DECISION

 

The Hershey Salty Snacks Company v. vana brand

Claim Number: FA2602002206300

 

PARTIES

Complainant is The Hershey Salty Snacks Company ("Complainant"), represented by David Caplan of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, California, USA. Respondent is vana brand ("Respondent"), China.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <pirates-booty.com>, 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 February 19, 2026; Forum received payment on February 19, 2026.

 

On February 26, 2026, Dynadot Inc confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <pirates-booty.com> 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 March 2, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 23, 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@pirates-booty.com. Also on March 2, 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 24, 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.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant is a leading provider of puffed corn snacks and other food products sold under the PIRATE'S BOOTY brand, with a strong nationwide presence across grocery, mass retail, club, convenience, and e-commerce channels in the United States. Since at least as early as 1989. Complainant and its predecessors in interest have used the PIRATE'S BOOTY mark in connection with puffed corn snacks and other food products, and the PIRATE'S BOOTY marks have served as inherently distinctive indicators of the origin of goods produced and sold under Complainant's authority.

 

Complainant owns a number of trademark registrations for its PIRATE'S BOOTY mark, including two U.S. federal trademark registrations for the mark PIRATE'S BOOTY for corn-based chips, rice-based snack foods, puffed corn snacks.

 

The at-issue domain name is used to host websites as part of the Respondent's participation in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program. This Program is an affiliate advertising initiative that compensates participants for traffic and purchases originating from their referral links. This participation is disclosed on Respondent's website where it states, "Pirates-Booty.com is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program,[]an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com." 

 

In addition to the PIRATE'S BOOTY mark appearing in the at-issue domain name, Respondent has structured the content of the website to affirmatively suggest that the sites are official brand properties or authorized, rather than an independent third-party site. Most notably, the website associated with the <pirates-booty.com> includes a section that states, "Welcome to the official Pirate's Booty website, your ultimate destination for delicious, wholesome snacks that bring the spirit of adventure to every bite!"

 

The at-issue domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's mark. Complainant has continuously used the PIRATE'S BOOTY mark since at least 1995, giving Complainant trademark rights that predate the registration date of the website associated with the at-issue domain name. The at-issue domain name incorporates Complainant's PIRATE'S BOOTY mark in its entirety. Numerous courts and prior UDRP panels have recognized that the incorporation of a trademark in its entirety or the dominant portion of a trademark is sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a complainant's registered mark. Indeed, where the only difference is a deletion of an apostrophe, UDRP panels consistently rule that such changes are insufficient to overcome confusing similarity between a complainant's registered mark and the respondent's disputed domain name. Likewise, the addition of a hyphen is insufficient to distinguish the at-issue domain name from Complainant's PIRATE'S BOOTY mark. The inclusion of the gTLD ".com" in the at-issue domain name does not change the conclusion that the at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's PIRATE'S BOOTY mark.

 

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the at-issue domain name. Respondent cannot demonstrate or establish rights or a legitimate interest in the at-issue domain name. There is no relationship between Complainant and Respondent giving rise to any license, permission, or other right by which Respondent could own or use any domain name incorporating or imitating Complainant's PIRATE'S BOOTY mark, nor has Complainant given Respondent permission to use Complainant's PIRATE'S BOOTY mark, or any variation thereof. Further, Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name and nothing in the Whois registration or record suggests Respondent is commonly known as PIRATES BOOTY.COM. Rather, Respondent refers to themselves as Vana Brand. Where nothing in the record or Whois information shows that a respondent is commonly known by a at-issue domain name, panels have found that such respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the domain. Complainant's adoption, extensive use, and/or registration of the PIRATE'S BOOTY mark predates Respondent's registration of the at-issue domain name; the burden is on Respondent to establish rights or legitimate interests in the at-issue domain name. Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to attract web traffic to a website that is meant to appear as an official website of Complainant or for Complainant's products through the repeated and prominent use of Complainant's marks and other indicia suggesting a connection with Complainant, when in fact there is no connection between Respondent and Complainant. Respondent's use of <pirates-booty.com> indicates neither a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). Because Respondent is not known by the at-issue domain name and because Respondent is not using the at-issue domain name for making legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the at-issue domain name, Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the at-issue domain name.

 

The at-issue domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Complainant is widely considered to be one of the most popular popcorn brands in America. Respondent registered the at-issue domain name over twenty years after Complainant and its predecessors began using the PIRATE'S BOOTY mark and well after the PIRATE'S BOOTY mark became well known in the United States. Respondent's registration of the at-issue domain name years after Complainant and its predecessors had first used its well-known marks is sufficient to satisfy the bad faith requirement. Respondent's use of Complainant's PIRATE'S BOOTY mark on the <pirates-booty.com> website demonstrates that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant and its rights prior to Respondent's registration and use of the domain name. Registering an infringing domain name with knowledge of the complainant's rights in the reproduced trademark is evidence of bad faith. Respondent selected the at-issue domain name, which incorporates Complainant's PIRATE'S BOOTY mark, not for any legitimate noncommercial or fair use purpose, but rather with an intent to create confusion with Complainant's mark and to trade off of Complainant's mark and reputation for Respondent's own financial gain, by using the at-issue domain name to encourage visitors to click on hyperlinks that redirect to Amazon so that Respondent can benefit from purchases of Complainant's products. After seeing Complainant's PIRATE'S BOOTY mark in the at-issue domain name, users will initially be confused as to the website's association with or sponsorship by Complainant. Such "initial confusion is enough to demonstrate bad faith."

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has rights in the PIRATE'S BOOTY mark.

 

Respondent has no trademark rights in PIRATE'S BOOTY.

 

Respondent registered the at-issue domain name after Complainant acquired rights in PIRATE'S BOOTY.

 

Respondent's at-issue domain name is used to host websites as part of Respondent's participation in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program and to pass off as Complainant or an authorized merchandise retailer of Complainant.

 

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 shows that it has USPTO trademark registrations for its PIRATE'S BOOTY mark. Such is sufficient to demonstrate 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 national trademark authority).

 

Respondent's <pirates-booty.com> domain name consists of Complainant's PIRATE'S BOOTY trademark less its domain name impermissible apostrophe and with its impermissible space replaced by a hyphen, with all followed by the ".com" top-level domain name. The differences between Complainant's trademark and Respondent's domain name are insufficient to distinguish such trademark from the domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent's <pirates-booty.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's PIRATE'S BOOTY trademark under 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, FA 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, absent evidence of Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances 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. See Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC v. Taha Shaikh / Tskdesigners, FA 1814475 (Forum Nov. 25, 2018) (finding no rights or legitimate interests in <spectrumfeature.com> because complainant never gave respondent permission to use the mark in any manner and "Panels may use these assertions as evidence that no rights or legitimate interests exist in a disputed domain name.").

 

The WHOIS information for <pirates-booty.com> leads to the revelation that "vana brand" is the domain name's registrant and there is nothing in the record that tends to prove that Respondent is otherwise known by <pirates-booty.com>. As such, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).

 

Respondent uses the confusingly similar <pirates-booty.com> domain name to pass itself off as being affiliated with Complainant. The domain name addresses a website dressed like it is sponsored or endorsed by Complainant that ultimately advertises and offers merchandise for sale as part of the Respondent's participation in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising initiative that compensates participants for traffic and purchases originating from referral links. Respondent's use of the at-issue domain name in this manner is neither indicative of a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy 4(c)(i) nor of a non-commercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Ripple Labs Inc. v. Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund, FA 1790949 (Forum July 9, 2018) (finding the respondent did not use the domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services per Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) where the website resolving from the disputed domain name featured the complainant's mark and various photographs related to the complainant's business);see also, Allianz of Am. Corp. v. Bond, FA 680624 (Forum June 2, 2006) (finding bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent was diverting internet users searching for the complainant to its own website and likely profiting).

 

Given the foregoing, Respondent lacks rights and lacks legitimate interests in <pirates-booty.com>.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

As discussed below without being exhaustive, Respondent acted in bad faith.

 

Respondent's <pirates-booty.com> domain name is used to address Respondent's <pirates-booty.com> website. Respondent's website appears as if it is an authorized seller of Complainant's merchandise or otherwise affiliated with Complainant when such is not the case. The domain name directs internet traffic to links facilitating the sales of Complainant's products via Amazon and through which Respondent is compensated. Notably, Respondent's use of <pirates-booty.com> is disruptive to Complainant's business and allows Respondent to wrongfully capitalize on the confusion it created between its <pirates-booty.com> domain name and Complainant's PIRATE'S BOOTY trademark. Respondent's use of the <pirates-booty.com> domain name and its associated website thus demonstrates Respondent's bad faith registration and use of <pirates-booty.com> under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum Dec. 27, 2017) (finding bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where "Respondent registered and uses the <lbittrex.com> domain name in bad faith by directing internet users to a website that mimics Complainant's own website in order to confuse users into believing that Respondent is Complainant, or is otherwise affiliated or associated with Complainant.").

 

Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the PIRATE'S BOOTY mark when Respondent registered <pirates-booty.com> as a domain name. Respondent's prior knowledge is evident given the PIRATE'S BOOTY mark's notoriety and given Respondent's use of the <pirates-booty.com> domain name to pass itself off as being related to Complainant and address a website repeatedly displaying Complainant's registered trademark and offering <pirates-booty.com> branded merchandise for sale through Amazon. See Lemon Inc. v. Sumer Singh, FA 2110519 (Forum Sept. 5, 2024 ("registration of a disputed domain name with actual knowledge of another's trademark rights is sufficient to establish bad faith, and can be shown by the notoriety of the mark and the use the Respondent makes of the disputed domain name"); see also, 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 <pirates-booty.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist

Dated: March 24, 2026