DECISION

 

Walmart Apollo, LLC v. Dynadot Privacy Service

Claim Number: FA2607002234854

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Walmart Apollo, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Fatima Y. Kassem of Brooks Kushman P.C., Michigan, USA. Respondent is Dynadot Privacy Service ("Respondent"), Unknown.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <greatvalue-brand.com>, registered with Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu.

 

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 24, 2026; Forum received payment on July 24, 2026.

 

On July 28, 2026, Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <greatvalue-brand.com> domain name is registered with Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu has verified that Respondent is bound by the Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu 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 August 3, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 24, 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@greatvalue-brand.com. Also on August 3, 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 25, 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, Walmart Apollo, LLC, is a multinational retail corporation operating a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and grocery stores. Complainant was founded in 1962 in Rogers Arkansas. Each week, approximately 240 million customers and members visit more than 10,500 stores and numerous eCommerce websites in 20 countries. With fiscal year 2025 revenue of $674.5 billion, Complainant employs approximately 2.1 million associates worldwide, Complainant operates nearly 10,000 stores around the world, with over 4,000 stores in the United States.

 

Complainant has been using its GREAT VALUE trademarks in United States commerce since at least as early as 1993, over thirty-three years. Complainant owns nineteen (19) trademark registrations and three (3) pending applications for GREAT VALUE, covering a broad range of grocery, food, beverage, household, and consumer products. In 1998, twenty-eight years prior to Respondent's registration of the at-issue domain name, Complainant first registered its GREAT VALUE trademark. Complainant's trademark registrations are sufficient to establish rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). The GREAT VALUE trademarks have become widely recognized among consumers in the United States and abroad.

 

Complainant maintains a website for the GREAT VALUE brand at https://www.walmart.com/cp/great-value/3495493.

 

Respondent's Infringing Activities.

The at-issue domain name, <greatvalue-brand.com>, fully incorporates and is identical to the GREAT VALUE trademark.

 

Respondent's website falsely presents itself as the official website for Complainant's GREAT VALUE brand. It advertises Complainant's GREAT VALUE products and includes direct links to purchase competing products from third-party sellers on Amazon. Respondent's website also displays images of Complainant's GREAT VALUE products, featuring the GREAT VALUE logo, all of which are protected by applicable trademark and copyright laws.

 

Respondent relies on users searching for information and materials related to Complainant's GREAT VALUE products to divert them to Respondent's website, which incorporates the GREAT VALUE trademarks without authorization. Respondent's website advertises Complainant's GREAT VALUE branded products and provides links labeled "See on Amazon," "View All Products," and "Check Price," all of which redirect to Amazon pages featuring competing products. Complainant  does not sell its GREAT VALUE branded products on Amazon. Amazon is an online marketplace that competes with Complainant's online marketplace. Respondent's actions exploit the goodwill of the well-known GREAT VALUE trademarks to divert Complainant's customers for financial gain. These actions also create a likelihood of confusion regarding the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent's website and the goods promoted there. As a result, consumers who mistakenly believe that Respondent is affiliated with Complainant or GREAT VALUE are likely to be diverted from Complainant's website.

 

Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights to the GREAT VALUE trademarks at the time Respondent registered the at-issue domain name. Respondent had (at a minimum) constructive knowledge of the GREAT VALUE trademarks. Such knowledge may be inferred based on Complainant's registration of the GREAT VALUE trademarks with the United States Patent and Trademark Office and the well-known nature of the brand that has been in operation for over 33 years.

 

Respondent's website advertises Complainant's GREAT VALUE branded products and is being used for a fraudulent website that directs consumers to subscribe to the website with an email address — "Subscribe and Get A Discount." Respondent retains personal information of users presumably for commercial gain. Respondent's actions exploit the goodwill of the well-known GREAT VALUE Trademarks to divert Complainant's customers for commercial gain. These actions also create a likelihood of confusion regarding the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent's website and the goods promoted there. As a result, consumers who mistakenly believe that Respondent is affiliated with Complainant or GREAT VALUE are likely to be diverted from Complainant's website.

 

Respondent registered the at-issue domain name to take advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Complainant and the GREAT VALUE trademarks, and Respondent has no legitimate interest in the at-issue domain name. At no time has Complainant authorized Respondent to use or register the at-issue domain name.

 

Respondent Does Not Have Rights or Legitimate Interest in the Domain Name.

Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interest in the <greatvalue-brand.com> domain name because Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and Respondent's use of the GREAT VALUE trademarks is unauthorized.

 

The at-issue domain name incorporates the GREAT VALUE trademark without authorization, and its sole apparent use is to attract users searching for Complainant's goods and services in order to trick and divert them to purchase goods from and subscribe to Respondent's website. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy.

 

The addition of a hyphen and the descriptive and generic wording "brand" in the URL does not distinguish Respondent from the GREAT VALUE trademarks, therefore constituting a confusingly similar use.

 

The at-issue domain name points to a site that falsely presents itself as an official website associated with the GREAT VALUE brand and products. This is not a legitimate interest. Here, the Respondent is clearly using the GREAT VALUE trademark on its website to attract Complainant's customers to purchase competing products. Respondent created a website claiming to be an official online store where buyers could purchase the Complainant's branded goods, which is designed to give the appearance of an association with the Complainant. However, the website is fraudulent and is not authorized by Complainant. It is evident that the Respondent intends to disrupt the Complainant's business, as outlined in Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). Further, using a confusingly similar domain name to impersonate and pass off as and sell the same types of products as a complainant does not qualify as a bona fide offering of goods or services within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or as a legitimate noncommercial or fair use within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).

 

Respondent is not and has not been commonly known by the domain name and Complainant has not authorized or licensed Respondent to use any of its GREAT VALUE trademarks. First, upon information and belief, Respondent has not applied for nor registered trademarks or trade names for GREAT VALUE, or variations thereof. Second, Respondent's identity is not disclosed on the WHOIS data. In fact, the WHOIS for the at-issue domain name does not give any indication that the Respondent is commonly known by the respective domain name. WHOIS evidence of a registrant name which does not correspond with the domain name is sufficient to prove that the Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name. As such, Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) does not provide a defense for Respondent's actions in this case.

 

Respondent's Bad Faith Acts.

Respondent's registration and use of the at-issue domain name meet the bad faith element set forth in Section 4(b)(iv) of the UDRP. Specifically, Respondent uses the domain name to intentionally attract Internet users, for commercial gain, to the website by taking advantage of users searching for Complainant on the Internet, creating a likelihood of confusion with the GREAT VALUE trademarks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, and endorsement of Respondent's website. Respondent uses the at-issue domain name and Complainant's intellectual property, including the GREAT VALUE trademarks, logo, and copyrighted images to impersonate Complainant, redirecting consumers to purchase competing products without authorization. Respondent presumably derives revenue from such unauthorized actions. Respondent's <greatvalue-brand.com> website disrupts Complainant's business as Respondent registered the at-issue domain name to divert users away from Complainant's business and offer competing products for sale. Such behavior is indicative of bad faith registration and use under paragraphs 4(b)(iii) and 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.

 

Respondent intentionally and willfully misrepresented to the Registrar that the registration of the at-issue domain name did not interfere with or infringe upon the rights of any third parties. This type of misrepresentation has been held to constitute bad faith. Under Policy ¶ 2, a domain name registrant represents and warrants to the domain name registrar that to the registrant's knowledge, "the registration of the domain name will not infringe upon or otherwise violate the rights of any third party." 

 

Respondent has registered a domain name that uses and fully incorporates Complainant's GREAT VALUE trademarks, without Complainant's authorization. Thus, Respondent's registration of the <greatvalue-brand.com> is a clear violation of the UDRP, and it has therefore acted in bad faith.

 

In the footer of the at-issue domain name's website, the phone number listed— 355-574-5016— is an illegitimate phone number not associated with any business or corporation, including the Respondent. The fact that Respondent uses false contact information on its website undermines the Respondent's claim to legitimate interests in the domain. Respondent is clearly acting in bad faith with the intention to mislead consumers.

 

The footer of the website at the at-issue domain name includes an Amazon disclosure stating: "greatvalue-brand.com is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to amazon.com and other third parties. Amazon, the Amazon logo, AmazonSupply, and the AmazonSupply logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates. As an Amazon Associate we earn affiliate commissions from qualifying purchases." Respondent's disclosure confirms that the site is not affiliated with or authorized by Complainant, despite prominently displaying Complainant's products and using Complainant's intellectual property without permission. This is clear evidence of bad faith.

 

There is a legal presumption of bad faith when Respondent reasonably should have been aware of Complainant's trademarks, actually or constructively. Respondent was reasonably aware of Complainant's rights in its GREAT VALUE trademarks from Complainant's registrations for the GREAT VALUE trademarks. Thus, Respondent's use of Complainant's GREAT VALUE trademarks in the domain name, in defiance of Complainant's rights, constitutes bad faith.

 

The at-issue domain name is used to assist Respondent in passing off as Complainant to deceive internet users into falsely believing that the domain name and its website are sponsored by Complainant. Respondent's <greatvalue-brand.com> website promotes products that are identical to Complainant's GREAT VALUE products. Respondent's use of the at-issue domain name demonstrates Respondent's bad faith registration and use of <greatvalue-brand.com> under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).

 

Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the GREAT VALUE trademark when Respondent registered the at-issue domain name. This is evident given the GREAT VALUE brand's notoriety and given Respondent's use of the trademark laden domain name to pass itself off as Complainant and offer merchandise for sale similar to Complainant's offering.

 

Respondent is using the domain name for commercial gain, in violation of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to host a website that displays advertisements and links to unrelated third-party commercial websites. Respondent presumably derives click-through revenue from the links on that website. Use of a at-issue domain name to host links to unrelated commercial websites for commercial gain is evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).

 

Respondent is likely profiting commercially by diverting internet users searching for Complainant's website, as these users "may find Respondent's website due to the confusingly similar domain name and become confused regarding Complainant's affiliation with, or sponsorship of, the domain name and featured content."

 

Internet users misdirected to Respondent's website will likely be further confused about Complainant's affiliation with, or sponsorship of, the at-issue domain name and its featured content due to the infringing use of Complainant's GREAT VALUE trademarks and the blatant copying of product images from Complainant's legitimate website.

 

Respondent is clearly attempting to profit from consumer confusion with Complainant's GREAT VALUE trademarks by using a confusingly similar domain name to suggest affiliation or sponsorship by Complainant. Instead of purchasing products through Complainant's legitimate website, consumers seeking Complainant's products are likely to be misled by the at-issue domain name, believing it to be authorized or affiliated with Complainant. This could lead consumers to engage with Respondent. If products are unsatisfactory or not delivered, consumers may mistakenly attribute their negative experience to Complainant, thereby tarnishing the goodwill associated with the Complainant or Complainant's brand, financially damaging Complainant.

 

Respondent uses Complainant's trademarks in the at-issue domain name to disrupt Complainant's business for Respondent's own commercial gain.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has trademark rights in the GREAT VALUE mark.

 

Complainant's rights in GREAT VALUE 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 uses the at-issue domain name to substantially mimic Complainant's genuine website and pass itself off as Complainant or as being authorized by Complainant. Respondent's website features ultimately compensable links to Complainant's GREAT VALUE products and/or other 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 multiple USPTO registrations for its GREAT VALUE trademark. Any of such registrations 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 <greatvalue-brand.com> domain name contains Complainant's GREAT VALUE trademark less its domain name impermissible space, followed by a hyphen and the suggestive term "brand," with all followed by the confusing similarity irrelevant ".com" top-level. The differences between the <greatvalue-brand.com> domain name and Complainant's GREAT VALUE 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 <greatvalue-brand.com> domain name is confusingly similar to GREAT VALUE. 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

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).

 

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 <greatvalue-brand.com> leads to finding that "Dynadot Privacy Service" is the domain name's registrant and there is nothing in the record tending to prove that Respondent is known by <greatvalue-brand.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 <greatvalue-brand.com> domain name to address a website that appears to have lifted content from Complainant's official website creating the illusion that the domain name and its website may be authorized by Complainant. Respondent is undoubtedly benefiting from internet traffic meant for Complainant that is misdirected to Respondent's <greatvalue-brand.com> website since the website links to Complainant's products, as well as other products, on Amazon and/or elsewhere. Indeed, Respondent states on its website that "greatvalue-brand.com is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to amazon.com and other third parties. Amazon, the Amazon logo, AmazonSupply, and the AmazonSupply logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates. As an Amazon Associate we earn affiliate commissions from qualifying purchases." Respondent's use of the <greatvalue-brand.com> domain name in this manner 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 Ripple Labs Inc. v. Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund, FA 1790949 (Forum July 9, 2018) (finding the respondent did not use the domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services per Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) where the website resolving from the disputed domain name featured the complainant's mark and various photographs related to the complainant's business).

 

Given the forgoing, Respondent lacks rights and lacks legitimate interests in respect of <greatvalue-brand.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 <greatvalue-brand.com> website and 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 may be sponsored by, or authorized by, Complainant. Respondent's <greatvalue-brand.com> website displays Complainant's GREAT VALUE trademark, refers to Complainant's products, and links users to the Amazon purchase pages. Since Respondent website is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, the website is undoubtedly a mechanism for Respondent to commercially benefit from advertising fees by advertising and linking to Aamazon.com or otherwise. Respondent's unauthorized use of <greatvalue-brand.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 <greatvalue-brand.com> domain name and Complainant's GREAT VALUE trademark. Respondent's use of the <greatvalue-brand.com> domain name and its referenced website demonstrate Respondent's bad faith registration and use of <greatvalue-brand.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).

 

Next, by deploying a putative subscription mechanism on the <greatvalue-brand.com> website Respondent facilitates the collection of proprietary private data from parties that falsely believe they are visiting Complainant's genuine website. Such deceitfully harvested information may be used by Respondent for an assortment of malicious purposes including identity theft, unauthorized account access and various phishing scams further demonstrating Respondent's bad faith registration and use of the <greatvalue-brand.com> domain name. See Morgan Stanley v. Bruce Pu, FA 1764120 (Forum Feb. 2, 2018) ("[T]he screenshot of the resolving webpage allows users to input their name and email address, which Complainant claims Respondent uses that to fraudulently phish for information. Thus, the Panel agrees that Respondent phishes for information and finds that Respondent does so in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).").

 

Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the GREAT VALUE mark when Respondent registered <greatvalue-brand.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 additionally hosts affiliate links to Complainant's products on Amazon and other pay-per-click links. 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 <greatvalue-brand.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist

Dated: August 25, 2026