DECISION

 

BuzzFeed Media Enterprises, Inc. v. Brady Miller / The Adroit

Claim Number: FA2607002233401

 

PARTIES

Complainant is BuzzFeed Media Enterprises, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Honeah Mangione of BuzzFeed Media Enterprises, Inc., New York, USA. Respondent is Brady Miller / The Adroit ("Respondent"), Washington, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <buzzfeed.tv>, 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.

 

Adam Taylor as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

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

 

On July 20, 2026, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <buzzfeed.tv> 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 28, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 17, 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@buzzfeed.tv. Also on July 28, 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 18, 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. 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 that it has rights in the BUZZFEED mark based upon registration of its mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") and upon common law rights arising from long-standing continuous business use. The disputed domain name is identical to Complainant's mark.

 

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. 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 fame. Respondent is passively holding the disputed domain name in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has provided news and entertainment content under the BUZZFEED mark via a website at www.buzzfeed.com since 2006.  Complainant's website is consistently ranked amongst the top 1,000 most-visited websites globally. In 2013, Complainant's website ranked 113th among all Internet websites by unique visitors. As of July 2026, Complainant had some 19.7 million YouTube subscribers.

 

BuzzFeed, Inc., which the Panel understands is part of the same group as Complainant, owns Reg. No. 3,367,020 for BUZZFEED, registered with the USPTO on January 8, 2008, with a first use date of 2007. In the circumstances, the Panel thinks it reasonable to infer that Complainant has rights in that trademark for the purpose of standing to file the Complaint. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.1 at ¶ 1.4.1.

 

Complainant itself also owns various registered trademarks for BUZZFEED, including Reg. No. 4,600,026, registered with the USPTO on September 9, 2014.

 

The disputed domain name was registered on April 23, 2013.

 

There is no evidence or indication that Respondent has used the disputed domain name for an active website.

 

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

Since Complainant has provided evidence of registration of the BUZZFEED mark with the USPTO, the Panel finds that Complainant has rights in that mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Complainant also asserts common law rights in the BUZZFEED mark.

 

See Microsoft Corporation v. Story Remix / Inofficial, FA 1734934 (Forum July 10, 2017) (finding that "The Policy does not require a complainant to own a registered trademark … if it can demonstrate established common law rights in the mark."). To establish common law rights in a name, a complainant generally must show extensive and continuous use in commerce such that consumers have come to associate the mark with the complainant as the source of the goods.

 

In this case, Complainant has provided evidence of common law rights in the BUZZFEED mark based on extensive use thereof since 2006. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has common law rights in the BUZZFEED mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Disregarding the Top-Level Domain ("TLD") suffix, which is excluded from the comparison, the disputed domain name is identical to Complainant's trademark.

 

Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical 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 or 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.

 

There is no evidence on the record that the disputed domain name is being, or ever has been, used for an active website, let alone for a bona fide offering of goods or services or for legitimate noncommercial or fair use.

 

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).

 

Complainant further contends that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name since Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name.

 

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 "Brady Miller / The Adroit" and there is no other information on the record 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

It is well accepted that the circumstances set out in Policy ¶ 4(b) are not exclusive and that panels may consider all of the circumstances of a given case, including passive holding, in making their bad faith analysis. See Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003 (finding that in determining whether the passive holding of a domain name, following a bad faith registration, satisfies paragraph 4(a)(iii), the panel must consider all the circumstances of the respondent's conduct, and a finding of bad faith may be made where those circumstances show that the passive holding amounts to bad faith use).

 

Having reviewed the record, the Panel considers that the following circumstances are indicative of passive holding in bad faith:

1.       the distinctiveness and fame of Complainant's mark, indicating that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights when it registered the disputed domain name;

2.       the failure of Respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good faith use; and

3.       the implausibility of any good faith use to which the disputed domain name may be put.

 

Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent has registered, and is using, the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) based on passive holding.

 

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 <buzzfeed.tv> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

Adam Taylor, Panelist

Dated: August 26, 2026