DECISION

 

Planet Harvest, LLC v. Domain Manager / MV3 Inc

Claim Number: FA2606002226562

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Planet Harvest, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Rachel Saunders Esq. of Saturday Legal, LLC, Illinois, USA. Respondent is Domain Manager / MV3 Inc ("Respondent"), North Carolina, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <planetharvest.com> ("Domain Name"), registered with Wild West Domains, 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.

 

Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 10, 2026; Forum received payment on June 10, 2026.

 

On June 12, 2026, Wild West Domains, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <planetharvest.com> domain name is registered with Wild West Domains, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Wild West Domains, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Wild West Domains, 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 June 23, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 13, 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@planetharvest.com. Also on June 23, 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.

 

A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on June 23, 2026.

 

On June 24, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Nicholas J.T. Smith 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the Domain Name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant has since 2023 marketed and sold fresh produce, packaged meal kits, and food-delivery services under the trademark PLANET HARVEST ("PLANET HARVEST mark"). Complainant has rights in the PLANET HARVEST mark based upon registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (e.g. Reg. No. 7,735,720, registered March 25, 2025). Respondent's <planetharvest.com> domain name is identical to Complainant's PLANET HARVEST mark, wholly incorporating the PLANET HARVEST mark and adding the ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD").

 

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <planetharvest.com> domain name. Respondent is not, and has never been, commonly known by the Domain Name. Additionally, Respondent fails to use the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent's Domain Name does not resolve to an active site and its offer to sell the Domain Name for $100,000 confirms the absence of a legitimate interest.

 

Respondent registered and uses the <planetharvest.com> domain name in bad faith. The Domain Name has not been used and indeed has been held by a privacy service (and the Whois record has recently been updated), suggesting that the holder of the Domain Name has recently been transferred to a new owner. Following an initial offer to purchase the Domain Name for $2,201, the Respondent counter offered for $100,000 indicating registration and use in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

The Domain Name was registered by Vance More on March 30, 1999 more than 20 years prior to the registration of the Complainant's trade mark or the commencement of use. The Domain Name was transferred to the present Respondent, a corporate entity owned by Vance More, in 2012. The Domain Name has not been subsequently transferred and neither the the renewal of the registration in 2026 nor the use of a privacy service amounts to a transfer. The Domain Name consists of two generic words and was not registered in contemplation of the (then non-existent) Complainant, rather it was registered as part of the Respondent's portfolio of generic two-word domain names.  The holding of a domain name consisting of generic terms for resale is a legitimate use and the Domain Name was not registered in bad faith.

 

Finally, the Complainant initially contacted the Respondent, seeking to acquire the Domain Name for consideration. The Respondent made a counteroffer. The Complainant, dissatisfied with that offer, then commenced the proceeding in awareness that it's use postdated the registration and it thus had no plausible legal basis to acquire the Domain Name under the Policy. This amounts to Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.  

 

FINDINGS

Complainant having failed to establish bad faith registration and use of the domain name <planetharvest.com> has not established all required elements of its claim, and thus its complaint must be denied.

 

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

Complainant has rights in the PLANET HARVEST mark based on registration with the USPTO (e.g. Reg. No. 7,735,720, registered March 25, 2025). Registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently confers a complainant's rights in a mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Target Brands, Inc. v. jennifer beyer, FA 1738027 (Forum July 31, 2017) ("Complainant has rights in its TARGET service mark for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) by virtue of its registration of the mark with a national trademark authority, the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO").").

 

The Panel finds that the <planetharvest.com> domain name is identical to Complainant's PLANET HARVEST mark because it wholly incorporates the PLANET HARVEST mark and adds the ".com" gTLD. This change is insufficient to distinguish the Domain Name from the PLANET HARVEST mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (concluding that the affixation of a gTLD to a domain name is irrelevant to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis).

 

The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

In light of the Panel's dispositive finding on the issue of registration and use in bad faith, the Panel declines to address the question of rights or legitimate interests.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

The Panel finds that Complainant has failed to meet its burden of proof of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Tristar Products, Inc. v. Domain Administrator / Telebrands, Corp., FA 1597388 (Forum Feb. 16, 2015) ("Complainant makes conclusory allegations of bad faith but has adduced no specific evidence that warrants a holding that Respondent proceeded in bad faith at the time it registered the disputed domain name. Mere assertions of bad faith, even when made on multiple grounds, do not prove bad faith."); see also Chris Pearson v. Domain Admin / Automattic, Inc., FA 1613723 (Forum Jul. 3, 2015) (finding that the complainant could not establish the respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith because it failed to present evidence that would support such a holding).

 

The Domain Name was registered in 1999 and transferred to a corporate entity controlled by the previous individual registrant in 2012¹.  Complainant states that it commenced use of the PLANET HARVEST mark in commerce in 2023.  Complainant makes various assertions that there may have been a transfer in 2026 based on the Whois recording reflecting an "updated" date of May 30, 2026 but the Panel is satisfied from the Response that the "updated" date reflects a renewal and the renewal of a Domain Name is not a new registration (see WIPO Overview 3.1 at ¶ 3.9).

 

Respondent's registration of the <planetharvest.com> domain name thus predates Complainant's first claimed rights in the PLANET HARVEST mark (and date of first use), and thus Complainant cannot prove registration in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii), as the Policy requires a showing of bad faith registration and use. See Platterz v. Andrew Melcher, FA 1729887 (Forum Jun. 19, 2017) ("Whatever the merits of Complainant's arguments that Respondent is using the Domain Name in bad faith, those arguments are irrelevant, as a complainant must prove both bad faith registration and bad faith use in order to prevail."); see also Faster Faster, Inc. DBA Alta Motors v. Jeongho Yoon c/o AltaMart, FA 1708272 (Forum Feb. 6, 2017) ("Respondent registered the domain name more than a decade before Complainant introduced the ALTA MOTORS mark in commerce.")

 

The Panel finds that Respondent could not have entertained bad faith intentions respecting the PLANET HARVEST mark because it could not have contemplated Complainant's then non-existent rights in PLANET HARVEST mark at the moment the Domain Name was registered. Moreover, the Panel accepts the Respondent's submissions that in this case, where the Domain Name was obviously not registered in contemplation of the Complainant, neither the fact that the Respondent made a counter-offer to the Complainant's offer to purchase the Domain Name, nor the present use of the Domain Name for a site maintained by the Registrar is, relevant to the question of registration in bad faith, which the Complainant must establish to succeed under the Policy.

 

Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent did not register the Domain Name in bad faith.

 

REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKING

Reverse Domain Name Hijacking ("RDNH") is defined in Rule 1 as "using the Policy in bad faith to attempt to deprive a registered domain-name holder of a domain name". Rule 15(e) provides, in part:

 

"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 WIPO Overview 3.1 at ¶ 4.16, states in respect of RDNH:

 

"Panels have consistently found that the mere lack of success of a complaint is not itself sufficient for a finding of RDNH...

 

Reasons articulated by panels for finding RDNH include: (i) facts which demonstrate that the complainant knew it could not succeed as to any of the required three elements – such as the complainant's lack of relevant trademark rights, clear knowledge of respondent rights or legitimate interests, or clear knowledge of a lack of respondent bad faith (see generally section 3.8) such as registration of the disputed domain name well before the complainant acquired trademark rights, (ii) facts which demonstrate that the complainant clearly ought to have known it could not succeed under any fair interpretation of facts reasonably available prior to the filing of the complaint, including relevant facts on the website at the disputed domain name or readily available public sources such as the WhoIs database, (iii) unreasonably ignoring established Policy precedent notably as captured in this WIPO Overview – except in limited circumstances which prima facie justify advancing an alternative legal argument, (iv) the provision of false evidence, or otherwise attempting to mislead the panel, (v) the provision of intentionally incomplete material evidence – often clarified by the respondent, (vi) the complainant's failure to disclose that a case is a UDRP refiling, (vii) filing the complaint after an unsuccessful attempt to acquire the disputed domain name from the respondent without a plausible legal basis, (viii) basing a complaint on only the barest of allegations without any supporting evidence."

 

The Panel considers that this is a textbook case of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking and that at the minimum items (i), (iii), and (vii) exist in the present proceeding. Specifically:

 

·       The Complaint is brought in circumstances where the PLANET HARVEST mark was first used by it approximately 23-24 years after the registration of the Domain Name, where the only evidence of a transfer since the registration date of 1999 (other than the 2012 transfer which is not relevant to establishing bad faith) was the Whois record reflecting an "updated" date of May 30, 2026, which could reflect the renewal of an existing registration or an updating of contact details. There was simply no evidence (as opposed to speculation) available to the Complainant to support the theory that the Domain Name was registered in contemplation of the Complainant's rights in the PLANET HARVEST mark. Notwithstanding the clear precedent under the Policy that the Domain Name must been registered in bad faith, Complainant has chosen to file the Complaint when the Complainant knew this was not the case.

·       Complainant is legally represented by sophisticated counsel that has quoted various cases and the WIPO Overview 3.1 in support of its various contentions. Notwithstanding this, its submissions (including its submissions at page 8) rely on various discredited theories including the theory that renewal of a domain name amounts to re-registration for the purposes of finding bad faith registration and that the Respondent's failure to accept the Complainant's offer somehow established registration in bad faith.  This is contrary to well-settled case law reflected in the WIPO Overview 3.1 at ¶ 3.8 and 3.9.

·       The Complainant wishes to acquire the Domain Name for its business. It contacted the Respondent and made an offer to purchase the Domain Name. The Respondent made a counteroffer. Complainant, dissatisfied with the counteroffer, then chose to file the Complaint, in essence, arguing that by making a counteroffer that was greater than Complainant was willing to pay, the Respondent had engaged in registration and use of the Domain Name in bad faith. This is not a plausible legal basis to bring a complaint and is a textbook example of (vii).

 

Complainant certified that the "Complaint is not being presented for any improper purpose (such as to harass), and that the assertions in this Complaint are warranted under these Rules and under applicable law, as it now exists or as it may be extended by a good-faith and reasonable argument."  The Panel finds that this was not the case. The Panel concludes that the Complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding.

 

DECISION

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

 

The Panel further finds that the Complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.

 

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

 

 

Nicholas J.T. Smith, Panelist

Dated: June 25, 2026