DECISION

 

Zullas, L.C. dba Café Zupas v. BasicDomains LLC / Ostap Prokopov

Claim Number: FA2606002229663

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Zullas, L.C. dba Café Zupas ("Complainant"), represented by David Johnson of Workman Nydegger, Utah, USA. Respondent is BasicDomains LLC / Ostap Prokopov ("Respondent"), Germany.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <zupas-cafe.rest>, registered with Global Domain Group 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.

 

Richard Hill as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

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

 

On July 3, 2026, Global Domain Group LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <zupas-cafe.rest> domain name is registered with Global Domain Group LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Global Domain Group LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Global Domain Group 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 July 13, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 3, 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@zupas-cafe.rest. Also on July 13, 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 August 4, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Richard Hill 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

Complainant states that it is a fast-casual restaurant brand specializing in soups, salads, and sandwiches. Complainant has been in operation since 2004 and is known for its high quality ingredients and unique menu items. Complainant asserts rights in the mark CAFÉ ZUPAS through its registration in the United States in 2007.

 

Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its CAFÉ ZUPAS mark because it consists of an inversion of the mark, merely adding a hyphen and the ".rest" generic top-level domain ("gTLD").

 

According to Complainant, Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant's mark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate non-commercial of fair use. Instead, the resolving website purports to be affiliated with or sponsored by Complainant. Specifically, the resolving website uses Complainant's logo at the top of the main homepage, uses Complainant's mark on the menu page, includes scores of Complainant's marketing images, and purports to offer Complainant's menu items for purchase. Furthermore, Respondent claims to hire on behalf of Complainant, and requests the personal information of potential applicants.

 

Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. The resolving websites impersonates Complainant. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in its mark prior to registering the disputed domain name. Respondent used a privacy service.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has rights in the mark CAFÉ ZUPAS dating back to 2007 and uses it to market soups, salads, and sandwiches.

 

The disputed domain name was registered in 2026.

 

Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.

 

The resolving website impersonates Complainant, displaying its mark and logo, and images of Complainant's products.

 

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 Jurisprudential 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

The disputed domain name consists of Complainant's CAFÉ ZUPAS mark with the words reversed, merely adding a hyphen and the ".rest" generic top-level domain ("gTLD"). Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), such changes are generally insufficient in differentiating a disputed domain name from the mark it incorporates. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognisable 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."); see also T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. v. Venkateshwara Distributor Private Limited. / HEMANG INFRASRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, FA 1705342 (Forum Jan. 16, 2017) ("Respondent's differs from the mark by inverting the words "Rowe" and "price" in the mark. Inverting the words in a mark is not sufficient to overcome a finding of confusing similarity."); see also Mrs. World Pageants, Inc. v. Crown Promotions, FA 94321 (Forum Apr. 24, 2000) (finding that punctuation is not significant in determining the similarity of a domain name and mark). Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

According to 1.7 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.1"): "In some cases, in assessing the first element a panel may find that the broader case context (such as website content or fraudulent (phishing) emails trading off the complainant's reputation (in particular in the case of unregistered marks), or a pattern of multiple respondent domain names targeting the complainant's mark within the same proceeding), supports a finding of confusing similarity with the complainant's mark."

 

Here, Complainant presents evidence showing that the resolving website contains elements likely intended to make consumers believe that Respondent's site is somehow affiliated with Complainant. This supports the side-by-side comparison above. See also Golden Goose S.p.A. v. Philipp Fischer, D2017-1010 (WIPO, July 4, 2017).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA 1574905 (Forum Sept. 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark). Here, the WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as "BasicDomains LLC / Ostap Prokopov". Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

The resolving website impersonates Complainant. This is not 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). See Edible Communities v. Thoreau,  FA 1158554 (Forum Apr. 16, 2008) ("[R]espondent's use of the disputed domain name [<theedibleaustin.com>] to pass itself off as [c]omplainant shows that [r]espondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) as well as Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)."); see also Digg v. Digg , FA 1220833 (Forum Oct. 9, 2008) (finding no legitimate interest in respondent's use of the domain name <digg-inc.com> because "[r]espondent is attempting to pass itself off as [c]omplainant" and such "actions do not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)."). Thus the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). And the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant's allegations) has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant's mark. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent's failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain name.

 

Indeed, as already noted, the resolving website impersonates Complainant. This can evince bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See American International Group, Inc. v. Walter Busby d/b/a AIG Mergers and Acquisitions, FA 156251 (Forum May 30, 2003) (the resolving website gave every appearance of being associated or affiliated with Complainant's business); see also Mortgage Research Center LLC v. Russell Miranda, FA 993017 (Forum July 9, 2007) (Respondent is implying an affiliation with Complainant, and consumers seeking Complainant's products and services may become confused when encountering Respondent's website). Thus the Panel finds bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

Further, Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant's mark: the resolving website displays Complainant's mark and logo, and images of Complainant's products. While constructive notice is insufficient to demonstrate bad faith, actual knowledge of a complainant's rights in a mark prior to registration may be evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Custom Modular Direct LLC v. Custom Modular Homes Inc., FA 1140580 (Forum Apr. 8, 2008) ("There is no place for constructive notice under the Policy."); see also Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014) ("The Panel notes that although the UDRP does not recognize 'constructive notice' as sufficient grounds for finding Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith, the Panel here finds actual knowledge through the name used for the domain and the use made of it."); see also Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name). The Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the mark prior to Respondent's registration of the disputed domain name and that this constitutes 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 <zupas-cafe.rest> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Richard Hill, Panelist

Dated: August 4, 2026