DECISION

 

Laird Superfood, Inc. v. 陈 晓

Claim Number: FA2601002200424

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Laird Superfood, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by S. Annie Allison, New York, USA. Respondent is 陈 晓 ("Respondent"), China.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES 

The domain names at issue are <lairdsuperfoods.top> and <lairdsuperfood.top>, 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.

 

Alan L. Limbury, as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 19, 2026. Forum received payment on January 19, 2026.

 

On January 19, 2026, Dynadot Inc confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <lairdsuperfoods.top> and <lairdsuperfood.top> domain names are registered with Dynadot Inc and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. 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 23, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 12, 2026 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registrations as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@lairdsuperfoods.top and postmaster@lairdsuperfood.top. Also on January 23, 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 registrations as technical, administrative and billing contacts.

 

Having received no response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On February 13, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Alan L. Limbury 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Founded in 2015 by world-renowned big-wave surfer and action water sports pioneer Laird Hamilton, entrepreneur Paul Hodge and professional volleyball player Gabby Reece, Complainant is a wellness company that creates plant-based, functional superfood products.

 

Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations around the world for the mark LAIRD SUPERFOOD and also has common law rights in the mark. It operates the website at "www.lairdsuperfood.com".

 

The <lairdsuperfoods.top> and <lairdsuperfood.top> domain names  are identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's LAIRD SUPERFOOD mark.

 

Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in <lairdsuperfoods.top> and <lairdsuperfood.top> domain names. Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and has not been authorized to use the LAIRD SUPERFOOD mark in any manner. There is no evidence to suggest that Respondent is commonly known by either of the domain names nor that Respondent was commonly or legitimately known as LAIRD SUPERFOOD or any variation thereof prior to their registration. Respondent's purpose and use of the domain names is to confuse the public into believing that Respondent's websites are associated with Complainant in order to improperly collect valuable personal information from Internet users. Such use cannot constitute a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent has capitalized on domain names that incorporate Complainant's LAIRD SUPERFOOD mark in order to pass itself off as Complainant.

 

Respondent registered and has used the <lairdsuperfoods.top> and <lairdsuperfood.top> domain names in bad faith primarily for the purpose of disrupting Complainant's business and intentionally to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its websites by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's LAIRD SUPERFOOD mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its websites.  By impersonating Complainant, Respondent has improperly attempted to collect Internet users' financial and other personal information.  

 

Complainant reported the domain names to Respondent's webhost who has disabled the websites. At the time of filing this Complaint, the domain names resolve to inactive or parked websites. However, Respondent could alter the content of these websites at any time.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has established all the elements entitling it to relief.

 

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 has shown that it has rights in the mark LAIRD SUPERFOOD, including USPTO Registration No. 5,210,869, registered on May 23, 2017 for inter alia "Creamers for beverages; Soup mixes; Soups; Coffee creamer; Non-dairy creamer; Nut and seed-based snack bars", in International Class 29.

 

It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the complainant's trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview 3.0, ¶ 1.7.

 

The Panel finds Respondent's <lairdsuperfoods.top> domain name to be confusingly similar to Complainant's LAIRD SUPERFOOD mark, only differing by the addition of the letter "s", which is insufficient to distinguish the domain name from the mark; and finds Respondent's <lairdsuperfood.top> domain name to be identical to Complainant's mark. The inconsequential ".top" generic top-level domain ("gTLD") may be ignored under this element. See, for example, Rollerblade, Inc. v. Chris McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000).

 

Complainant has established this element.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides that any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate Respondent's rights or legitimate interests to a domain name for purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(ii):

 

(i)                      before any notice to Respondent of the dispute, the use by Respondent of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or

 

(ii)                      Respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or

 

(iii)        Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert customers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.

 

The <lairdsuperfoods.top> and <lairdsuperfood.top> domain names were registered respectively on October 9 and November 25, 2025, many years after the registration of Complainant's LAIRD SUPERFOOD mark. Before they were disabled by Respondent's webhost, MalakMadze, the domain names resolved to websites displaying Complainant's mark and the names and images of Complainant's founders, Laird Hamilton and Gabby Reece, copied from Complainant's website. Copied images of Complainant's products, offered for sale, were also displayed.

 

These circumstances, together with Complainant's assertions, are sufficient to constitute a prima facie showing of absence of rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain names on the part of Respondent. The evidentiary burden therefore shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the <lairdsuperfoods.top> and <lairdsuperfood.top> domain names. See JUUL Labs, Inc. v. Dryx Emerson / KMF Events LTD, FA 1849706 (Forum July 17, 2019). Respondent has made no attempt to do so.

 

The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain names.

 

Complainant has established this element.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy is expressed in the conjunctive: "the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith" and Paragraph 4(b) sets out four illustrative circumstances, which, though not exclusive, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii), including:

 

(iv)                      by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location.

The circumstances set out above in relation to the second element satisfy the Panel that Respondent was fully aware of Complainant, its LAIRD SUPERFOOD mark and its "www.lairdsuperfood.com" website when Respondent registered the <lairdsuperfoods.top> and <lairdsuperfood.top> domain names and that Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its websites, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent's websites and of the products promoted on those websites. This demonstrates registration and use in bad faith to attract users for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).

 

Complainant has established this element.

 

DECISION

Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <lairdsuperfoods.top> and <lairdsuperfood.top> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Alan L. Limbury, Panelist

Dated: February 14, 2026