DECISION

 

Good Ground Hospitality, LLC v. Domain Admin / Global IP Holdings Inc.

Claim Number: FA2512002192462

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Good Ground Hospitality, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Kyle Kantor of Good Ground Hospitality, LLC, Connecticut, USA. Respondent is Domain Admin / Global IP Holdings Inc. ("Respondent"), represented by Ankur Raheja of Cylaw Solutions, U.P., India.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

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

 

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.

 

Lynda M. Braun and Steve Levy as Panelists and Georges Nahitchevansky as Chair.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on December 3, 2025; Forum received payment on December 3, 2025.

 

On December 3, 2025, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <ovenly.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 December 5, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 30, 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@ovenly.com. Also on December 5, 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 December 29, 2025.

 

On December 30, 2025, pursuant to Respondent's request to have the dispute decided by a three-member Panel, Forum appointed Lynda M. Braun and Steve Levy as Panelists and Georges Nahitchevansky as Chair.

 

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 be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant, a Connecticut limited liability company, asserts that its OVENLY mark is a distinctive and well-known brand that has continuously been used in commerce since October 15, 2009 in connection with various bakery goods. Complainant further asserts that it owns and uses the domain name <oven.ly> for a website concerning Complainant and its bakery products and café in New York City as well as social media pages at Instagram and Facebook using the handle "Ovenly."

 

Complainant owns a trademark registration in the United States for its OVENLY mark in connection with its bakery goods and retail bakery services (Registration No. 4065830) which issued to registration on December 6, 2011.¹ 

 

Complainant argues that the disputed domain name over the last 10+ years "has featured a variety of 'for-sale' pages as well as a landing page insinuating a bakery business that infringes upon our trademarks." Complainant has provided some examples of such from 2013, 2015 and 2016.

 

Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its OVENLY mark because it fully incorporates Complainant's OVENLY mark with the non-distinguishing .com extension. Complainant also contends that the overall impression of the disputed domain name is as the Complainant's brand.

 

Complainant maintains that Respondent does not have a legitimate interest in the disputed domain name as Respondent (i) is not affiliated with and has not been licensed by Complainant to use the OVENLY mark, (ii) is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and (iii) is not using the disputed domain name for a bona fide business. In that regard, Complainant claims that Respondent has (a) sought to monetize the disputed domain name through pay-per-click ads, (ii) attempted to sell the disputed domain name with a for sale page demanding an inflated price, (iii) used the disputed domain name for phishing or misrepresentation and/or traffic diversion for profit.

 

Lastly, Complainant asserts that Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith as Respondent has attempted to sell it for $9,999, an amount that is more than Respondent's out-of-pocket costs, has used the disputed domain name to divert web traffic for commercial gain, including "PPC ads tied to Complainant's industry," and to disrupt Complainant's business by creating consumer confusion. Complainant also urges that Respondent acted in bad faith because OVENLY is a distinctive and well-known brand that Respondent obviously was aware of when Respondent registered the disputed domain name.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent rejects Complainant's contentions.

 

Respondent argues that Complainant's Complaint has been submitted "to misrepresent the true state of affairs." Respondent maintains that a search of registered domain names containing "ovenly" reveal hundreds of bakeries using the name "Ovenly" around the world, including several in the United States. Respondent also argues that that the term "ovenly" is neither arbitrary or distinctive of Complainant and is not uniquely associated with Complainant. In that regard, Respondent maintains that "ovenly" is understood "as a portmanteau of the common words 'oven' and 'only'" and is capable of several meanings such as 'from the oven only." Respondent also notes that "ovenly" is the Danish word for "roof light" or "skylight."

 

Respondent states that it routinely invests in and trades in generic, common-word and brandable domain names. Respondent notes that it acquired the disputed domain name on February 24, 2024 through an auction at Droptcatch.com for USD 709. Respondent also states that on the same date it also acquired several other short, pronounceable, brandable domain names and that during the period 2023-24 it also registered other domain names that combine a common word with the suffix "-ly," such as, inter alia, <canonly.com>, <crackerly.com>, and <redirectly.com>.

 

Respondent maintains that investing and trading in generic and descriptive domain names is a bona fide offering of goods and services. Respondent contends that the Complaint is a "Plan B" to hijack the disputed domain name. Respondent notes that Complainant attempted to buy the disputed domain name anonymously through a landing page and that an offer was then presented to Complainant through a GoDaddy broker in the amount of $9,999. Respondent asserts that the identity of Complainant was never disclosed to Respondent by the GoDaddy broker.  Respondent further asserts that after the instant proceeding was initiated, it reached out to Complainant to resolve the matter and offered to transfer the disputed domain name to Complainant for $709, the amount Respondent originally paid to acquire the disputed domain name. Complainant did not accept that offer and apparently offered $100 and relied on a prior UDRP proceeding Respondent had lost to justify Complainant's counter in an effort to drive the price down for the disputed domain name.

 

Respondent also asserts that Complainant's claim that the disputed domain name has been offered for sale and hosted on various landing pages over the last ten years, and the evidence supporting such, is misplaced as Respondent acquired the disputed domain name on February 10, 2024 and has no connection whatsoever to the previous domain name owner(s) or uses. Respondent also attacks various assertions by Complainant as lacking evidentiary support, including the claimed past use of the OVENLY mark by Complainant, the claim that Complainant and its OVENLY mark enjoys a broad reputation, the claim that Respondent has used the disputed domain name for various purposes (apart from hosting a for-sale page for the disputed domain name that did not include a price) and that Respondent has used the disputed domain name for phishing or misrepresentation.

 

Respondent also comments on Complainant's reliance on a prior UDRP decision against Respondent by arguing that due to exceptional circumstance it could not defend that UDRP matter and hence it resulted in a transfer. Respondent provides some background for the matter and asserts that it previously successfully defended another UDRP involving the domain name <redfield.com>, which Respondent claims involved similar circumstances as are present in the instant proceeding.

 

With regard to the three elements of the Policy, Respondent concedes for purposes of the first element only that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's claimed OVENLY mark. Respondent then reiterates its arguments, as noted above, for why it has rights and a legitimate interest in the disputed domain name and has not registered or used the disputed domain name in bad faith.

 

Lastly, Respondent makes a request for reverse domain name hijacking on the basis that "Complainant should have known its case was fatally weak due to absence of any evidence of targeting of the complainant."

 

FINDINGS

Complainant holds trademark rights in the OVENLY mark. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's OVENLY mark. However, Complainant has not established that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name or has registered and used the dispute domain name in bad faith. Finally, reverse domain hijacking has not occurred.

 

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

There is no dispute as to the first element as Complainant concedes that for purposes of the first element, which is essentially a standing requirement, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's OVENLY mark.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant alleges that Respondent holds no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. In order for Complainant to succeed under this element, it must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) ("Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests"); see also Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).

 

Here, Complainant maintains that Respondent is not affiliated with and has not been licensed by Complainant to use the OVENLY mark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Complainant also contends that Respondent's lack of rights and legitimate interest is further established from Respondent's use of the disputed domain name.

 

While Complainant has established that it owns some rights in the mark OVENLY in the United States in connection with its bakery goods and retail bakery services, the question before the Panel is how broad are those rights in view of Complainant's claim that OVENLY is a "distinctive and well-known brand."

 

Respondent counters and argues that "ovenly" is not uniquely associated with Complainant and that a number of third parties use "ovenly" in connection with a wide array of goods and services, mostly in the food sector. Respondent provides much evidence showing that "ovenly" is widely used by third parties, including by way of example in the names of bakeries and their associated websites that are unaffiliated with Complainant, such as <ovenlydelights.com>, <ovenlybakerydsm.com>, and <ovenlysweetbakery.com>. Respondent also provides some evidence showing that the term "ovenly" is used by some as suggesting a "fresh from the oven quality." In all, Respondent makes a prima facie case that "ovenly" is not per se uniquely associated with Complainant.  

 

Notably, while Complainant contends its OVENLY mark is a "distinctive,  well-known brand," Complainant did not provide the type of evidence one would expect to see to establish such claimed notoriety or distinctiveness – including distinctiveness from other users of the same mark. There is no evidence of past use by Complainant of the OVENLY mark apart from more recent examples on Complainant's Facebook and Instagram pages and through a reference to Complainant's current website at <oven.ly>. There is also no evidence in the record of third party recognition of the OVENLY mark, brand rankings, awards or accolades or the like that would typically support a claim of notoriety. In all, absent supporting evidentiary support, Complainant's assertion of being well known is unsubstantiated and conclusory and entitled to little weight. See, e.g., Budge Industries, LLC v. Joe Carrero, WIPO Case No. D2010-0392 ("unsupported factual allegations, even if not denied, are of no moment, and unsworn statements of counsel as to factual matters easily verifiable with documentary evidence or of which counsel has no personal knowledge are not evidence and carry little or no weight in a Policy proceeding"). Most importantly, Complainant's evidence does not in any way address or rebut Respondent's evidence that the OVENLY mark is used by other businesses that have no association with Complainant.

 

But putting aside Complainant's failure to substantiate its claim of being well-known, the missing piece in Complainant's complaint is evidence showing that Respondent registered the disputed domain name to take advantage of the trademark rights of Complainant in the OVENLY mark as opposed to acquiring a domain name based on a potentially brandable term used by many. Most of the evidence submitted by Complainant involves uses of the disputed domain name that occurred eight or more years before the date when Respondent acquired the disputed domain name through an auction in February 2024. While the Panel recognizes the difficulty of proving a domain name's acquisition date in light of the broad implementation of WHOIS privacy by most Registrars, the fact remains that Complainant has provided no evidence to suggest that Respondent was somehow connected to these prior uses of the disputed domain name and thus they cannot be relied upon to argue that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

Additionally, Complainant has provided no evidence showing that Respondent (let alone anyone) has ever used the disputed domain name for phishing or misrepresentation as Complainant claims. Such lack of evidence further underscores Complainant's reliance on conclusory and unsubstantiated allegations to support its case.

 

With regards to Complainant's assertion that Respondent has sought to sell the disputed domain name for an inflated price, Complainant's evidence is limited to a web page offering the disputed domain name for sale with no specified price and an email from a GoDaddy broker to Complainant advising that the price of the disputed domain name is $9,999. Respondent has countered that as a domain name investor it acquired the disputed domain name through an auction in February 2024 as part of its "investment strategy of acquiring meaningful and common word domain names that would serve well as online addresses." Respondent further contends that he was never made aware by the GoDaddy broker that Complainant was attempting to acquire the disputed domain name and that he was simply responding to an anonymous offer.

   

To be sure, the price of $9,999 appears on its face as well in excess of the $709 paid at auction by Respondent for the disputed domain name. But that alone does not render the price offered illegitimate or done in bad faith. The business of investing in and selling a domain name at a higher price based on a common or potentially brandable word or descriptive indication can constitute a legitimate interest when it is done not to trade off of the trademark rights associated with the trademark of another. By the same token, registering a domain name comprised of a dictionary word or common phrase does not by itself automatically confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. See, e.g., section 2.10 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition. The tension between these two concepts is often difficult to parse through and requires a balanced approach that looks at the evidence submitted by the parties to determine whether it is more likely than not that the respondent was seeking to take advantage of a complainant's trademark rights.  

 

Here, the Panel is of the view that Respondent acted legitimately. To begin, the disputed domain name at issue does not involve a well-known mark per se, such as APPLE, ORANGE or AMAZON, which might put in question the motive of a respondent in doing so. While Complainant claims its OVENLY mark is distinctive and well-known, Complainant, as noted above, has failed to substantiate that claim.  Additionally, Respondent has provided much evidence that shows that the term "ovenly" is used by many third parties, including in connection with bakery services unrelated to Complainant. Respondent has also provided some evidence showing that "ovenly" is used as a portmanteau combining the words "oven" and "only" to imply for example something that is warm, baked or straight out from the oven. Thus from the evidence before the Panel it is hard to conclude that the value of the disputed domain name derives from any trademark value associated with Complainant as opposed to the value the domain name might enjoy on account of its common term meaning and the widespread use of "ovenly" by multiple third parties.  And certainly the price of $9,999 is not atypical or outlandish for a single word domain name based on a common term or expression.

 

Nor is there any evidence in the record showing that Respondent in fact specifically targeted Complainant or had Complainant in mind when Respondent acquired the disputed domain name. There is no evidence that Respondent directly contacted Complainant to sell the disputed domain name or even knew it was dealing with Complainant when an offer to buy the name was made. Moreover, not only does Respondent claim it never heard of Complainant and its OVENLY mark before this proceeding, there is no evidence establishing otherwise.² Indeed, the evidence submitted by Respondent shows that Respondent as part of his legitimate business as a domain name investor, has in addition to the disputed domain name acquired or registered a number of domain names that include a common word in combination with the suffix "-ly." Thus, without more, the evidence available makes it more likely than not that Respondent acquired the disputed domain name in good faith in 2024 as part of its legitimate domain name investing business and not to trade upon Complainant's claimed rights in OVENLY.

 

Lastly, while Respondent lost a prior UDRP proceeding, that alone does not per se establish that Respondent is a known cybersquatter. The details of that case are limited particularly as Respondent defaulted in that matter and given that Respondent maintains there were exceptional circumstances that prevented him from defending that matter. But assuming Respondent had, in fact, acted in bad faith in that matter, the one adverse decision against Respondent does not establish a pattern of bad faith, particularly when considered along with a decision that ruled in favor of Respondent. These decisions simply confirm that each case has to be treated in accordance with its facts and evidence.  And while evidence of past actions may support a finding of acting in bad faith, something more is needed to claim that a party is a cybersquatter. Certainly, there is no evidence that Respondent has lost multiple UDRP proceedings, routinely taken advantage of the names and marks of others, owns multiple domain names based on third party marks or names or is known to trade in domain names of questionable origin. In all, the record is devoid of anything that suggests Respondent did anything more than acquire a domain name that is based on a common term used by many as part of Respondent's legitimate business activity of domain name investing.

 

The Panel thus finds that Complainant has not established the second element of the Policy

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

In the light of the Panel's finding as to the second element, the Panel does not need to address the third element of registration and use in bad faith in respect of the disputed domain name. The Panel, however, again notes that Complainant not only did not establish with evidence that its mark is well-known, but failed to provide any evidence establishing or suggesting that Respondent more likely than not registered the disputed domain name to trade off of Complainant's limited rights in the OVENLY mark, as opposed to simply acquiring and trading in a domain name based on a common or potentially brandable phrase that is widely used by third parties and not exclusive to Complainant.

REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKING

Paragraph 15(e) of the Rules provides that, 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 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. The mere lack of success of the complaint is not, on its own, sufficient to constitute reverse domain name hijacking. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 4.16.

 

Here, Complainant owns a trademark registration for the OVENLY mark that predates Respondent's registration of the disputed domain name in 2024. While the Panel has ruled against Complainant for the reasons set forth herein, it was not unreasonable for Complainant to initiate a proceeding that concerned a disputed domain name that on its face could be seen as based on Complainant's OVENLY mark. Complainant may have presented a weak case, but it was not objectively baseless or devoid of any merit such that it rises to the level of abusing the Policy.  Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant did not initiate this UDRP proceeding in bad faith or primarily to harass Respondent.

 

The request for a finding of reverse domain name hijacking is denied

 

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 <ovenly.com> domain name REMAIN WITH Respondent.

 

 

 

Georges Nahitchevansky, Lynda M. Braun, Steve Levy, Panelists

Dated: January 12, 2026