DECISION

 

Scooter's Coffee, LLC v. Aung Hagen

Claim Number: FA2602002207613

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Scooter's Coffee, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Alison W. Jarzyna of Larkin Hoffman Daly & Lindgren Ltd., Minnesota, USA. Respondent is Aung Hagen ("Respondent"), California, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <scooterscoffeetime.com>, registered with Cosmotown, 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.

 

Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 26, 2026; Forum received payment on February 26, 2026.

 

On March 1, 2026, Cosmotown, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <scooterscoffeetime.com> domain name is registered with Cosmotown, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Cosmotown, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Cosmotown, 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 6, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 26, 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@scooterscoffeetime.com. Also on March 6, 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 27, 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 name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

i) Complainant and its predecessors in interest have continuously used, since at least as early as 1998, the service marks SCOOTER'S COFFEE, SCOOTER'S, and the SCOOTER'S COFFEE logo in connection with coffee, beverages, franchising and operating coffeehouses, and providing coffee house, restaurant, and coffee goods and services. There are over 850 SCOOTER'S COFFEE locations across the United States. Complainant owns registrations for the SCOOTER'S marks around the world, including the USPTO registration for the mark SCOOTER'S COFFEE (e.g., Reg. No. 7,380,779, registered May 7, 2024). The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the SCOOTER'S COFFEE mark, as it incorporates the mark in its entirety with the mere addition of the generic term "time" and the ".com" gTLD.

 

ii) Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant granted Respondent any license or authorization to use Complainant's mark in connection with the disputed domain name. Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor is the disputed domain name used for any legitimate noncommercial or fair use purpose. Rather, Respondent impersonates Complainant by prominently displaying the SCOOTER'S COFFEE marks and product images, and by offering competing goods and services. The website incorporates a checkout function where website users can enter their personal and payment information. Thus, Respondent is attempting to fraudulently extract such information from users by copying Complainant's website design and by purporting to offer Complainant's products for sale.

 

iii) Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The resolving website operated by Respondent displays Complainant's trademarks, copyrighted images, and content without authorization from Complainant. Respondent's bad faith is demonstrated by its use of the website at the disputed domain name to phish for customers' personal and financial information. Respondent has registered and is using the domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) in that it is using the domain name to attract Internet users to its website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion between the domain name and Complainant's marks. Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the SCOOTER'S marks.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

1. The disputed domain name was registered on December 23, 2025.

 

2. Complainant has established rights in the mark SCOOTER'S COFFEE around the world, including the USPTO registration (e.g., Reg. No. 7,380,779, registered May 7, 2024).

 

3. The disputed domain name resolves to a website that is a nearly exact copy of Complainant's commercial website. Respondent uses the resolving website to purport to sell Complainant's products at a much higher cost than sold by Complainant.

 

4. The website at the disputed domain name incorporates a checkout function where website users can enter their personal and payment information.

 

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 the mark SCOOTER'S COFFEE around the world, including the USPTO registration (e.g., Reg. No. 7,380,779, registered May 7, 2024). Complainant has submitted evidence demonstrating the registrations of the SCOOTER'S COFFEE marks. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in the SCOOTER'S COFFEE mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Complainant argues that the disputed domain name <scooterscoffeetime.com> is confusingly similar to its SCOOTER'S COFFEE mark, as it incorporates the mark in its entirety, with only the addition of the generic term "time" and the ".com" gTLD. The Panel agrees and concludes that the disputed domain name is 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 name 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 argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Respondent been authorized by Complainant to use Complainant's mark, and Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant. Relevant information, such as WHOIS information, can be used as evidence to show a respondent is or is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). The Panel notes that the unmasked WHOIS data lists "Aung Hagen" as the registrant, and there is no evidence in the record to suggest Respondent was authorized to use the mark. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

Complainant asserts that Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor for any legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Respondent impersonates Complainant by prominently featuring the SCOOTER'S COFFEE mark, and the disputed domain name is being used for phishing purposes.

 

The Panel observes that under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii), passing off as a complainant does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See hipChain, Inc. v. 谢东东 / 谢东东, FA 1785189 (Forum June 21, 2018) ("The resolving webpages between Complainant's and Respondent's websites are virtually the same. Respondent's use of the disputed domain name does not confer rights and legitimate interests under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii)."); see also Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Inversiones HP Milenium C.A., FA 105775 (Forum Apr. 12, 2002) ("Respondent's use of the confusingly similar domain name [<hpmilenium.com>] to sell counterfeit versions of Complainant's [HP] products is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i).").

 

The Panel specifically notes that Complainant provides a screenshot of the resolving webpage at the disputed domain name, which prominently displays Complainant's SCOOTER'S COFFEE marks and product imagery, and purports to offer competing goods. The Panel further notes that the website at the disputed domain name incorporates a checkout function where website users can enter their personal and payment information. The Panel finds that Respondent's fraudulent use of the disputed domain name, including passing off and phishing, does not constitute a use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).

 

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has established a prima facie case. All of these circumstances support a finding that a prima facie case has been made against Respondent. As Respondent has failed to submit a Response or otherwise rebut the prima facie case, the Panel concludes that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant asserts that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent registered the disputed domain name to impersonate Complainant or to create a false impression of affiliation with Complainant. The disputed domain name is being used for phishing.

 

When a respondent uses a disputed domain name to impersonate a complainant or engage in phishing activities, such conduct may constitute bad faith disruption of the complainant's business under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii), as well as an attempt to attract Internet users for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum Dec. 27, 2017) ("finding bad faith under 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 to confuse users into believing that Respondent is Complainant, or is otherwise affiliated or associated with Complainant'").

 

As previously noted, Complainant provides a screenshot of the resolving webpage to which the disputed domain name directs, prominently displaying Complainant's SCOOTER'S COFFEE marks and product imagery, and purporting to offer competing goods. The Panel further notes that the website at the disputed domain name incorporates a checkout function where website users can enter their personal and payment information.

 

The Panel finds that such passing off and phishing activities constitute disruption of Complainant's business under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). In addition, Respondent uses the disputed domain name for commercial gain by redirecting Internet users seeking Complainant to Respondent's own website, thereby creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv).

 

Additionally, Complainant contends that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the SCOOTER'S COFFEE mark, as evidenced by Respondent's direct copying of Complainant's website content and use of its identical text, photographs, and arrangement of the website.

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has demonstrated that the SCOOTER'S COFFEE mark enjoys widespread recognition in the United States and has accrued substantial goodwill. Complainant and its predecessors in interest have, since at least as early as 1998, continuously used the service marks SCOOTER'S COFFEE, SCOOTER'S, and the SCOOTER'S COFFEE logo in connection with coffee, beverages, franchising and operating coffeehouses, and providing coffee house, restaurant, and coffee goods and services. There are over 850 SCOOTER'S COFFEE locations across the United States. As a result of Complainant's long-standing and extensive use and promotion of the SCOOTER'S COFFEE mark, the mark is recognized by the public as uniquely identifying Complainant and represents valuable goodwill.

 

Given the notoriety of the SCOOTER'S COFFEE mark and Respondent's conduct in passing itself off as Complainant by displaying the SCOOTER'S COFFEE marks and product imagery and offering competing goods, the Panel infers that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights at the time of registration. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent registered 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 <scooterscoffeetime.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist

Dated: March 29, 2026