DECISION

 

Eetho Brands, Inc. v. THOMAS GENE COLLEY

Claim Number: FA2607002236564

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Eetho Brands, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Manon Burns of Amin Wasserman Gurnani, LLP, Illinois, USA. Respondent is THOMAS GENE COLLEY ("Respondent"), Georgia, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <dosedaily.one>, registered with NameSilo, LLC.

 

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.

 

Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on July 31, 2026; Forum received payment on July 31, 2026.

 

On August 3, 2026, NameSilo, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <dosedaily.one> domain name is registered with NameSilo, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameSilo, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameSilo, 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 August 6, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 26, 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@dosedaily.one. Also on August 6, 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 27, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. 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

i) Complainant is a commercial enterprise engaged in the development, marketing, and distribution of nutritional and wellness products. Complainant asserts that it has acquired common law trademark rights in DOSE and DOSE DAILY through extensive and continuous use in commerce since 2020, supported by substantial sales volume, prominent retail distribution, significant third-party media coverage, and robust consumer engagement across e-commerce platforms and social media, all of which conclusively demonstrate that the marks have acquired secondary meaning. Furthermore, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's trademark, as it incorporates the DOSE DAILY mark in its entirety.

 

ii) Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and Complainant has neither authorized nor licensed Respondent to use or assert any rights in DOSE and DOSE DAILY. Moreover, Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor for any legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent employs the disputed domain name to perpetrate a false affiliation and pass itself off as Complainant. Specifically, Respondent is using the disputed domain name to impersonate Complainant's official website by reproducing Complainant's branding, layout, copyrighted text, product descriptions, and design elements.

 

iii) Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. By operating the domain name, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion, with DOSE as to the source, sponsorship, or affiliation of its website, and has otherwise registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of siphoning off Complainant's goodwill and/or engaging in phishing for consumer credit card information or login credentials. Respondent registered the disputed domain incorporating the exact mark and subsequently populated the resulting website by reproducing Complainant's branding, layout, copyrighted text, product descriptions, and design elements. Furthermore, Respondent's registration of the domain with knowledge of DOSE's superior rights further supports a finding of bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

1. The record establishes that the disputed domain name was registered on July 31, 2026.

 

2. Complainant has established common law rights in DOSE in connection with nutritional supplements by virtue of its continuous use and promotion thereof since at least 2020.

 

3. The disputed domain name resolves to a website that displays DOSE in a manner that impersonates Complainant, thereby mimicking the appearance and layout of Complainant's legitimate website.

 

4. There is no disclaimer concerning Complainant on the website associated with the disputed domain name.

 

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 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

Complainant asserts common law rights in DOSE and DOSE DAILY marks pertaining to nutritional supplements as a result of its continuous use and promotion thereof since 2020.

 

The Panel notes that, to establish unregistered or common law trademark rights for the purposes of the Policy, Complainant must demonstrate that its mark has become a distinctive identifier that consumers associate with Complainant's goods or services.

 

Although Complainant asserts common law rights in both DOSE and DOSE DAILY marks, the Panel notes that the documents Complainant has provided contain mostly DOSE brand. As such, the Panel considers common law rights only for the mark DOSE. The Panel finds that Complainant has established common law trademark rights in the DOSE mark through longstanding and continuous use in commerce dating back to at least 2020. This finding is supported by the following factors:

 

(i) Longstanding and continuous commercial use of the DOSE mark dating back to at least 2020 establishes the necessary temporal foundation for a mark to serve as an indicator of source.

 

(ii) Substantial sales figures, commercial success, and prominent rankings on major e-commerce platforms (such as high category positions on Amazon) serve as strong indicators of market penetration and robust commercial presence.

 

(iii) The widespread availability and retail distribution of products through established, reputable national retailers (e.g., Target, The Vitamin Shoppe) demonstrate the broad geographic and commercial reach of the brand.

 

(iv) Unsolicited editorial coverage and substantive features by major, objective news outlets (such as Today and Yahoo Health) provide compelling evidence of the brand's independent public recognition and standing in the marketplace.

 

(v) High consumer satisfaction reflected in extensive review volumes, favorable average ratings, and a substantial, active following across major social media platforms (Instagram, Facebook, TikTok) collectively corroborate that the mark has acquired distinctiveness or secondary meaning among relevant consumers.

 

Next, Complainant argues that the disputed domain name <dosedaily.one> is confusingly similar to Complainant's trademark, as it incorporates Complainant's exact mark DOSE DAILY in its entirety. As noted above, the Panel recognized Complainant's common law rights in the DOSE mark only. The Panel also notes that the disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's DOSE mark in its entirety merely adding the generic or descriptive term "daily" and the ".one" gTLD, which does not negate the confusing similarity. Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's DOSE mark.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

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 it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Section 2.1, WIPO Overview 3.1 ("Where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element.").

 

Complainant argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Respondent been authorized by Complainant to use Complainant's mark, and Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant. Relevant information, such as WHOIS information, can be used as evidence to show a respondent is or is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). The Panel notes that the unmasked WHOIS data lists "THOMAS GENE COLLEY" as the registrant, and there is no evidence in the record to suggest Respondent was authorized to use the mark. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

Complainant argues that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, as Respondent uses the disputed domain name to impersonate Complainant.

 

The Panel observes that such impersonation does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). see Ripple Labs Inc. v. Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund, FA 1790949 (Forum July 9, 2018) (finding that 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); see also Wolverine World Wide, Inc. v. Fergus Knox, FA 1627751 (Forum Aug. 19, 2015) (finding that no bona fide offering of goods or legitimate noncommercial or fair use existed where the respondent used the resolving website to sell products branded with Complainant's MERRELL mark, which were either counterfeit products or legitimate products of Complainant being resold without authorization).

 

Based upon the evidentiary screenshots of the disputed domain name's website and Complainant's website, the Panel notes the following:

 

The disputed domain name's resolving website (i) displays Complainant's exact brand name DOSE throughout, (ii) copies Complainant's exact copyrighted product labels, including label designs bearing Complainant's branding, product names, and distinctive trade dress, identically on the infringing site's product vials, (iii) reproduces Complainant's copyrighted website text, product descriptions, and page layouts in their entirety, and (iv) there is no disclaimer concerning Complainant.

 

While the authenticity of the products is unknown, even if the products offered for sale at the website associated with the disputed domain name are Complainant's genuine products, the Panel finds that Respondent's impersonation of Complainant and fraudulent use of the disputed domain name by mimicking Complainant's website, without the need to apply the Oki Data test (see Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc., D2001-0903 (WIPO Nov. 6, 2001)), does not constitute a use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor is it a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).

 

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has established a prima facie case based on the considerations above. All of these factors support the establishment of a prima facie case against Respondent. As Respondent has failed to file a Response or attempt to refute the prima facie case by any other means, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant contends that Respondent's registration and use of the disputed domain name constitute bad faith in that the domain name resolves to a website that displays DOSE in a manner that impersonates Complainant and mimics the appearance of a legitimate website.

 

The Panel finds that such impersonation, coupled with the promotion and sale of unauthorized or counterfeit products, constitutes evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). See Ontel Products Corporation v. Waweru Njoroge, FA 1762229 (Forum Dec. 22, 2017) ('Respondent's primary offering seems to be counterfeits of Complainant's toy car products. Respondent's use of the <magictrackscars.com> domain name is thus disruptive to Complainant's business per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).'); see also Russell & Bromley Limited v. Li Wei Wei, FA 1752021 (Forum Nov. 17, 2017) (finding that respondent registered and used the at-issue domain name in bad faith because it used the name to pass off as Complainant and to offer for sale competitive, counterfeit goods).

 

As previously noted, the Panel finds that the resolving website of the disputed domain name impersonates Complainant and promotes and offers competing products identical to those of Complainant pertaining to the nutritional supplement. Respondent's website is virtually identical to Complainant's legitimate website interface, reproducing the same branding, layout, and textual content including even promotional images. The Panel concludes that Respondent impermissibly disrupts Complainant's business by diverting Internet users seeking Complainant to Respondent's own site, thereby deriving commercial benefit therefrom. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv).

 

Complainant further contends that Respondent's registration of the domain with knowledge of DOSE's superior rights supports a finding of bad faith.

 

Given the well-established goodwill of Complainant's DOSE and Respondent's registration of the disputed domain name being identical to Complainant's DOSE and Respondent's copycat mimicking Complainant's website, the Panel infers that Respondent was aware of Complainant's rights in the mark at the time of registration. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent registered the disputed domain name in 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 <dosedaily.one> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist

Dated: August 28, 2026