DECISION

 

Cardimente, LLC v. Jonathan Pierre / individual

Claim Number: FA2606002228301

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Cardimente, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Jessica Sganga of Baker & Hostetler LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Jonathan Pierre / individual ("Respondent"), France.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <growgood.store>, registered with OVH sas.

 

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 June 19, 2026; Forum received payment on June 19, 2026.

 

On June 23, 2026, OVH sas confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <growgood.store> domain name is registered with OVH sas and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. OVH sas has verified that Respondent is bound by the OVH sas 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 25, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 15, 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@growgood.store.  Also on June 25, 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 July 16, 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 has used and filed applications for its GROWGOOD mark in connection with hair care preparations and related goods and services since well before the registration of the disputed domain name. By virtue of its widespread success and extensive marketing efforts conducted by Complainant, Complainant's GROWGOOD mark has become widely recognized by consumers in the United States and around the world. Complainant owns trademark registrations and pending applications in the United States and around the world, inter alia, International Registration No. 1915881 for the GROWGOOD mark in Classes 3 and 35, which was registered on April 2, 2026. The underlying basis for this registration is USPTO trademark application Serial No. 99435419 (currently allowed), filed on October 9, 2025. The disputed domain name is nearly identical to Complainant's distinctive and registered GROWGOOD mark, as it incorporates the entirety of Complainant's GROWGOOD mark.

 

ii) Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Complainant has not authorized or licensed Respondent to use Complainant's GROWGOOD mark, or anything confusingly similar thereto, for any purpose. Using a domain name to benefit from the goodwill associated with Complainant's marks does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services.

 

iii) Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith by (i) using Complainant's copyrighted photographs; (ii) attempting to disrupt the business of Complainant; and (iii) attempting to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's GROWGOOD mark. The website at the disputed domain name prominently features a mark identical to Complainant's GROWGOOD mark, including as a header on every page of the website, and the website purportedly offers to sell haircare products under the GROWGOOD mark by using Complainant's copyrighted images to advertise the haircare products, often at significantly marked-down prices. Respondent knew of Complainant and its trademark prior to registering the disputed domain name, and is using the disputed domain name for the bad faith purpose of disrupting Complainant's business, impersonating or suggesting an affiliation with Complainant via the use of Complainant's trademarks and copyrighted images, and confusing and defrauding consumers.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

1. Respondent registered the disputed domain name on April 25, 2026.

 

2. Complainant has established rights in the GROWGOOD mark via trademark registrations and pending applications in the United States and around the world, inter alia, International Registration No. 1915881 for the GROWGOOD mark in Classes 3 and 35, which was registered on April 2, 2026. The underlying basis for this registration is USPTO trademark application Serial No. 99435419 (currently allowed), filed on October 9, 2025.

 

3. Complainant acquired the trademark rights in the GROWGOOD mark, effective as of June 11, 2026, from Cardimente, LLC by executing a Trademark Assignment Agreement.

 

4. The website at the disputed domain name prominently features a mark identical to Complainant's GROWGOOD mark, including as a header on every page of the website, and the website purportedly offers to sell haircare products under the GROWGOOD mark by using Complainant's copyrighted images to advertise the haircare products, often at significantly marked-down prices.

 

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 GROWGOOD mark via trademark registrations and pending applications in the United States and around the world, inter alia, International Registration No. 1915881 for the GROWGOOD mark in Classes 3 and 35, which was registered on April 2, 2026. The underlying basis for this registration is USPTO trademark application Serial No. 99435419 (currently allowed), filed on October 9, 2025. Complainant acquired the trademark rights in the GROWGOOD mark, effective as of June 11, 2026, from Cardimente, LLC by executing a Trademark Assignment Agreement. Since Complainant has provided proof of its trademark registration with WIPO, the Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in the GROWGOOD mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Complainant contends that the disputed domain name <growgood.store> is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark, as it incorporates Complainant's mark in its entirety. The Panel agrees and finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's GROWGOOD mark, as the disputed domain name merely adds the ".store" gTLD 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 interests in the disputed domain name as Complainant has not authorized or licensed Respondent to use Complainant's GROWGOOD mark, or anything confusingly similar thereto, for any purpose. 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 information lists "Jonathan Pierre / individual" 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 argues that Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Complainant highlights that Respondent passes itself off as Complainant by causing the disputed domain name to resolve to a website offering goods under the GROWGOOD mark. Complainant's GROWGOOD mark and copyrighted images taken from Complainant's website are prominently displayed on Respondent's website, and the website promotes Complainant's unauthorized GROWGOOD products at discounted prices.

 

As it appears that the goods are Complainant's products, the question of fair use must be considered. The leading case on this issue is Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc., where Respondent was a reseller of Complainant's OKIDATA products. Respondent registered and used the domain name <okidataparts.com> for that business. The panel in that case found that such use could qualify as a bona fide offering of goods or services under the Policy if certain conditions were met:

 

(i) Respondent must actually be offering the goods or services at issue; (ii) Respondent must use the site to sell only the trademarked goods (otherwise, there is a possibility that Respondent is using the trademark in a domain name to bait consumers and then switch them to other goods);

(iii) The site itself must accurately disclose Respondent's relationship with the trademark owner; and

(iv) Respondent must not try to "corner the market" in all relevant domain names, thus depriving the trademark owner of the ability to reflect its own mark in a domain name.

 

The Panel notes that Respondent's website does not disclose its relationship with Complainant. Furthermore, the website at the disputed domain name prominently features a mark identical to Complainant's GROWGOOD mark, including as a header on every page of the website, and the website purportedly offers to sell haircare products under the GROWGOOD mark by using Complainant's copyrighted images to advertise the haircare products, often at significantly discounted prices.

 

The Panel finds that such use is highly likely to mislead Internet users into believing that Respondent's website is Complainant's website, or at least that the operator of the website is officially associated with Complainant. Therefore, the Panel concludes that this does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor is it a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has established a prima facie case arising from the considerations above. All of these matters serve to establish the prima facie case against Respondent. As Respondent has not filed a Response, or attempted by any other means to rebut the prima facie case against it, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant asserts that Respondent has passed off its website as an official or authorized website selling goods bearing Complainant's registered GROWGOOD marks.

 

As previously noted, the website at the disputed domain name promotes Complainant's unauthorized GROWGOOD products. Even if Respondent is offering only Complainant's genuine products, the Panel notes that Respondent's website does not disclose its relationship with Complainant. Furthermore, the website associated with the disputed domain name uses Complainant's copyrighted promotional images. The Panel finds that such use is highly likely to mislead Internet users into believing that Respondent's website is Complainant's website, or at least that the operator of the website is officially associated with Complainant.

 

Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name with the intent to disrupt Complainant's business by diverting Internet users from Complainant's website to Respondent's website, and by creating confusion with Complainant's GROWGOOD mark for commercial gain by misleading consumers into believing that Respondent's website is Complainant's official website, or at least that it is connected to Complainant. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and 4(b)(iv), and thus Complainant has satisfied the requirements of Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

Complainant further contends that Respondent knew of Complainant and its trademark prior to, or at the time of, the registration of the disputed domain name.

 

The Panel acknowledges that Complainant has established a strong market reputation with its GROWGOOD mark. The brand's widespread recognition is evidenced by frequent features in major publications such as Allure and Elle, as well as its 664,000 Instagram followers. Furthermore, the mark's value is amplified by celebrity Cardi B, the face of the brand. Her Instagram posts promoting the GROWGOOD launch in spring 2026 garnered massive engagement, receiving 1.5 million and 3.1 million likes, which further evidences the brand's significant public presence.

 

Given the recognition of Complainant's mark and the deceptive manner in which the disputed domain name has been used, the Panel infers that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the GROWGOOD mark 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 <growgood.store> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist

Dated: July 16, 2026