DECISION

 

Trick or Treat Studios, LLC v. kayleighs kayleighs

Claim Number: FA2605002222898

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Trick or Treat Studios, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Brian M. Wheeler, Esq. of Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo, California, USA. Respondent is kayleighs kayleighs ("Respondent"), Florida, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <trickortreatstudiosshop.shop>, registered with Spaceship, 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.

 

Debrett G. Lyons as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on May 22, 2026; Forum received payment on May 22, 2026.

 

On May 25, 2026, Spaceship, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <trickortreatstudiosshop.shop> domain name is registered with Spaceship, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Spaceship, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Spaceship, 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 June 1, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 22, 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@trickortreatstudiosshop.shop. Also on June 1, 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 June 23, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Debrett G. Lyons 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 cancelled.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant asserts trademark rights in TRICK OR TREAT STUDIOS which it uses in connection with the manufacture and sale of Halloween costumes, masks, toys, action figures, and other horror-genre and pop culture-themed goods. Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark.  

 

Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

Complainant alleges that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. In particular, the domain name points to a website which uses the trademark and copies images from Complainant's website, advertising those goods for sale.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The factual findings pertinent to the decision in this case are that the disputed domain name was registered on March 14, 2026, and resolves to a website which invites the pre-order of an 8" leprechaun doll.

 

DISCUSSION

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted 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

Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires a two-fold enquiry—a threshold investigation into whether a complainant has rights in a trademark, followed by an assessment of whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark.

 

Complainant asserts both common law and registered trademark rights in TRICK OR TREAT STUDIOS. It states that it has used the trademark since at least January 2010, but the only evidence of use is a webpage showing the image of a 30" leprechaun doll, currently not available for purchase. The Panel finds that there is no proof of common law trademark rights.

 

However, it is well established that a trademark registered by a complainant with a national authority is evidence of trademark rights (see, for example, Mothers Against Drunk Driving v. phix, FA 174052 (Forum Sept. 25, 2003)).  Complainant states that it "owns the TRICK OR TREAT STUDIOS trademark and registration through its affiliate intellectual property holding company TTS IP Holdings, LLC." and exhibits to the Complaint a copy of the Certificate of Registration for United States Patent & Trademark Office ("USPTO") Reg. No. 5,996,986, for the trademark.

 

The Panel notes that the certificate does not name either Complainant or TTS IP Holdings, LLC. as the owner, but rather Trick or Treat Studios, Inc.. Another panel may have denied the Complainant at this point for failure to establish trademark rights. Nonetheless, the Panel has made its own reference to USPTO records to discover that TTS IP Holdings, LLC. is the current owner of Reg. No. 5,996,986.

 

This, in turn, raises the question considered by the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions ("WIPO Overview 3.1") at #1.4, namely: Does a trademark owner's affiliate or licensee have standing to file a UDRP complaint? In answer, the consensus view is that:

 

A trademark owner's affiliate such as a subsidiary of a parent or of a holding company, or an exclusive trademark licensee, is considered to have rights in a trademark under the UDRP for purposes of standing to file a complaint. The same holds true for a parent company filing a UDRP case on the basis of rights held in the name of one of the companies or brands under its corporate umbrella.

While panels have been prepared to infer the existence of authorization to file a UDRP case based on the facts and circumstances described in the complaint (which may be supported by information that is publicly available online such as company websites or financial statements), they may expect parties to provide an explanation of the relationship between the entities and/or relevant evidence of authorization to file a UDRP complaint, especially if the companies are not named in the complaint as co-complainants.

In this respect, absent clear authorization from the trademark owner, a non-exclusive trademark licensee would typically not have standing to file a UDRP complaint.

 

There is nothing in the Complaint from which the Panel can infer authorisation or that Complainant is an exclusive licensee of the trademark. The Panel has reviewed the whole of the website from which the exhibited screenshot of the 30" leprechaun doll was taken and can find nothing to link Complainant with the trademark owner. Conversely, a casual search of TTS IP Holdings, LLC. brings up multiple instances of trademark matters where it is the initiator of proceedings or the claimant of rights. 

 

In these circumstances the Panel is unable to find that Complainant has trademark rights for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has not satisfied the first and threshold requirement of the Policy.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

No findings required (see, for example, Netsertive, Inc. v. Ryan Howard / Howard Technologies, Ltd., FA 1721637 (Forum Apr. 17, 2017) finding that because the complainant must prove all three elements under the Policy, the complainant's failure to prove one of the elements makes further inquiry into the remaining element unnecessary); Wasatch Shutter Design v. Duane Howell / The Blindman, FA 1731056 (Forum June 23, 2017) deciding not to inquire into the respondent's rights or legitimate interests or its registration and use in bad faith where the complainant could not satisfy the requirements of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

No findings required.

 

DECISION

Having failed to establish one of the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <trickortreatstudiosshop.shop> domain name REMAIN WITH Respondent.

 

 

 

Debrett G Lyons, Panelist

Dated: June 24, 2026