DECISION

 

Whatabrands LLC v. FADIL AKGUNDUZ

Claim Number: FA2512002196136

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Whatabrands LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Kirby Cronin of Ferguson Braswell Frasier Kubasta, PC., Texas, USA. Respondent is FADIL AKGUNDUZ ("Respondent"), Turkey.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <whataburger.store>, 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.

 

Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on December 22, 2025; Forum received payment on December 22, 2025.

 

On December 23, 2025, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <whataburger.store> 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 December 23, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 12, 2026 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@whataburger.store. Also on December 23, 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 January 13, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin 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

1.       Respondent's <whataburger.store> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's WHATABURGER mark.

 

2.       Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <whataburger.store> domain name.

 

3.       Respondent registered and uses the <whataburger.store> domain name in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent did not file a Response.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant offers retail restaurant goods and services, and holds registrations for the WHATABURGER mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") dating back to at least 1954 (see Reg. No. 652,137, registered September 24, 1957).

 

Respondent registered the <whataburger.store> domain name on October 24, 2025, and uses it to resolve to pornographic material.

 

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

The Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the WHATABURGER mark through registration with the USPTO. See Liberty Global Logistics, LLC v. damilola emmanuel / tovary services limited, FA 1738536 (Forum Aug. 4, 2017) (stating, "Registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently establishes the required rights in the mark for purposes of the Policy.").

 

Respondent's <whataburger.store> domain name uses Complainant's WHATABURGER mark and simply adds a top-level domain. This change does not distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Dell Inc. v. Protection of Private Person / Privacy Protection, FA 1681432 (Forum Aug. 1, 2016) ("A TLD (whether a gTLD, sTLD or ccTLD) is disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax requires TLDs. Likewise, the absence of spaces must be disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax prohibits them.")  The Panel therefore finds that Respondent's <whataburger.store> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's WHATABURGER mark.

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Once Complainant makes a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also 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.").

 

Complainant contends that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <whataburger.store> domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name and Complainant has not authorized or licensed to Respondent any rights in the WHATABURGER mark. The WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as "FADIL AKGUNDUZ". Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and thus has no rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Suzen Khan / Nancy Jain / Andrew Stanzy, FA 1741129 (Forum Aug. 16, 2017) (finding that respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names when the identifying information provided by WHOIS was unrelated to the domain names or respondent's use of the same); see also Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) ("lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant's mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).").

 

Complainant contends that Respondent fails to use the <whataburger.store> domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use as the domain name resolves to adult-oriented material. Using a disputed domain name to advertise Respondent's services is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Vapor Blast Mfg. Co. v. R & S Tech., Inc., FA 96577 (Forum Feb. 27, 2001) (finding that Respondent's commercial use of the domain name to confuse users and divert internet traffic is not a legitimate use of the domain name); see also Altria Group, Inc. and Altria Group Distribution Company v. xiazihong, supra p. 6; see also 7-Eleven, Inc. v. Qui Jian Jun, FA204058 (Forum Jul. 28, 2008) (finding no legitimate noncommercial or fair use where domain names resolved to website with adult-oriented images). Complainant provides evidence showing that the disputed domain name resolves to a website that offers pornographic material. The Panel finds that this is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, and thus Respondent has no rights under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant argues that Respondent registered and uses the <whataburger.store> domain name in bad faith to divert users to its website where it offers pornographic content. The Panel agrees and finds bad faith attraction for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).  See Wells Fargo & Co. v. Party Night Inc., FA 144647 (Forum Mar. 18, 2003) (finding that the respondent's tarnishing use of the disputed domain names to redirect Internet users to pornographic websites was evidence that the domain names were being used in bad faith).

 

The Panel also finds that Respondent had knowledge of Complainant's rights in the WHATABURGER mark when it registered the disputed domain name, noting the specific and fanciful nature of the mark, and Complainant's use of the mark since at least 1954. The Panel thus finds further bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Charter Commc'ns Holding Co. v. MIZHAR salem, FA 1774836 (Forum Apr. 4, 2018) (finding bad faith registration of the domain name <charterspectrumonline.com> because "[a]ctual knowledge of a complainant's mark prior to registering a confusingly similar domain name can evidence bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)").

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied 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 <whataburger.store> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist

Dated: January 13, 2026