DECISION

 

Trilliant Food & Nutrition, LLC v. Eric Hao

Claim Number: FA2607002233244

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Trilliant Food & Nutrition, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Kathleen E. McCarthy of King & Spalding LLP, New York, USA. Respondent is Eric Hao ("Respondent"), China.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <drink-nurri.com>, registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com.

 

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.

 

Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on July 17, 2026; Forum received payment on July 17, 2026.

 

On July 17, 2026, PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <drink-nurri.com> domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com 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 20, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 10, 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@drink-nurri.com. Also on July 20, 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 11, 2026 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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 contends in part as follows:

 

Complainant Trilliant Food & Nutrition, LLC is a food and beverage company that has been operating since 1979 and specializes in manufacturing coffee, protein shakes, wellness beverages, and other nutritional products. One of Complainant's most notable and widely recognized beverage products and brands is NURRI, a ready-to-drink protein shake made with a lactose-free formula from ultra-filtered milk. Complainant has sold its protein shake beverage under the NURRI trademark since it launched in September 2024 exclusively at Costco with its chocolate flavor.

 

In addition to its extensive common law rights, Trilliant owns a USPTO registration for NURRI in connection with milk-based beverages.

 

Complainant has further used and promoted the domain name <drinknurri.co> for its main website advertising its Nurri protein shake beverage since at least as early as June 19, 2024.

 

The domain name is confusingly similar to the NURRI Marks in which Complainant has trademark rights worldwide. Under the Policy Complainant's registration of a mark with a federal authority establishes a prima facie case of Complainant's rights. The NURRI mark is registered with a federal authority. The at-issue domain name's subtle differences with Complainant's marks do not avoid a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). A generic top-level domain (gTLD) is irrelevant in determining similarity of marks. Generally, where a relevant trademark is recognizable within an at-issue 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. The at-issue domain name domain name differs from the NURRI mark by adding "drink", a descriptive word associated with Complainant's protein shake beverage, a hyphen, and the gTLD ".com". Moreover, the at-issue domain name, differs from Complainant's official domain name by the sole addition of a hyphen between the words "drink" and "nurri." Such minor differences are insufficient to distinguish from the NURRI mark owned by Complainant.

 

Respondent Has No Rights or Legitimate Interests in the Domain Name. Because Complainant has made a prima facie case in support of its allegations, the burden shifts to Respondent to show by "concrete evidence" that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. Respondent has never been commonly known by the domain name or by the NURRI marks and has never acquired any trademark rights in the same. There is no evidence in the WHOIS information to suggest that Respondent is known by the at-issue domain name. Indeed, given Complainant's extensive rights in NURRI, Respondent could not have rights in the NURRI mark unless Complainant granted them which it did not. The at-issue domain resolves to a webpage virtually identical to Complainant's domain name. Generally, the disputed domain prominently displays Complainant's NURRI mark, references Complainant's protein shake beverage to a great extent, and redirects users to the same Amazon purchase pages for the NURRI protein shake beverage as Complainant's official domain name does. Where there is no connection to Complainant and the disputed domain merely impersonates Complainant, such activity cannot amount to the bona fide offering of goods and services. Upon information and belief, Respondent receives compensation each time an Internet user clicks on the "Shop Nurri Now," "Shop Chocolate Flavor," or similar links on Respondent's website associated with the disputed domain name as such actions redirect the Internet user to the respective Amazon purchase pages for Complainant's NURRI protein shake beverage. Such confusing use of Complainant's NURRI mark to generate affiliate fees does not represent a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, regardless of whether the links resolve to competing or unrelated websites or if the respondent is itself commercially profiting from the click-through and/or affiliate fees. Likewise, Respondent's use of the at-issue domain name does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use where Respondent is apparently using the at-issue domain name to offer competing services for sale. Further, considering the longstanding and widespread notoriety of the NURRI mark, Respondent's use of the domain name cannot be bona fide under any circumstance.

 

Respondent Registered and Used the Domain Name in Bad Faith. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's trademark rights yet proceeded to register and use the domain name in bad faith. The at-issue domain name was created on December 25, 2025, 18 months after Complainant registered its <drinknurri.com> domain name and filed for registration of the NURRI mark. Moreover, the NURRI marks have substantial notoriety and presence in the nutritional / milk / protein beverage field. Given Complainant's longstanding common law and registration rights in the NURRI marks, it is evident that Respondent had actual knowledge as the purpose for registering and using the domain name was to mislead consumers, demonstrating bad faith. Where the at-issue domain name domain name resolve to a commercial website that mimics Complainant's official websites, the website demonstrates an intentional attempt to attract Internet users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the websites and the products offered thereon. Such use of the domain name is thus evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). In addition, by merely adding a hyphen in front of the word "nurri" as it appears in Complainant's official domain name, Respondent engages in typosquatting, evincing bad faith. Finally, the privacy protected nature of Respondent's registration of the at-issue  domain name further supports Respondent's bad faith use.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has trademark rights in the NURRI mark.

 

Complainant's rights in NURRI predate Respondent's registration of the at-issue domain name.

 

Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant nor authorized to use Complainant's trademarks in any capacity.

 

Respondent use the at-issue domain name to mimic Complainant's <drinknurri.com> website. The website features links to purchase Complainant's NURRI products or competing products on Amazon.

 

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 at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.

 

Complainant has a USPTO registration for its NURRI trademark. Such registration is sufficient to demonstrate Complainant's rights in a mark under the Policy. See BGK Trademark Holdings, LLC & Beyoncé Giselle Knowles-Carter v. Chanphut / Beyonce Shop, FA 1626334 (Forum Aug. 3, 2015) (asserting that Complainant's registration with the USPTO (or any other governmental authority) adequately proves its rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).

 

Respondent's <drink-nurri.com> domain name contains Complainant's NURRI trademark prefixed with descriptive term "drink" and a hyphen, with all followed by the ".com" top-level. The differences between the <drink-nurri.com> domain name and Complainant's NURRI trademark are insufficient to distinguish the domain name from Complainant's mark for the purposes of the Policy. Therefore, the Panel finds pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) that Respondent's <drink-nurri.com> domain name is confusingly similar to NURRI. See Acme Lift Company, L.L.C. v. VistaPrint Technologies Ltd, FA 1607039 (Forum Apr. 11, 2015) (stating: "Where a respondent has created a domain name in an effort to visually deceive Internet users via a simple misspelling (and when such misspellings are visually similar to the mark), a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) is appropriate."); see also, 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

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. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond, absent evidence of Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances Complainant's prima facie showing acts conclusively.

 

Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant's trademark in any capacity and as discussed below there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. See Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC v. Taha Shaikh / Tskdesigners, FA 1814475 (Forum Nov. 25, 2018) (finding no rights or legitimate interests in <spectrumfeature.com> because complainant never gave respondent permission to use the mark in any manner and "Panels may use these assertions as evidence that no rights or legitimate interests exist in a disputed domain name.").

 

WHOIS information for <drink-nurri.com> leads to finding that "Eric Hao" is the domain name's registrant and there is nothing in the record that tends to prove that Respondent is known by <drink-nurri.com> or any relevant variant thereof. As such, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).

 

Respondent uses the confusingly similar <drink-nurri.com> domain name to address a website that mimics Complainant's official website. Respondent is undoubtedly benefiting from internet traffic meant for Complainant that is misdirected to Respondent's <drink-nurri.com> website. Respondent's uses of <drink-nurri.com> is neither indicative of a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor of a non-commercial or fair use under Policy ¶4(c)(iii). See Allianz of Am. Corp. v. Bond, FA 680624 (Forum June 2, 2006) (finding bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent was diverting internet users searching for the complainant to its own website and likely profiting).

 

Given the forgoing, Respondent lacks rights and lacks legitimate interests in respect of <drink-nurri.com>.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

As discussed below without being exhaustive, Respondent acted in bad faith.

 

Respondent's at-issue domain name addresses Respondent's <drink-nurri.com> website imitates Complainant's official website. There, the confusingly similar domain name together with its associated website deceives internet users into falsely believing that the at-issue domain name and website are sponsored by, or authorized by, Complainant. Respondent's <drink-nurri.com> website displays Complainant's NURRI trademark, refers to Complainant's protein shake, and redirects users to the same Amazon purchase pages for the NURRI protein shake as does Complainant's official website. Since Respondent's website is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, the website is a mechanism for Respondent to commercially benefit from advertising fees by advertising and linking to amazon.com. Respondent's unauthorized use of <drink-nurri.com> is disruptive to Complainant's business and designed to attract internet users so that Respondent may capitalize on the confusion it created between its <drink-nurri.com> domain name and Complainant's NURRI trademark. Respondent's use of the <drink-nurri.com> domain name and its referenced website demonstrate Respondent's bad faith registration and use of <drink-nurri.com> under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Classic Metal Roofs, LLC v. Interlock Indus., Ltd., FA 724554 (Forum Aug. 1, 2006) (finding that the respondent registered and used the <classicmetalroofing.com> domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) by redirecting Internet users to the respondent's competing website); see also, Allianz of Am. Corp. v. Bond, FA 680624 (Forum June 2, 2006) (finding bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent was diverting internet users searching for the complainant to its own website and likely profiting).

 

Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the NURRI mark when Respondent registered <drink-nurri.com> as a domain name. Respondent's actual knowledge is apparent given the mark's notoriety and given Respondent's use of the domain name to address a close copy of Complainant's official website that incorporates links to Complainant's products and other products on Amazon. See Lemon Inc. v. Sumer Singh, FA 2110519 (Forum Sept. 5, 2024 ("registration of a disputed domain name with actual knowledge of another's trademark rights is sufficient to establish bad faith, and can be shown by the notoriety of the mark and the use the Respondent makes of the disputed domain name"); see also, Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name).

 

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 <drink-nurri.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist

Dated: August 11, 2026