DECISION

 

PFI HOLDCO LLC v. Natalie Harris

Claim Number: FA2608002239596

 

PARTIES

Complainant is PFI HOLDCO LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Staci R. DeReganaucourt of Varnum LLP, Michigan, USA. Respondent is Natalie Harris ("Respondent"), Georgia, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <lakewoodorganic.shop>, registered with Spaceship, Inc.

 

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 August 14, 2026; Forum received payment on August 14, 2026.

 

On August 17, 2026, Spaceship, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <lakewoodorganic.shop> domain name is registered with Spaceship, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Spaceship, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Spaceship, Inc. 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 18, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 8, 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@lakewoodorganic.shop. Also on August 18, 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 September 9, 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 maintains federal trademark rights in various United States registered trademarks, which include multiple LAKEWOOD-formative marks that have been in use since at least as early as January of 1932.

 

The Domain Name is Confusingly Similar to Complainant's Mark.

Respondent's at-issue domain name incorporates the entirety of Complainant's marks, namely, the term LAKEWOOD and a substantial portion of the LAKEWOOD ORGANIC NURTURE, LAKEWOOD LITTLES, and the LAKEWOOD proprietary logo marks and is identical to the Complainant's main website with the exception of the substitution of the gTLD of .shop for the traditional gTLD of .com. The inconsequential ".shop" generic top-level domain ("gTLD") may be ignored under this element. The addition of the word "organic" to Complainant's LAKEWOOD marks does nothing to distinguish the at-issue domain name from such marks.

 

Respondent Lacks Rights or Legitimate Interests in the Domain Name.

LAKEWOOD, LAKEWOOD ORGANIC NURTURE, LAKEWOOD LITTLES, and the Complainant's LAKEWOOD proprietary logos are distinctive terms, which have no meaning outside their use as a means to identify Complainant as a source of certain juice products. Respondent registered the at-issue domain name on August 2, 2025, which is significantly after, in fact approximately 93 years after, the Complainant began using the LAKEWOOD, LAKEWOOD ORGANIC NURTURE, LAKEWOOD LITTLES, and the Complainant's LAKEWOOD proprietary logos as detailed in the respective United States Trademark Registrations therefor. Complainant has been using such LAKEWOOD-formative marks since at least as early as January of 1932 in commerce and since at least as early as May of 2014 on the domain http://lakewoodorganic.com and others. Respondent is not commonly known as <lakewoodorganic.shop>. Until very recently, the website to which <lakewoodorganic.shop> resolved displayed content that corresponded to, and in material respects replicated, Complainant's own website content and identifiers, evidencing an effort to pass off the at-issue domain name's website as an official site affiliated with, sponsored by, or operated by Complainant, which is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Additionally, Respondent is not and has never been a licensee of Complainant, nor is Respondent otherwise authorized to use Complainant's LAKEWOOD, LAKEWOOD ORGANIC NURTURE, LAKEWOOD LITTLES, and the Complainant's LAKEWOOD proprietary logo marks. Respondent does not use and has not made any preparations to use <lakewoodorganic.shop> in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. At present, the website is operated for "passive holding" such that the website to which the at-issue domain name resolves is a parked website that advertises the registrar's (Spaceship, Inc.) services.

 

Respondent Registered and Is Using the Domain Name in Bad Faith.

Respondent originally registered and used the <lakewoodorganic.shop> domain name primarily to profit from and exploit Complainant's LAKEWOOD-formative mark(s). Respondent had previously intentionally used the at-issue domain name to misdirect unwitting consumers to its own website, under the guise that Respondent is the Complainant and the at-issue domain name is the approved ecommerce website therefor, by including information on various services that was directly copied from Complainant's legitimate website. As stated, the content of Respondent's domain name was, until very recently, directly copied from Complainant's webpage in an attempt to pass off the domain name as being affiliated with Complainant. The unauthorized use of the Complainant's LAKEWOOD-formative marks confused Internet users into thinking that there are links between the Complainant's LAKEWOOD-formative marks, the Complainant's business, and Respondent which do not exist. Complainant submits that it is most likely that the Respondent benefited commercially from the traffic driven to its site as a result, whether through click-through revenue, or other commercial arrangements. Respondent's diversionary use of Complainant's LAKEWOOD-formative marks to redirect Internet users and unwitting consumers to a webpage that mimics Complainant's webpage with copied information and images for which Respondent presumably receives clickthrough fees or fraudulently collects fees of its own constitutes bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). Respondent  also knowingly registered a domain name containing an exact reproduction of the Complainant's LAKEWOOD-formative marks and their association with the Complainant. Respondent registered the domain name primarily to profit from and exploit Complainant's marks as evidenced by the explicit trading off of the goodwill of the Complainant's marks, via copying of the information, images, and marks from Complainant's webpage to publish on its own and efforts to mislead relevant would-be customers of Complainant to divert such web traffic to the at-issue domain name. Such actions are sufficient to establish a presumption that Respondent has actual knowledge of its actions being made in bad faith. At present, the at-issue domain name is not in use, but rather parked and displaying an advertisement for the registrar's (Spaceship, Inc.) services. Such failure to make active legitimate use of the domain at present is also sufficient evidence of bad faith under the Policy.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has rights in the LAKEWOOD mark and other related marks.

 

Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and had not been authorized to use Complainant's trademark in any capacity.

 

Respondent registered the at‑issue domain name after Complainant acquired rights in the LAKEWOOD trademark.

 

Respondent used the at-issue domain name to address a website lifting content from Complainant genuine website thus appearing as if affiliated with Complainant and likely commercially benefited therefrom. Respondent currently holds the domain name passively.

 

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 shows that it registered its LAKEWOOD trademark as well as related trademarks with the USPTO. Any of Complainant's LAKEWOOD centric trademark 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 <lakewoodorganic.shop> domain name may be characterized inter alia as consisting of Complainant's LAKEWOOD trademark, followed by the suggestive term "organic," with all followed by the ".shop" top-level domain name. The differences between Complainant's LAKEWOOD trademark and <lakewoodorganic.shop> fail to distinguish the domain name from Complainant's mark for the purpose of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). The Panel thus concludes that Respondent's <lakewoodorganic.shop> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's LAKEWOOD trademark under the Policy. 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."); see also, Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Domain Administrator / Registry Services, LLC, FA 2038314 (Forum July 26, 2023) ("The addition of a gTLD fails to sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).").

 

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.").

 

The WHOIS information for the at-issue domain name leads to the finding that the domain name's registrant is "Natalie Harris" and the record before the Panel contains no evidence otherwise showing that Respondent is commonly known by the <lakewoodorganic.shop> domain name or any relevant variation thereof. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by <lakewoodorganic.shop> for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See PragmaticPlay Limited v. Robert Chris, FA 1932464 (Forum Mar. 23, 2021) ("The WHOIS information of record lists the registrant as "Robert Chris," and no other information of record suggests Respondent is commonly known by the domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).").

 

Respondent used its <lakewoodorganic.shop> domain name to address a website mimicking aspects of Complainant's genuine website and appearing as if it may have been affiliated with or sponsored by Complainant. Respondent's use of the at-issue domain name in such manner is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4 (c)(i), nor a non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Ripple Labs Inc. v. NGYEN NGOC PHUONG THAO, FA 1741737 (Forum Aug. 21, 2017) ("Respondent uses the [disputed] domain name to divert Internet users to Respondent's website… confusing them into believing that some sort of affiliation exists between it and Complainant… [which] is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).").

 

Respondent's current passive holding of the at-issue domain name is also not indicative of a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a non-commercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See CrossFirst Bankshares, Inc. v Yu-Hsien Huang, FA 1785415 (Forum June 6, 2018) ("Complainant demonstrates that Respondent fails to actively use the disputed domain name as it resolves to an inactive website. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent fails to actively use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).").

 

Given the forgoing, Respondent lacks rights and lacks legitimate interests in respect of <lakewoodorganic.shop>.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

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

 

Respondent's at-issue domain name formerly addressed Respondent's <lakewoodorganic.shop>website. The website mimicked Complainant's genuine website to attempt to pass itself off as being associated with Complainant. Respondent's use of its confusingly similar <lakewoodorganic.shop> domain name to disguise itself as Complainant was disruptive to Complainant's business and designed to attract internet users so that Respondent may capitalize on the confusion Respondent created between its <lakewoodorganic.shop> domain name and Complainant's LAKEWOOD trademark. Respondent's prior use of the <lakewoodorganic.shop> domain name and referenced website demonstrates Respondent's bad faith registration and use of <lakewoodorganic.shop> under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Artistic Pursuit LLC v. calcuttawebdevelopers.com, FA 894477 (Forum Mar. 8, 2007) (finding that the respondent's registration and use of the at-issue domain name, which displayed a website virtually identical to the complainant's website, constituted bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)); 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).

 

Respondent's current passive holding of the confusingly similar <lakewoodorganic.shop> domain name likewise shows Respondent's bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See CommScope, Inc. of North Carolina v. Zhuang Yan / WANGYONG, FA 1764026 (Forum Feb. 14, 2018) ("Respondent's domain names do not have resolving websites. Using a domain name to resolve to an inactive website (or no website at all) indicates bad faith registration and use.").

 

Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the LAKEWOOD mark when Respondent registered <lakewoodorganic.shop> as a domain name. Respondent's actual knowledge is evident from the long notoriety of the LAKEWOOD trademark, from Respondent's incorporation of the suggestive term "organic" (also a term in another of Complainant's marks) into the at-issue domain name, and from Respondent's use of the domain name to address a website that posed as being sponsored website of Complainant. 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 <lakewoodorganic.shop> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist

Dated: September 9, 2026