DECISION

 

World Central Kitchen, Inc. v Prosper Azubuike

Claim Number: FA2602002203542

 

PARTIES

Complainant is World Central Kitchen, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Elizabeth A. Jaffe of Spencer Fane, LLP, New York, USA. Respondent is Prosper Azubuike ("Respondent"), Nigeria.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <worldcentralkitchendonate.online>, 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.

 

Héctor Ariel Manoff as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 4, 2026; Forum received payment on February 4, 2026.

 

On February 5, 2026, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <worldcentralkitchendonate.online> 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 February 5, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 25, 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@worldcentralkitchendonate.online. Also, on February 5, 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.

 

An Additional Submission was received from Complainant.

 

On February 26, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Héctor Ariel Manoff 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- Complainant, World Central Kitchen, Inc. is a world-renowned not-for-profit humanitarian organization established in 2010 in response to the Haiti earthquake.

2- Complainant owns the trademark WORLD CENTRAL KITCHEN, which covers "charitable fundraising services" in class 36, namely, organizing and conducting community service programs to build school kitchens and install kitchen equipment" in class 37, "charitable services, namely, organizing and conducting community service programs to provide vocational education in the culinary field" in class 41 and "charitable services, namely, the preparation and distribution of food and beverages to victims of natural disasters and catastrophes" in class 43.

3- Its official website is located at www.wck.org.

4- The disputed domain name contains Complainant's mark, in its entirety and is confusingly similar to it.

5- Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.

6- Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

C. Additional Submissions

Complainant submitted a declaration in support of the Complaint in which it is stated that the document submitted are true and correct copies of the ICANN Policy, the ICANN Rules and the registration certificates for the WORLD CENTRAL KITCHEN trademark.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant, World Central Kitchen, Inc., owns the trademarks WORLD CENTRAL KITCHEN and has used it at least as from 2010. Respondent has registered the disputed domain name <worldcentralkitchendonate.online> in 2025.

 

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 the disputed domain name, <worldcentralkitchendonate.online>, is nearly identical and confusingly similar to Complainant's WORLD CENTRAL KITCHEN trademark (Exhibit 3).

 

The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's WORLD CENTRAL KITCHEN mark and adds the generic terms "donate" along with the generic top-level domain ("gTLD") ".ONLINE".

 

The Panel finds that the term WORLD CENTRAL KITCHEN is a fanciful and arbitrary term in relation to Complainant's activities and that it is clear that Respondent knew it belonged to Complainant. Respondent has just added a generic word which is related to Complainant's activities. The Panel finds that the domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark since the additional elements are not sufficiently distinctive. (See Microsoft Corporation v. Thong Tran Thanh, FA 1653187 (Forum Jan. 21, 2016) (determining that confusing similarity exists where [a disputed domain name] contains Complainant's entire mark and differs only by the addition of a generic or descriptive phrase and top-level domain, the differences between the domain name and its contained trademark are insufficient to differentiate one from the other for the purposes of the Policy); see also, 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").

 

The Panel finds that the domain name is almost identical and is confusingly similar to Complainant mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

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 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.").

 

The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <worldcentralkitchendonate.online> domain name because Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use the WORLD CENTRAL KITCHEN mark. See 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)").

 

In addition, WHOIS information does not suggest that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. This Panel finds that Respondent has never been commonly known by the domain name.

 

Respondent has neither filed a response nor submitted evidence to prove that Respondent has any trademark rights in the <worldcentralkitchendonate.online> domain name.

 

Therefore, the Panel agrees that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and does not have legitimate interest under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant has proved trademark rights and use of it prior to the domain name's date of registration. (Exhibit 3).

 

Since the disputed domain name includes Complainant's trademark along with a generic term related to Complainant's activities, the Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registered the domain name. Registration was done in bad faith.

 

There is no evidence of a current active website; however, it can also be considered a bad faith sign. See Robert Half Inc. v. Rose Diaz / Robert half staffing, FA 2111371 (Forum Sept. 12, 2024) ("Respondent's passive holding of <rosediazroberthalfstaffing.org> demonstrates Respondent's bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)"). See also CommScope, Inc. of North Carolina v. Zhuang Yan / WANGYONG, FA 1764026 (Forum Feb. 14, 2018) ("Respondent's domain names do not have resolving websites. Using a domain name to resolve to an inactive website (or no website at all) indicates bad faith registration and use.").

 

Respondent has neither rebutted these grounds nor submitted evidence on the contrary.

 

Finally, the Panel also points out that the choice of addition of a term related to Complainant's activities (donate) demonstrates bad faith.

 

The Panel determines that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith under 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 <worldcentralkitchendonate.online> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Héctor Ariel Manoff, Panelist

Dated: March 5, 2026