Marks of Mountain Valley Seed Company in bad faith. Annex B illustrates that Complainant's marks were registered in 2018, some seven years before Respondent's registration of the identical domain name. Furthermore, Complainant's Mark is composed of a sequence of four separate words, which word-string constitutes a unique mark; that is, "Mountain Valley Seed Company." Considering that this identical unique mark was chosen for a domain name for an identical product and service, some seven years subsequent to Complainant's registration of same, it is "wholly implausible that Respondent created the disputed domain name independently," and therefore, the domain name has been registered in bad faith. See Leidos, Inc. v. Matt Johnson/Midlab FA 2306002050010 (Forum July 17, 2023).

 

Panel particularly notes the near identity of Respondent's website (Exhibit E) with Complainant's website (Exhibit D). Panel therefore finds, that Respondent has engaged in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) by attempting to disrupt Complainant's business and to commercially benefit from Complainant's Mark.

 

Panel therefore rules, that UDRP Policy ¶ (4)(a)(iii) has been satisfied because Respondent has both registered and is using the domain name of <mountainvalleyseedcompany.com> in bad faith.

 

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 <mountainvalleyseedcompany.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Carol Stoner, Esq., Panelist

Dated: October 15, 2025