DECISION

 

ForeverLawn, Inc. v. Joshua Apodaca / Artificial Grass Masters

Claim Number: FA2607002230463

 

PARTIES

Complainant is ForeverLawn, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Howard L. Wernow of Sand Sebolt & Wernow, LPA, Ohio, USA. Respondent is Joshua Apodaca / Artificial Grass Masters ("Respondent"), Arizona, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <k9grassonline.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, 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 July 1, 2026; Forum received payment on July 1, 2026.

 

On July 2, 2026, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <k9grassonline.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, 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 7, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 27, 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@k9grassonline.com. Also on July 7, 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 27, 2026.

 

On July 28, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Richard Hill as Panelist.

 

On July 29, 2026, the Panel issued a Procedural Order requesting further information from the parties.

 

Neither party responded to the Procedural Order.

 

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 states that is engaged primarily in the business of developing and facilitating sales and installation of synthetic turf and related products and components thereof for consumer and commercial use since 2002. It oversees a nationwide network of over eighty independent businesses that are franchises under the FOREVERLAWN brand name and selling exclusively FOREVERLAWN branded products and services. Complainant's franchisees advertise and sell products and services across North America, as well as internationally. Complainant first began advertising its products and services in Arizona in 2004. The product line of K9GRASS turf and related products has been in constant use in commerce exclusively by Complainant since 2005. Complainant owns the domain name <k9grass.com> and operates a website at that domain name. Complainant asserts rights in the mark K9GRASS through its registration in the United States in 2024, filed on December 1, 2023; claimed first use in 2005. The mark was well known well before its registration; for example, Complainant sponsored a NASCAR Xfinity Series car as K9GRASS BY FOREVERLAWN in 2021, and this attracted press coverage.

 

Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its K9GRASS mark because it incorporates the mark in its entirety, merely adding the generic/descriptive term "online", together with the ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD").

 

According to Complainant, Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name since Respondent is not licensed or 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 noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the disputed domain name was not used until the end of December 2023; since then, the resolving website has displayed Complainant's mark and promoted competing products.

 

Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. The resolving website promotes competing products. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark.

 

Instead, the resolving website displays Complainant's mark and promotes competing products.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent states that, at all relevant times, it operated Artificial Grass Masters as an independent Arizona landscaping contractor providing a variety of outdoor improvement services. Those services included synthetic turf installation, natural sod installation, pet areas, dog runs, drainage solutions, pavers, putting greens, and related landscape improvements. Respondent marketed these services under the Artificial Grass Masters name using original website content and independently branded products. The website was not presented as the website of Complainant, nor did it represent Respondent as an authorized dealer, franchisee, or affiliate of Complainant.

 

Respondent states that, throughout its operations, it obtained products from numerous manufacturers and distributors based upon customer requirements, project specifications, product availability, pricing, and ordinary commercial considerations. Respondent's website reflected this independent business model by offering multiple landscaping products and services under Respondent's own branding, including references to synthetic turf, natural sod, and other landscape improvements. The website featured Respondent's own product names and did not reproduce Complainant's product catalog or otherwise present itself as Complainant's business.

 

Respondent states that the disputed domain name was acquired as part of a broader portfolio of descriptive, search-engine oriented domain names. Respondent continuously owned and renewed the disputed domain name following its registration in 2019.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant owns the mark K9GRASS (filed for United States registration in 2023, with a claimed first use in 2005), and uses it to market synthetic turf and related products.

 

The disputed domain name was registered in 2019.

 

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

 

Respondent has been operating operated Artificial Grass Masters as an independent Arizona landscaping contractor providing a variety of outdoor improvement services, including synthetic turf installation. The resolving website promotes Respondent's services and does not purport to provide Complainant's products or to be associated in any way with Complainant.

 

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 was registered years before Complainant applied for registration of the trademark K9GRASS. Nevertheless, Complainant could rely on common law trademark rights preceding the registration of the disputed domain name. See 3.8 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.1"), according to which, in general, where a respondent registers a domain name before the complainant's trademark rights accrue, panels will not normally find bad faith on the part of the respondent.

 

Respondent does not contest that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar, in the sense of the Policy, to Complainant's mark. However, it contests that Complainant had acquired common law trademark rights prior to the registration of the disputed domain name.

 

Since the Complaint will be dismissed under the second element, in particular because questions of trademark law are best resolved in national courts, see below, the Panel will not determine whether Complainant actually has common law trademark rights preceding the registration of the disputed domain name.

 

Therefore, the Panel need not rule on this element of the Policy. See Healthy Pets, Inc. d/b/a Pet Health Solutions v. Kwangpyo Kim, FA 1976154 (Forum Jan. 24, 2022) ("[S]ince Complainant must prove all three elements of Policy ¶ 4(a) under the Policy, Complainant's failure to prove one of the elements makes further inquiry into the remaining elements unnecessary.").

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

As noted above, Complainant must prove all three elements of the Policy, including that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

 

Pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), Respondent can demonstrate rights and legitimate interests in a disputed domain name if before any notice of the dispute it used the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.

 

Complainant alleges that Respondent's use of the disputed domain name is not a bona fide offering of goods or services because it infringes Complainant's trademark. Respondent denies infringing Complainant's trademark on the grounds that its use of the disputed domain name precedes Complainant's trademark rights.

 

The Panel finds that the question of whether nor not Respondent's use of Complainant's mark is legitimate falls outside of the scope of the present proceedings, and is best resolved in national courts. See Happy State Bank d/b/a GoldStar Trust Company v. Ronny Yakov / CrowdPay.us, Inc. FA 1802648 (Forum Sept. 27, 2018); see also Abbott Labs. v. Patel, FA 740337 (Forum Aug. 15, 2006) (holding that assertions of trademark infringement are "entirely misplaced and totally inappropriate for resolution" in a domain name dispute proceeding because the UDRP Policy applies only to abusive cybersquatting and nothing else); see also Stevenson Indus., Inc. v. CPAP-PRO Online, FA 105778 (Forum Apr. 25, 2002) ("If the existence of [rights or legitimate interests] turns on resolution of a legitimate trademark dispute, then Respondent must prevail, because such disputes are beyond the scope of this proceeding.").

 

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 that it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp., FA 7680200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) ("finding that a Complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case, so as to satisfy UDRP Policy 4(a)(ii)."). 

 

Here, Complainant does make a prima facie case. However, Respondent presents evidence showing that it has used the disputed domain name to market a variety of artificial turf products, none of which purport to be associated with Complainant. Since, as discussed above, the instant Panel cannot determine whether or not this constitutes trademark infringement, the Panel finds that – on the balance of the evidence before it – Complainant has failed to satisfy its burden of proving that Respondent does not use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Consequently the Panel finds that Complainant has failed to satisfy its burden of proving that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

This is of course without prejudice to what may be found by a national court under trademark law, unfair competition law, or other national laws which may be relevant.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

As noted above, the Panel finds that Complainant has failed to satisfy its burden of proving that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Consequently, the issue of bad faith registration and use is moot. See Record Connect, Inc. v. Chung Kit Lam / La-Fame Corporation, FA 1693876 (Forum Nov. 3, 2016) (finding that the issue of bad faith registration and use was moot once the panel found the respondent had rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name). Therefore the Panel will not rule on this issue.

 

DECISION

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

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <k9grassonline.com> domain name REMAIN WITH Respondent.

 

 

 

Richard Hill, Panelist

Dated: August 10, 2026