DECISION

 

MUSCO FOODS CORPORATION v. luke chen

Claim Number: FA2602002206848

 

PARTIES

Complainant is MUSCO FOODS CORPORATION ("Complainant"), represented by Allan Brent of MUSCO FOODS CORPORATION, New York, USA. Respondent is Luke Chen ("Respondent"), represented by Lei Zhang of Chofn Intellectual Property, China.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <mf.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.

 

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.

 

Adam Taylor and Jonathan Agmon as Panelists and Bart Van Besien as Chair.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 24, 2026; Forum received payment on February 24, 2026.

 

On February 24, 2026, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <mf.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that the Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, LLC 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 25, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 17, 2026, by which the Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on the Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@mf.com. Also on February 25, 2026, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying the Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to the Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.

 

A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on March 8, 2026.

 

On March 16, 2026, pursuant to the Respondent's request to have the dispute decided by a three-member Panel, Forum appointed Adam Taylor and Jonathan Agmon as Panelists and Bart Van Besien as Chair.

 

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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that it is the owner of the United States Trademark Registration "MF", No. 1,590,064, a combined word-figurative mark, registered on April 3, 1990, in class 29 for 'cheese', with a claimed first use in commerce of January 8, 1987 (hereafter the "Complainant's Trademark"). The Complainant asserts that it has used the "MF" mark continuously for decades in connection with its business of importing, manufacturing, and distributing Mediterranean food products, and that the mark also serves as an abbreviation of its corporate name and a key identifier of its commercial activities both offline and online.

 

With respect to the first element of the Policy, the Complainant argues that the disputed domain name <mf.com> is identical to its "MF" trademark, as it reproduces the mark in its entirety.

 

Regarding the second element, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Its trademark rights predate the registration of the domain name in 1994, and it is inconceivable that the Respondent registered the domain name without knowledge of the Complainant's Trademark. The Complainant further asserts that the domain name resolves to an inactive webpage and has been passively held for decades. Furthermore, the Respondent is not commonly known by the designation "MF". The Complainant emphasizes that the Respondent has admitted that it registered the domain name solely to hold it "hostage" and has no independent need or use for it, thereby negating any claim to rights or legitimate interests.

 

With respect to the third element, the Complainant argues that the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant relies on a series of email communications from January 21, 2026 to February 5, 2026. The Complainant states that it initially contacted the Respondent in good faith to explore a possible purchase of the domain name and made successive offers of USD 5,000, USD 7,000, and USD 9,000. According to the Complainant, the Respondent eventually responded with threatening and self-incriminating statements, explicitly admitting that it registered the domain name in 1994 with the Complainant in mind and for the sole purpose of extracting maximum financial value from the Complainant. The Respondent allegedly demanded USD 50,000,000 for the domain name, stated that the domain was created "specifically to hold hostage," and threatened to redirect the domain to a competitor of the Complainant.

 

The Complainant submits that these statements constitute clear evidence of bad faith registration and use under the Policy, demonstrating that the Respondent registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling it to the Complainant for an exorbitant price and disrupting the Complainant's business. The Complainant further argues that the Respondent's passive holding of the domain name, combined with its explicit admissions and conduct, reinforces the finding of bad faith.

 

The Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred to it.

 

B. Respondent

The Respondent contends that the Complaint is flawed and should be denied, raising several issues that, in its view, undermine the credibility of the Complainant's case. In particular, the Respondent alleges that the Complainant has submitted fabricated evidence, specifically the email correspondence relied upon to establish bad faith. The Respondent denies ever receiving or sending such emails and argues that the alleged communications are technically impossible because the disputed domain name did not have active MX (mail exchange) records during the relevant period. The Respondent further points to inconsistencies in the alleged email addresses, including typographical errors in the Complainant's domain name (it@muscafood.com instead of it@muscofood.com), and submits that the content of the emails appears artificial and designed to satisfy the requirements of the Policy.

 

The Respondent also invokes the doctrine of laches, emphasizing that the disputed domain name was originally registered in 1994, while the Complainant waited nearly 32 years, until 2026, to initiate the present proceeding. According to the Respondent, such an extensive and unexplained delay undermines any claim of bad faith and suggests acquiescence. In addition, the Respondent requests a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking ("RDNH").

 

With respect to the first element of the Policy, the Respondent contends that, although the disputed domain name consists of the letters "mf," the Complainant's trademark rights in that term are limited and do not give rise to confusing similarity in the circumstances of this case. The Respondent argues that "MF" is a common two-letter acronym used by numerous third parties across various industries, resulting in a "crowded field" that diminishes any distinctiveness of the Complainant's mark. The Respondent further submits that the Complainant operates in a narrow, specialized market with limited public recognition, and that there is no evidence that the acronym "MF" has acquired secondary meaning or is widely recognized as identifying the Complainant. The Respondent also emphasizes that the Complainant's registered mark is a stylized or design mark, not a plain word mark, and argues that such rights do not extend to exclusive control over the corresponding two-letter domain name.

 

Regarding the second element, the Respondent asserts that it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent states that it acquired the domain name in 2024 through a bona fide, arm's-length commercial transaction for substantial consideration (approximately USD 797,264), reflecting the inherent value of two-letter ".com" domain names as scarce and highly sought-after digital assets. The Respondent maintains that its acquisition was a legitimate investment based on the generic and versatile nature of the two-letter string, without any intention to target the Complainant. The Respondent further argues that passive holding of such a domain name is consistent with standard investment practices and does not negate legitimate interests. The Respondent also reiterates that the alleged email correspondence is fabricated and cannot support any finding to the contrary.

 

With respect to the third element, the Respondent denies that the domain name was registered or is being used in bad faith. The Respondent submits that the relevant date for assessing bad faith is 2024, when it acquired the domain name, and argues that there is no evidence that it had knowledge of the Complainant or its trademark at that time. According to the Respondent, the Complainant's business is a niche, regionally focused operation with limited visibility, making it implausible that the Respondent targeted it when acquiring the domain name. The Respondent further contends that its substantial financial investment in the domain name is inconsistent with any intent to extort the Complainant as a company of "modest scale".

 

The Respondent also rejects the Complainant's email communications as evidence of bad faith, reiterating that such evidence is unreliable and technically implausible. Finally, the Respondent argues that passive holding of a valuable two-letter domain name for investment purposes does not constitute bad faith, particularly in the absence of any evidence of targeting, diversion, or disruption of the Complainant's business.

 

On this basis, the Respondent requests that the Complaint be denied and that the Panel issue a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking against the Complainant.

 

FINDINGS

The domain name was created on September 21, 1994.

 

The Complainant is the owner of the Complainant's Trademark, as referenced to above, i.e. the United States Trademark Registration No. 1,590,064, for "MF", a combined word-figurative mark, registered on April 3, 1990, in class 29 for 'cheese'.

 

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.

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The disputed domain name incorporates the textual element "MF" of the Complainant's Trademark. Under the first element of the Policy, factors such as the strength or scope of the Complainant's Trademark, its design elements, the geographic scope of the mark, and the location of the parties are not taken into account. It is also well established that a top-level domain ("TLD") is a standard registration requirement and is disregarded when assessing whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.

 

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's Trademark within the meaning of Policy Paragraph 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

The overall burden of proof rests with the Complainant. However, once the Complainant establishes a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating such rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. If the Respondent fails to do so, the Complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element.

 

The Panel finds that the Complainant has not established a prima facie case in support of its contention that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, under Policy paragraph 4(a)(ii). See Terminal Supply, Inc. v. HI-LINE ELECTRIC, FA 0746752 (Forum Aug. 24, 2006).

 

First, the Complainant argues that its trademark rights predate the registration of the domain name in 1994 and that it is inconceivable that the Respondent registered the domain name without knowledge of the Complainant's Trademark or without intent to capitalize on it.

 

The Panel notes that the Complainant's Trademark is a stylized (design) mark—a mixed word and figurative mark—consisting of the textual elements "M" and "F" (or "MF") combined with graphical elements. The Complainant has not provided evidence demonstrating that the mark enjoys a particular reputation. Moreover, the Complainant's Trademark is registered in the United States, whereas the Respondent does not appear to operate in the United States. In addition, the Complainant's Trademark is limited to "cheese," and there is no evidence suggesting that the Respondent operates in that sector.

 

In light of these circumstances, the Panel finds no persuasive factual basis to conclude that the Respondent targeted the Complainant or even had knowledge of the Complainant or the Complainant's Trademark, whether at the time of registration or thereafter. The Panel considers it entirely plausible that the Respondent registered and/or uses the two-letter domain name without awareness of the Complainant or its Trademark.

 

Second, the Complainant asserts that the domain name resolves to an inactive webpage and has been passively held for decades.

 

The Respondent submitted a domain purchase agreement showing, on its face, that it acquired the domain name in 2024 for a substantial purchase price. The Panel considers that any passive holding of the domain name prior to the Respondent's acquisition cannot be attributed to the Respondent. Furthermore, in the absence of additional relevant circumstances, the Panel does not regard the lack of an active website during the two years following the Respondent's acquisition as evidence of a lack of rights or legitimate interests.

 

Third, the Complainant argues that the Respondent is not commonly known by the designation "MF".

 

The Panel considers this to be of limited significance, given that the domain name consists of only two letters and in the absence of any evidence that the domain name was purchased or used by Respondent to trade on the Complainant's Trademark.

 

Fourth, the Complainant relies on emails dated February 2 and February 5, 2026, in which the Respondent allegedly admitted that it registered the domain name solely to hold the Complainant "hostage," without any independent purpose or use, thereby negating any claim to rights or legitimate interests.

 

However, for the reasons discussed in more detail below under the bad faith analysis, the Panel does not consider these emails to be reliable evidence. The Respondent denies having sent them; the Respondent has provided evidence indicating that no MX records were configured, making it technically implausible that such emails could have been sent; and the Complainant has not provided full disclosure of the alleged correspondence.

 

In conclusion, taking all of the above into account, the Panel finds that the Complainant failed to demonstrate that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under the second element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

In light of the Panel's finding that the Complainant has failed to establish the second element of Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Panel need not address the Complainant's assertions that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. Nevertheless, for the sake of completeness, the Panel sets out its conclusions on the third element of Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.

 

First, the Panel notes that the domain name consists of the letters "M" and "F," or the term "MF," which may be regarded as a common and frequently used abbreviation. The Respondent's use of these letters or this term in the domain name does not, in itself, establish bad faith. This is particularly true in light of the absence of evidence that the Complainant's Trademark enjoys a particular reputation, as well as the absence of evidence that the Respondent intentionally targeted the Complainant or sought to disrupt its business.

 

The Respondent states that he was unaware of the Complainant or the Complainant's Trademark prior to the commencement of these proceedings, and the Panel finds no evidence to the contrary.

 

The Panel considers that the parties appear to operate in geographically distinct regions. The Complainant is based in the United States (New York) and appears to serve primarily a North American clientele. The Respondent, by contrast, is a citizen of Vanuatu, resides in Singapore, and does not appear to conduct business in the United States or North America.

 

The Complainant's Trademark is registered in the United States, but not in Singapore, Vanuatu, or other jurisdictions in which the Respondent appears to operate.

 

Moreover, the Complainant appears to operate in a specific market—namely, the import and distribution of Mediterranean food products such as cheese in the United States.

 

The Complainant has not provided evidence of its reputation, sales, advertising, marketing activities, or revenue in the Respondent's region. Nor has it presented other facts supporting a finding that the Complainant's Trademark was particularly well known at the time the disputed domain name was registered or used.

 

As the burden of proof rests with the Complainant, it is incumbent upon the Complainant to provide evidence that the Respondent had the Complainant or the Complainant's Trademark in mind when registering and using the domain name.

 

As noted in panel decision in Renu Medispa LLC v. Angela Sattler/Aesthetics, FA 2143814 (Forum April 28, 2025) a foundational question under the third element of the Policy is whether the Respondent had actual knowledge of the Complainant or its claimed trademark(s) at the time the domain name registration.

 

Second, the Complainant relies heavily on a series of emails from January 21, 2026 to February 5, 2026 to substantiate the Respondent's bad faith.

 

With respect to this alleged email exchange, the Panel notes that it has not been provided with the complete correspondence. The Complainant submitted only screenshots of partial excerpts of the emails, and the Respondent denies having sent or received any such emails.

 

As to the email address used by the Complainant, the exhibits and the Complainant indicate that the emails were sent from it@muscafood.com. However, the screenshots themselves appear to show the address it@muscofood.com (with an "o" rather than an "a"), which corresponds to the Complainant's domain name <muscofood.com>. In other words, the Complainant appears to have made a typographical error in its description of the evidence, which it repeated in the text of the Complaint. The Panel considers that these typographical errors, taken alone, are not sufficient to call into question the authenticity of the emails.

 

A similar conclusion applies to the inconsistency in the Complainant's name. The emails were sent in the name of "MUSCO FOOD CORPORATION," whereas the Complaint was filed in the name of "MUSCO FOODS CORPORATION." However, the record suggests that the Complainant uses both names, and the Panel does not regard this discrepancy as undermining the authenticity of the emails submitted by the Complainant.

 

That said, the Panel notes that the Respondent denies having sent or received these emails and has submitted evidence that convincingly supports this position. In particular, the Panel takes into account the following:

 

·       The screenshots submitted by the Complainant do not include full email headers and therefore do not disclose complete sender and recipient information.

·       The Complainant did not provide the full email chain in its original format (e.g., .eml or .msg files).

·       No server logs or transmission records were submitted.

·       The screenshot of the email dated February 2, 2026 (purportedly sent by the Respondent) shows the sender's address as ry @mf. com, with spaces inserted, which does not appear to be a valid email address. The Panel further observes certain irregularities in the formatting of the date stamp in the screenshot (e.g., "February o2th, 2026"), including the use of inconsistent or non-standard characters (such as differing zero styles).

·       The other emails do not clearly display the Respondent's email address, except for the final email dated February 5, 2026, which references "ry@mf.com" but is presented in a different format.

 

The Complainant has not explained why it used this particular email address, rather than the contact email listed in the Whois records for the disputed domain name. Nor does it appear that the Complainant attempted to contact the Respondent at the email designated in the Whois records of the disputed domain name or at the physical address listed in those records.

 

In addition, based on the evidence submitted by the Respondent, it appears that no active MX records were configured for the domain name during the relevant period, which would have prevented the sending or receipt of emails through that domain.

 

The Respondent also submitted a Domain Purchase Agreement dated March 11, 2024, indicating that it acquired the domain name in 2024. This is consistent with publicly available Whois records reflecting an update on June 30, 2024. In light of this timeline, it is implausible that the Respondent would have stated in the alleged February 2, 2026 email that it registered the domain name "on September 21, 1994 – the day I saw your annual report."

 

Furthermore, the Domain Purchase Agreement reflects a purchase price of nearly USD 800,000 (which seems consistent with investment in a short, inherently valuable domain name, and not with an intent to target a specific trademark holder), making it highly unlikely that the Respondent would send self-incriminating emails - using phrases such as "I created it specifically to hold hostage until you paid what I demand" and stating that the only reason for the domain name is to "extract maximum value" - to a potential domain name purchaser.

 

Finally, if the Respondent had indeed registered the domain name in 1994 with the intention of targeting the Complainant and extorting payment, it is difficult to understand why it would have waited more than 30 years for the Complainant to initiate contact.

 

In sum, the Panel finds that the alleged email correspondence is not reliable and declines to give it evidentiary weight. Absent this evidence, the Complainant has not established a case of bad faith.

 

The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has failed to provide sufficiently persuasive arguments or evidence demonstrating that any of the circumstances set out in Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy—or any other indicia of bad faith registration and use—are present in this case.

 

Accordingly, taking all of the above into account, the Panel concludes that the Complainant has not established that the Respondent registered or used the disputed domain name in bad faith under the third element of Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.

 

REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKING

According to Paragraph 15(e) of the Rules, "If after considering the submissions the Panel finds that the complaint was brought in bad faith, for example in an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking or was brought primarily to harass the domain-name holder, the Panel shall declare in its decision that the complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding."

 

The Panel finds that the Complainant:

·       submitted misleading or unsupported evidence (including the alleged email correspondence of January 21 to February 5, 2026); and

·       pursued a Complaint concerning a domain name consisting of a generic two-letter combination, without credible evidence supporting both the second and third elements of the Policy.

 

The Panel emphasizes that the UDRP is intended to resolve legitimate disputes. That purpose would not be served by declining to make a finding of reverse domain name hijacking where the circumstances, as here, warrant such a finding. The Panel concludes that the Complaint constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding and amounts to an attempt at reverse domain name hijacking.

 

DECISION

Having not established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <mf.com> domain name REMAIN WITH Respondent.

 

 

Bart Van Besien, Chair

Adam Taylor, Panelist

Jonathan Agmon, Panelist

 

Dated: March 30, 2026