DECISION

 

Beast Industries Co. and Beast Holdings, LLC v. Nguyen Van Dai

Claim Number: FA2601002199703

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Beast Industries Co. and Beast Holdings, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Daniel A. Schnapp of Dentons US LLP, Illinois, USA. Respondent is Nguyen Van Dai ("Respondent"), Vietnam.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <mr-beastmerchandise.shop>, registered with Dynadot Inc.

 

PANEL

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

 

Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 14, 2026; Forum received payment on January 14, 2026.

 

On January 14, 2026, Dynadot Inc confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <mr-beastmerchandise.shop> domain name is registered with Dynadot Inc and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Dynadot Inc has verified that Respondent is bound by the Dynadot 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 January 15, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 4, 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@mr-beastmerchandise.shop. Also on January 15, 2026, 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 February 5, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE COMPLAINANTS

In this proceeding there are two Complainants, Beast Industries Co. and Beast Holdings, LLC. Paragraph 3(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") provides that "[a]ny person or entity may initiate an administrative proceeding by submitting a complaint." Forum's Supplemental Rule 1(e) defines "The Party Initiating a Complaint Concerning a Domain Name Registration" as a "single person or entity claiming to have rights in the domain name, or multiple persons or entities who have a sufficient nexus who can each claim to have rights to all domain names listed in the Complaint."

 

Complainant Beast Industries Co. is the parent company of Complainant Beast Holdings, LLC and both companies share the same address. Complainants are both represented here by a single representative. Beast Holdings, LLC is the owner of multiple trademark registrations concerning MRBEAST. As its parent company, Complainant Beast Industries Co. has rights in the intellectual property holdings of its subsidiaries. Therefore, there is a significant legal relationship between Complainants. Additionally, there is no objection to the named Complainants proceeding together as if one.

 

Given the foregoing, the Panel finds that the two nominal Complainants have a sufficient nexus to each other and to the matters complained of such that they can be treated as if a single entity. See Tasty Baking, Co. & Tastykake Invs., Inc. v. Quality Hosting, FA 208854 (Forum Dec. 28, 2003) (treating the two complainants as a single entity where both parties held rights in trademarks contained within the disputed domain names).

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant contends in part as follows:

 

Beast Holdings, LLC owns registrations for and possesses common law rights in the mark MRBEAST. Beast Holdings, LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Beast Industries Co. As such, these entities have a sufficient nexus to each other and to the matter complained of such that they should be treated as if a single entity.

 

Since 2019, Complainant has used and/or registered the name and mark MRBEAST, by itself and as the dominant component of other marks in the United States in connection with certain goods and services, including apparel and entertainment services. Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations including the following valid and subsisting U.S. trademark registrations for the MRBEAST mark.

 

The At-issue Domain Name Is Identical or Confusingly Similar to Trademarks in Which Complainant Has Rights. The MRBEAST mark has become famous and accrued immense goodwill in the United States. Given its fame, the MRBEAST mark has also become an asset of enormous if not incalculable value to Complainant. Respondent's at-issue domain name is nearly identical and certainly confusingly similar to Complainant's MRBEAST mark. Indeed, the at-issue domain name differs from Complainant's distinctive MRBEAST mark by only a dash, as Respondent has placed "-" in between "MR" and "BEAST": "MR-BEAST" vs. "MRBEAST". Furthermore, the at-issue domain name utilizes the generic top-level domain ".shop", which is highly similar to Complainant's registered domain name. This is a clear example of typo squatting, as Respondent appears to have deliberately misspelled Complainant's MRBEAST mark and altered the top-level domain, hoping that internet users will either 1) inadvertently type the malformed string when searching for Complainant's official website or Complainant's goods or services and/or 2) confuse the at-issue domain name with Complainant's MRBEAST mark. Given that Complainant's MRBEAST mark and registered domain name are well-known, and the fact that the domain name incorporates the MRBEAST mark in its entirety, there can be no doubt that the at-issue domain name is likely to confuse consumers into believing that Respondent is affiliated with, endorsed, or authorized by Complainant.

 

The Respondent Has No Rights or Legitimate Interests in Respect to the Domain Name. Respondent cannot demonstrate that it has any rights or legitimate interests in the at-issue domain name. Noting the difficulty of proving a negative, prior panels have found that a complainant's burden of proof on this element is light. Previous panels have found a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests where (1) respondent is not a licensee of complainant; (2) complainant's prior rights in the mark precede respondent's registration of the domain name; and (3) respondent is not commonly known by the domain name in question. Complainant's use of and registrations for the MRBEAST Mark, which evidence Complainant's exclusive rights in that mark, precede Respondent's registration and use of the at-issue domain name. Moreover, Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use the MRBEAST mark. Furthermore, there is no evidence to show that Respondent is commonly known by the at-issue domain name. Indeed, the WHOIS information supports a finding that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Respondent has not made use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the at-issue domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and/or services, nor could Respondent do so in light of the fame of Complainant's MRBEAST mark and Complainant's exclusive rights in that mark. Instead, Respondent is passively holding the at-issue domain name, using it to redirect users to an inactive website. In sum, Complainant owns trademark rights in and to the MRBEAST mark. Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the at-issue domain name and, on information and belief, registered the at-issue domain name for an illegitimate purpose, and has not made use of or demonstrable preparations to use the at-issue domain name with a bona fide offering of goods and/or services. Furthermore, there is no evidence that Respondent is commonly known by the name MRBEAST or is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the at-issue domain name, nor could Respondent do so in light of Complainant's MRBEAST mark and Complainant's exclusive rights in that mark. As such, there is no legitimate justification for Respondent's registration of the at-issue domain name.

 

The Domain Name Was Registered and Is Being Used in Bad Faith. Respondent registered the domain name without a bona fide basis for such registration in an attempt to capitalize unfairly on the fame and goodwill of Complainant's MRBEAST mark. Given Complainant's widespread use and registration of the MRBEAST mark, Respondent certainly had actual notice of Complainant's ownership of the MRBEAST mark prior to registering the at-issue domain name. Actual knowledge of a complainant's rights in the mark prior to registering the disputed domain name is adequate to find bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). Use of a domain name that incorporates a widely used and registered mark may be evidence of actual knowledge of a complainant's rights in the mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). Not only has Respondent registered the at-issue domain name in bad faith, it is also using the at-issue domain name in bad faith. As referenced above, the at-issue domain name does not currently resolve to an active website but is being passively held instead. Passive holding of a domain name can constitute bad faith use. Respondent's use and registration of the at-issue domain name disrupts Complainant's business by depriving it of the right to host an official website at https://mr-beastmerchandise.shop to promote its goods and/or services to the public. Such acts constitute bad faith use and registration of the at-issue domain name by Respondent, as illustrated by the examples set forth in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy. Under the circumstances, there is little question that the Respondent registered and uses the at-issue domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the MRBEAST mark to cause confusion, disrupt Complainant's business, or gain commercial advantage. There can be no explanation that would rebut the presumption of bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has rights in the MRBEAST mark.

 

Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and is not authorized to use the MRBEAST mark in any capacity.

 

Respondent registered the at‑issue domain name after Complainant acquired trademark rights in MRBEAST.

 

Respondent holds the at-issue domain name passively.

 

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 at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.

 

Complainant's registration of MRBEAST and related marks incorporation the MRBEAST mark with the USPTO or any, if any, other national trademark registrar worldwide demonstrates Complainant's rights in a mark under Policy ¶4(a)(i). See Thermo Electron Corp. v. Xu, FA 713851 (Forum July 12, 2006) (finding that the complainants had established rights in marks where the marks were registered with a trademark authority).

 

Respondent's <mr-beastmerchandise.shop> domain name consists of Complainant's MRBEAST trademark with an irrelevant hyphen inserted, followed by the suggestive term "merchandise," with all followed by the ".shop" top-level domain name. Under the Policy the addition of a top-level domain name does nothing to distinguish the <mr-beastmerchandise.shop> domain name from Complainant's trademark. Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent's <mr-beastmerchandise.shop> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's MRBEAST trademark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognizable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element."); see also, Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Domain Administrator / Registry Services, LLC, FA2 2038314 (Forum July 26, 2023) ("The addition of a gTLD fails to sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).").

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

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 Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond, Complainant's prima facie showing acts conclusively.

 

Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant's trademark in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of the at‑issue domain name. 

 

The WHOIS information for the at-issue domain name ultimately leads to identifying the at-issue domain name's registrant as "Nguyen Van Dai" and the record before the Panel contains no evidence tending to prove that Respondent is commonly known by the <mr-beastmerchandise.shop> domain name. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by MRBEAST for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Navistar International Corporation v. N Rahmany, FA 1620789 (Forum June 8, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name where the complainant had never authorized the respondent to incorporate its NAVISTAR mark in any domain name registration).

 

Respondent's <mr-beastmerchandise.shop> domain name fails to address an active website and instead returns a system error message indicating that the server for the domain name's IP address "can't be reached." Passively holding a confusingly similar at-issue domain name is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Dell Inc. v. link growth / Digital Marketing, FA 1785283 (Forum June 7, 2018) ("Respondent's domain names currently display template websites lacking any substantive content. The Panel finds that Respondent has does not have rights or legitimate interests with respect of the domain name per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).").

 

Given the foregoing, Respondent lacks rights and lacks legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

As discussed below being exhaustive, Respondent acted in bad faith.

 

Respondent's at-issue domain name fails to address any substantive content and can thus be considered inactive. Respondent's passive holding of the <mr-beastmerchandise.shop> domain name disrupts Complainant's business and demonstrates bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Regions Bank v. Darla atkins, FA 1786409 (Forum June 20, 2018) ("Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) because Respondent uses the domain name to host an inactive website."); see also, Solar Turbines v. Ogunade, FA 1811640 (Forum Nov. 11, 2018) (". . . Respondent inactively holds the <solarsturbines.com> domain name, thereby supporting a finding of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶4(a)(iii).").

 

Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the MRBEAST mark when Respondent registered <mr-beastmerchandise.shop> as a domain name. Respondent's actual knowledge is evident from the notoriety of Complainant's MRBEAST trademark. Respondent's registration and use of a confusingly similar domain name with knowledge of Complainant's rights in MRBEAST further demonstrates Respondent's bad faith. See Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name); see also, Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name).

 

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 <mr-beastmerchandise.shop> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist

Dated: February 5, 2026