DECISION
TBEVCO IP, LLC v. usman shafiq
Claim Number: FA2606002229227
PARTIES
Complainant is TBEVCO IP, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Fatih Oguz of Mullin P.C., Texas, USA. Respondent is usman shafiq ("Respondent"), Pakistan.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <hteaomenu.com>, registered with NameCheap, Inc.
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 as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 24, 2026; Forum received payment on June 24, 2026.
On June 25, 2026, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <hteaomenu.com> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, 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 July 1, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 21, 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@hteaomenu.com. Also on July 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.
A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on July 3, 2026.
On July 6, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Adam Taylor 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
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; on the contrary, Respondent has used the disputed domain name to target Complainant and exploit consumer recognition of Complainant's mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Respondent has not made legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. Complainant has never authorized Respondent to use Complainant's mark.
Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent's actual knowledge of Complainant's mark is evidenced by Complainant's longstanding use of its mark. Respondent has used the disputed domain name to create a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark for commercial gain.
B. Respondent
In summary, Respondent contends as follows:
- Respondent registered the disputed domain name strictly for public educational and informational blogging purposes, namely as an online reference directory for consumer convenience, sharing publicly available menu information;
- Respondent is not attempting to cause consumer confusion or disrupt Complainant's business, as demonstrated by the fact that Respondent's website has no e-commerce capabilities and does not offer any goods or services for sale;
- Respondent's website does not collect user data, establish customer relationships, or pretend to provide official customer support;
- Respondent's website does not list any telephone numbers, ensuring that internet users are not misled into attempting to place orders or contact the brand through Respondent;
- the website content consists entirely of standard menu compilations compiled from public Internet sources, which is common practice among global food, beverage, and restaurant review blogs; and
- the mere inclusion in a standard informational blog of third-party menu information for consumer awareness does not constitute an intentional attempt to impersonate the Complainant or illicitly divert their business.
FINDINGS
Complainant operates a website at www.hteao.com.
The disputed domain name was registered on August 14, 2025.
As of June 18, 2026, the disputed domain name resolved to a website entitled "Hteao Menu Price List & Menu Card [updated Prices 2026]", under which the following text appeared:
"Would you like to have the new menu and price list of Hteao before you visit or order online? It is not always easy to locate the specific prices of Hteao beverages and promotions. That is why the entire Hteao menu with updated prices is all there. Regardless of whether you are in need of milk teas, fruit teas, iced teas, energy teas, and signature blends, you will be able to see the prices and check all the options on the spot. What does Hteao have to say and what is your ideal beverage?"
That text was followed by photographs of Complainant's menus, and of a vast number of Complainant products, including many reproductions of Complainant's logo. A screenshot of the homepage runs to 96 pages.
There was also a Contact Us page that invited users to "Activate your account to start" and "Start Chatting 1:1 in Minutes", and which also included a contact form.
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 Complainant's distinctive HTEAO mark and adds the term "menu". It is well established under the Policy that the incorporation of a recognizable complainant's mark in its entirety may be sufficient to establish confusing similarity, even when combined with additional terms. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognizable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element.").
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 Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) ("Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests.").
Complainant argues that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or for legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Respondent claims to have registered and used the disputed domain name legitimately for noncommercial "public educational and informational blogging purposes".
However, for the following reasons, Respondent has not satisfied the Panel that its use of the disputed domain name constitutes legitimate noncommercial or fair use.
First, Respondent's website creates the impression that it is officially connected with Complainant including by use of a prominent heading referring to Complainant's menu, and of menu/product photographs that include Complainant's logo, as well as by the lack of a prominent disclaimer.
Second, Respondent claims that the content published on the site "consists entirely of standard menu compilations compiled from public Internet sources", but Respondent has not identified any legitimate sources for its content, and it seems more likely than not that the vast number of product photographs at least were copied from Complainant's website. In any case, the sheer volume of such content creates the impression of an attempt to stuff the page with content to attract traffic rather than of a legitimate "standard informational blog".
Third, Respondent claims that it does not collect user data, but this is belied by the fact that the Contact Us page includes a contact form as well as an invitation to users to activate their account.
Fourth, it seems inherently unlikely that Respondent would engage in a scheme such as this for a noncommercial purpose.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services, or for legitimate noncommercial or fair use, under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).
WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Braun Corp. v. Loney, FA 699652 (Forum July 7, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain names where the WHOIS information, as well as all other information in the record, gave no indication that the respondent was commonly known by the domain names, and the complainant had not authorized the respondent to register a domain name containing its registered mark).
The WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as "usman shafiq" and Respondent has not supplied any evidence indicating that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
For the reasons discussed in detail under the second element above, the Panel considers that Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to a website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's trademark under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent has registered, and is using, 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 <hteaomenu.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Adam Taylor, Panelist
Dated: July 14, 2026
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page