DECISION

 

Skinnypop Popcorn LLC v. Robert Jake

Claim Number: FA2602002205151

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Skinnypop Popcorn LLC ("Complainant"), represented by David Caplan of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Robert Jake ("Respondent"), Kazakhstan.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES

The domain names at issue are <myskinnypop.com> and <theskinnypop.com>, registered with Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu.

 

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.

 

Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 12, 2026; Forum received payment on February 12, 2026.

 

On February 14, 2026, Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <myskinnypop.com> and <theskinnypop.com> domain names are registered with Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu has verified that Respondent is bound by the Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu 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 20, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 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@myskinnypop.com and postmaster@theskinnypop.com. Also on February 20, 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 March 13, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. 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

i) Complainant is a leading provider of ready-to-eat popcorn and snack products sold under the SKINNYPOP brand, maintaining a strong nationwide presence across grocery, mass retail, and e-commerce channels. Since its 2010 launch and 2017 acquisition by The Hershey Company, Complainant has experienced sustained growth in its annual sales, rising from approximately $200 million to an estimated $550 million. Currently ranked as the second-best-selling brand in its category, Complainant functions as an integral part of Hershey's multi-hundred-million dollar marketing engine. Complainant has expended substantial capital on media, creative campaigns, and strategic sponsorships, including a recent campaign featuring Jennifer Aniston. Through these extensive promotional efforts and Hershey's broader corporate social responsibility initiatives, the SKINNYPOP marks have acquired significant commercial traction and widespread recognition. Complainant owns trademark registrations for its mark SKINNYPOP and SKINNYPOP design mark, inter alia, with the USPTO for the word mark (Reg. No. 3,971,482, registered May 31, 2011) and the design mark (Reg. No. 5,594,575, registered October 30, 2018). The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the SKINNYPOP mark, as they incorporate the mark in their entirety with the mere addition of the descriptive terms "the" and "my," along with the ".com" gTLD.

 

ii) Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names, nor has Respondent been authorized or licensed by Complainant to use the SKINNYPOP mark. The disputed domain names are not used for any bona fide offering of goods or services or for any legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent utilizes the disputed domain names to attract web traffic to websites designed to appear as official platforms of Complainant or for Complainant's products through the repeated and prominent use of Complainant's marks and other indicia, when in fact no affiliation exists between Respondent and Complainant. Specifically, they resolve to websites that feature SKINNYPOP branded products alongside commercial content. The disputed domain names are further utilized to host websites as part of Respondent's participation in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program. Respondent used the disputed domain names to pass itself off as Complainant by (i) incorporating Complainant's SKINNYPOP design logo in the favicon of the websites, (ii) displaying images of Complainant's SKINNYPOP branded products, and (iii) offering information typically reserved for the trademark owner. Using a disputed domain name to pass oneself off as another, as Respondent did here, is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate non-commercial fair use pursuant to Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or 4(c)(iii).

 

iii) Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith by impersonating Complainant to mislead consumers and profit from such confusion. Complainant's marks are so well-known that Respondent cannot provide a legitimate explanation for the registration other than to exploit the goodwill associated with Complainant. By causing initial interest confusion and falsely suggesting an endorsement or affiliation, Respondent's conduct constitutes evidence of bad faith registration and use. Respondent's use of Complainant's SKINNYPOP marks on the websites demonstrates that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant and its rights prior to Respondent's registration and use of the disputed domain names. Respondent selected the disputed domain names with the intent to create confusion with Complainant's marks and to trade off of Complainant's marks and reputation for Respondent's own financial gain, by using the disputed domain names to encourage visitors to click on hyperlinks that redirect to Amazon so that Respondent can benefit from purchases of Complainant's products. Prior decisions against a respondent may be sufficient to show a pattern of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).

 

B. Respondent

Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

1. The disputed domain names were registered on March 10, 2025, and April 20, 2025, respectively.

 

2. Complainant has established rights in its mark SKINNYPOP and SKINNYPOP design mark, inter alia, with the USPTO for the word mark (Reg. No. 3,971,482, registered May 31, 2011) and the design mark (Reg. No. 5,594,575, registered October 30, 2018).

 

3. The websites associated with the disputed domain names feature sections such as "Skinny Pop Company Values" and "Useful Information," where Respondent uses first-person pronouns like "we" and "our" to describe Complainant's core values and customer service commitments.

 

4. The disputed domain names' resolving websites invite user inquiries for SKINNYPOP products without identifying Respondent as an independent third-party and display internal company metrics, such as sales figures and partnership statistics, as brand-level information.

 

5. The unauthorized use of Complainant's SKINNYPOP popcorn logo in the favicon at the disputed domain names' resolving websites further reinforces the misleading impression of an official affiliation.

 

6. The disputed domain names are further utilized to host websites as part of Respondent's participation in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program.

 

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 Overview 3.1 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 asserts rights in its mark SKINNYPOP and SKINNYPOP design mark, inter alia, with the USPTO for the word mark (Reg. No. 3,971,482, registered May 31, 2011) and the design mark (Reg. No. 5,594,575, registered October 30, 2018). Registrations of a mark with the USPTO constitute valid evidence of trademark rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Complainant has submitted evidence demonstrating the registration of the SKINNYPOP marks. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in the SKINNYPOP marks under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Complainant argues that the disputed domain names <myskinnypop.com> and <theskinnypop.com> are confusingly similar to its SKINNYPOP mark, as they incorporate the mark in their entirety, with only the addition of the descriptive terms "the" and "my," along with the ".com" gTLD. The Panel agrees and concludes that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant's 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 names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Section 2.1, WIPO Overview 3.1 ("Where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element.").

 

Complainant claims that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, as Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant's SKINNYPOP mark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain names. Where a Response is lacking, WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). The unmasked WHOIS information for the disputed domain names lists the registrant as "Robert Jake." Moreover, there is no evidence in the record suggesting that Respondent is authorized to use the mark. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

Complainant contends that Respondent is not using the disputed domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Respondent utilizes the disputed domain names to attract web traffic to websites designed to appear as official platforms of Complainant or for Complainant's products through the repeated and prominent use of Complainant's marks and other indicia, when in fact no affiliation exists between Respondent and Complainant. Specifically, they resolve to websites that feature SKINNYPOP branded products alongside commercial content. The disputed domain names are further utilized to host websites as part of Respondent's participation in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program. Respondent used the disputed domain names to pass itself off as Complainant by (i) incorporating Complainant's SKINNYPOP design logo in the favicon of the websites, (ii) displaying images of Complainant's SKINNYPOP branded products, and (iii) offering information typically reserved for the trademark owner. Using a disputed domain name to pass oneself off as another, as Respondent did here, is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate non-commercial fair use pursuant to Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or 4(c)(iii).

 

From the screenshots of the disputed domain names' resolving websites, the Panel finds that the websites associated with the disputed domain names are designed to impersonate Complainant by adopting the guise of an official brand destination. Specifically, the websites feature sections such as "Skinny Pop Company Values" and "Useful Information," where Respondent uses first-person pronouns like "we" and "our" to describe Complainant's core values and customer service commitments. The Panel also notes that the websites invite user inquiries for SKINNYPOP products without identifying Respondent as an independent third-party and display internal company metrics, such as sales figures and partnership statistics, as brand-level information. Finally, the unauthorized use of Complainant's SKINNYPOP popcorn logo in the favicon further reinforces the misleading impression of an official affiliation.

 

In the absence of any response, it is difficult to determine from the screenshots of the disputed domain names' websites whether Respondent is offering counterfeit goods or Complainant's genuine products. If Respondent's websites are offering only Complainant's genuine goods, the question of fair use must be considered. The seminal case on this issue is Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc., where the respondent was a reseller of the complainant's OKIDATA products. The respondent registered and used the domain <okidataparts.com> for that business. The panel in that case found that such use could qualify as a bona fide offering of goods or services under the Policy if certain conditions were met: (i) the respondent must actually be offering the goods or services at issue, (ii) the respondent must use the site to sell only the trademarked goods (otherwise there is the possibility that the respondent is using the trademark in a domain name to bait consumers and then switch them to other goods), (iii) the site itself must accurately disclose the respondent's relationship with the trademark owner, and (iv) the respondent must not try to 'corner the market' in all relevant domain names, thus depriving the trademark owner of the ability to reflect its own mark in a domain name.

 

The Panel notes that (i) it is unclear if Respondent is actually offering products at issue, (ii) Respondent's sites do not accurately disclose their relationship with the trademark owner, and (iii) the disputed domain names are further utilized to host websites as part of Respondent's participation in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program. Therefore, the Panel agrees and finds that even if the products offered for sale at the disputed domain names' websites were Complainant's genuine products, this does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor is it a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See General Motors LLC v. MIKE LEE, FA 1659965 (Forum Mar. 10, 2016) (finding that "use of a domain to sell products and/or services that compete directly with a complainant's business does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).").

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has established a prima facie case that arises from the considerations above. Collectively, these factors make out the prima facie case against Respondent. As Respondent has not filed a Response or attempted by any other means to rebut the prima facie case against it, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant contends that by using the disputed domain names, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent's website by creating a likelihood of confusion, as well as actual confusion, with Complainant's SKINNYPOP marks. As previously noted, Respondent is using the disputed domain names for an online retail store offering popcorns branded and advertised under Complainant's SKINNYPOP design marks. The Panel observes that the websites resolving from the disputed domain names explicitly reference the same goods offered by Complainant and use Complainant's product images.

 

In the absence of a Response, it is difficult to determine from the evidence whether the websites are offering counterfeit goods or Complainant's genuine products. As previously noted, Respondent's websites do not disclose any relationship with Complainant. The disputed domain names are further utilized to host websites as part of Respondent's participation in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program. Therefore, even if Respondent is offering only Complainant's genuine products, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and 4(b)(iv), with the intent to disrupt Complainant's business by diverting Internet users from Complainant's website to Respondent's websites, thereby creating confusion with Complainant's SKINNYPOP marks for commercial gain by misleading consumers into believing that Respondent's websites are connected to Complainant. See ZIH Corp. v. ou yang lin q, FA 1761403 (Forum Dec. 29, 2017) (finding bad faith where Respondent used the infringing domain name to disrupt Complainant's business by diverting Internet users from Complainant's website to Respondent's website where it offered competing printer products), see also Citadel LLC and its related entity, KCG IP Holdings, LLC v. Joel Lespinasse / Radius Group, FA 1579141 (Forum Oct. 15, 2014) ("Here, the Panel finds evidence of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) bad faith as Respondent has used the confusingly similar domain name to promote its own financial management and consulting services in competition with Complainant.").

 

Complainant further contends that Respondent has registered the disputed domain names with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the SKINNYPOP marks. While constructive knowledge is insufficient for a finding of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii), registration of a disputed domain name with actual knowledge of another's trademark rights is sufficient to establish bad faith, and can be inferred from the notoriety of the mark and the use Respondent makes of the disputed domain name. See Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum February 6, 2014) ("The Panel notes that although the UDRP does not recognize 'constructive notice' as sufficient grounds for finding Policy paragraph 4(a)(iii) bad faith, the Panel here finds actual knowledge through the name used for the domain and the use made of it."), see also AutoZone Parts, Inc. v. Ken Belden, FA 1815011 (Forum December 24, 2018) ("Complainant contends that Respondent's knowledge can be presumed in light of the substantial fame and notoriety of the AUTOZONE mark, as well as the fact that Complainant is the largest retailer in the field. The Panel here finds that Respondent did have actual knowledge of Complainant's mark, demonstrating bad faith registration and use under Policy paragraph 4(a)(iii).").

 

The Panel notes that Complainant is a leading provider of ready-to-eat popcorn and snack products sold under the SKINNYPOP brand, maintaining a strong nationwide presence across grocery, mass retail, and e-commerce channels. Since its 2010 launch and 2017 acquisition by The Hershey Company, Complainant has experienced sustained growth in its annual sales, rising from approximately $200 million to an estimated $550 million. Currently ranked as the second-best-selling brand in its category, Complainant functions as an integral part of Hershey's multi-hundred-million dollar marketing engine. Complainant has expended substantial capital on media, creative campaigns, and strategic sponsorships, including a recent campaign featuring Jennifer Aniston. Through these extensive promotional efforts and Hershey's broader corporate social responsibility initiatives, the SKINNYPOP marks have acquired significant commercial traction and widespread recognition.

 

The Panel agrees and infers, due to the manner of use of the disputed domain names to impersonate Complainant's website as well as the notoriety of Complainant's mark, that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the SKINNYPOP marks at the time of registering the disputed domain names, and thus the Panel finds bad faith registration of the disputed domain names.

 

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 <myskinnypop.com> and <theskinnypop.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist

Dated: March 16, 2026