DECISION

 

Bedrock Management Services, LLC v. hassan kadouh

Claim Number: FA2608002240187

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Bedrock Management Services, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Staci R. DeRegnaucourt of Varnum LLP, Michigan, USA. Respondent is hassan kadouh ("Respondent"), represented by Joanna M. Myers of Howard & Howard Attorneys PLLC, Nevada, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <hudsonsdetroit.com> (the "Disputed Domain Name"), registered with GoDaddy.com, 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.

 

David L. Kreider, Chartered Arbitrator (UK), as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

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

 

On August 18, 2026, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <hudsonsdetroit.com> 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").

 

Complainant submitted an Amended Complaint, following the Registrar's disclosure of the underlying registrant information.

 

On August 19, 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@hudsonsdetroit.com. Also on August 19, 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.

 

A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on September 8, 2026.

 

On September 9, 2026, pursuant to the Parties' requests to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed David L. Kreider 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the Disputed Domain Name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant alleges:

 

That it maintains United States federal trademark rights in multiple HUDSON'S and HUDSONS-formative marks used since at least as early as April 30, 2024, including U.S. Trademark Registration No. 7,828,084 for HUDSON'S DETROIT and U.S. Trademark Registration No. 7,931,629 for HUDSON'S, together with further registrations and pending applications, and that it owns and has used the domain name <hudsons-detroit.com> since at least February 2024.

 

That its HUDSON'S and HUDSON'S DETROIT marks identify Complainant's mixed-use development in Detroit, Michigan, together with secondary source goods referring to it, including a holiday plush toy sold under the THE BEAR AT HUDSON'S mark, and that the marks and Complainant's own domain name have become well recognized by consumers as designating Complainant, by virtue of extensive advertising, unsolicited third-party media coverage and consumer goodwill.

 

That the Disputed Domain Name is identical to the HUDSON'S DETROIT standard character mark because it incorporates each of the terms HUDSON'S and DETROIT, and that the omission of the apostrophe is not sufficient to distinguish it under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

That Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name on February 6, 2026, significantly after Complainant named its mixed-use development and began using the HUDSON'S and HUDSON'S DETROIT marks.

 

That Respondent is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name, is not a licensee of Complainant and is not otherwise authorized to use Complainant's marks, and has neither made nor prepared to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, because Respondent uses the Disputed Domain Name to divert Internet traffic to its own website for commercial gain through the sale of novelty goods, particularly "Santa bears" that mimic Complainant's THE BEAR AT HUDSON'S offerings.

 

That Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and 4(b)(iv), by intentionally attempting to attract Internet users for commercial gain through a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the website resolving from the Disputed Domain Name, and by attempting to pass that website off as affiliated with Complainant; and that Respondent knowingly registered the Disputed Domain Name in order to capitalize on consumer recognition of Complainant's marks, which is sufficient to establish actual knowledge.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent contends:

 

That he registered the Disputed Domain Name on February 5, 2015, nearly a decade before Complainant's earliest claimed first use and years before Complainant filed any application for HUDSON'S DETROIT, so that Complainant had no trademark rights capable of being targeted when the registration was made; that bad faith registration is accordingly impossible; and that Complainant therefore fails under Policy ¶¶ 4(a)(i) and 4(a)(iii).

 

That he has offered goods under the HUDSON'S DETROIT name since at least 2012, sold through Detroit-area retail stores, and formalized that business by registering HUDSON'S DETROIT LLC with the State of Michigan on December 11, 2020, a registration he renewed on October 2, 2025.

 

That he has rights and legitimate interests under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and 4(c)(ii): the website resolving from the Disputed Domain Name offers his own artwork, home décor, home goods, clothing and plush bears under the HUDSON'S DETROIT brand, in a bona fide offering that began well before any notice of this dispute, and he has been commonly known by that name for years.

 

That the name was adopted independently of Complainant, as an homage to the historic J.L. Hudson department store where his grandmother worked her entire career, in connection with a studio located in a former Hudson Motor Car Company service facility, and after his son, Hudson, with whom he lives in Detroit.

 

That the website is not used to impersonate Complainant, to divert Internet users seeking Complainant, or to capitalize on Complainant's goodwill, and that the Disputed Domain Name has never been advertised for sale.

 

That the Complaint should be denied and that Complainant's conduct amounts to Reverse Domain Name Hijacking, Complainant having been represented throughout by experienced counsel, having known from publicly available records that the registration long predated any rights it could assert, having omitted the relevant dates from its pleading, and having advanced its contentions "upon information and belief" in the absence of adequate proof.

 

FINDINGS

The Panel finds the following:

 

Complainant is a Detroit real estate business trading as Bedrock Detroit. It owns four United States registrations in evidence: U.S. Reg. No. 7,828,084 for the standard character service mark HUDSON'S DETROIT, registered June 10, 2025 in International Classes 36, 37 and 43, with a claimed date of first use of April 30, 2024, and with no claim to exclusive rights in "DETROIT" apart from the mark as shown; U.S. Reg. No. 7,931,629 for the service mark HUDSON'S, registered September 2, 2025 in the same classes and with the same claimed first use date; U.S. Reg. No. 7,780,238 for a design mark, registered April 29, 2025 in the same classes and with the same claimed first use date; and U.S. Reg. No. 8,360,682 for the trademark THE BEAR AT HUDSON'S, registered July 21, 2026 in International Class 28 for plush dolls, plush toys and novelty toy items, with a claimed date of first use of November 6, 2025. The three service mark registrations issued from applications filed on September 27, 2023. Complainant also uses the domain name <hudsons-detroit.com>, which it says it has used since February 2024.

 

The registered services are real estate management, leasing and development services and the provision of facilities for conferences, meetings and exhibitions, associated with Complainant's mixed-use development in Detroit. Complainant's evidence of use of its marks on goods comprises the THE BEAR AT HUDSON'S registration, whose claimed first use is November 6, 2025; photographs of a seasonal retail kiosk headed "THE BEAR" offering boxed plush bears, the packaging printed "THE BEAR AT HUDSON'S" and "2025" and referring purchasers to Complainant's own domain name; Complainant's internal holiday programming document, which fixes the kiosk's opening at November 6; and local press coverage of the display.

 

The Registrar's verification confirms that the Disputed Domain Name was created on February 5, 2015, that it expires on February 5, 2027, and that Respondent, hassan kadouh of Detroit, Michigan, is the current registrant. The public WHOIS records in evidence, filed by both Parties, likewise give a creation date of February 5, 2015. The Declaration of Respondent Hassan Kadouh, dated September 8, 2026 (the "Respondent's Declaration"), gives the registration date as February 2, 2015; the difference is immaterial, and the Panel proceeds on the Registrar's date.

 

Both the Complaint and the Amended Complaint state that Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name "on February 6, 2026, which is significantly after the Complainant named its mixed-use development and began using the HUDSON'S and HUDSON'S DETROIT marks …" That assertion is incorrect. February 6, 2026 is the date on which the WHOIS record was last updated. On the face of the same ICANN Lookup printout that Complainant filed with both pleadings, that entry appears on the line immediately above the entry recording the creation date of February 5, 2015.

 

Nothing in the record indicates that the Disputed Domain Name changed hands at any time after its creation. The Registrar's verification reports Respondent as the registrant of a registration created on February 5, 2015 and records no transfer, and the Respondent's Declaration states that he registered the name himself and has held it since. The Panel therefore assesses registration in bad faith as at February 5, 2015.

 

Respondent is an artist and retailer in Detroit. The Respondent's Declaration states that he has sold plush bears, clothing, home goods, vintage Detroit goods and artwork under the HUDSON'S DETROIT brand since approximately 2012, through consignment stores in Detroit; that he registered the Disputed Domain Name in 2015 intending to create an e-commerce website; that he adopted the name because his son is named Hudson, because his grandmother worked her career at the historic J.L. Hudson department store in Detroit, and because his studio is located in the former Hudson Motor Car Company service center; and that he had no knowledge of Complainant until August 19, 2026, when he was served in this proceeding.

 

Two third-party declarations corroborate that account. The Declaration of Charles Avison, dated September 8, 2026 (the "Avison Declaration"), from the General Manager of Inspire Marketplace and previously the manager of its predecessor business, states that Respondent's HUDSON'S DETROIT-branded products have been sold through those retail stores since at least 2012, in dedicated merchandise areas at named shopping-mall locations, and continue to be sold there. The Declaration of Nicole Davidson, dated September 8, 2026 (the "Davidson Declaration"), from the owner of Inspire Marketplace, states that the business has continuously carried and sold Respondent's HUDSON'S DETROIT-branded home décor and art products since at least as early as 2019 to 2020. Complainant adduced no evidence contradicting either declaration.

 

Michigan filing records in evidence show that on December 11, 2020, Respondent signed, as a member of Beyond Mars Publishing LLC, a Certificate of Assumed Name registering HUDSON'S DETROIT LLC as an assumed name of that company, endorsed and filed by the Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs on December 16, 2020. Respondent signed a Certificate of Renewal of Assumed Name on October 2, 2025, filed by the Department on October 3, 2025. The instrument records an assumed name rather than the formation of a separate limited liability company, as the Response describes it; the distinction does not affect the Panel's conclusions.

 

The Disputed Domain Name resolves to a retail website headed HUDSON'S DETROIT, which offers home décor, plush bears, wall art, clothing, artifacts and gift baskets. Screenshots filed by both Parties show framed historic photographs of Detroit landmarks offered from $15, hooded "Santa Bear" plush toys at $65, and brick art, coaster sets, printed clothing and vintage Detroit objects at prices up to several thousand dollars. The site's "About" page recounts the same family and local history given in the Respondent's Declaration. It is written in the first person and signed "Hudson C.", the writer adding that his own name is Hudson; it records that his great-grandmother worked at the Hudson's department store and that his grandmother collected that store's historic packaging, trinkets and "famous Santa Bears." The Respondent's Declaration places the same employment one generation nearer, at Respondent's grandmother. The two accounts are consistent: the page is written in the voice of Respondent's son Hudson, for whom Respondent's grandmother is a great-grandmother. The page also reproduces archival photographs of the interior and the "Hudson's Entrance One" doors of the former department store, and offers a "Historic J.L. Hudson's Coaster Set" bearing images of it. The Respondent's Declaration states that the online marketplace went live on or about mid-2025. The website makes no reference to Complainant or to Complainant's development, claims no affiliation with Complainant, and does not reproduce Complainant's website or branding.

 

There is no evidence that Respondent has offered the Disputed Domain Name for sale, that he holds any other domain name corresponding to a third party's mark, or that any Internet user has in fact been confused.

 

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.

 

Respondent has filed a Response in this proceeding. The Panel has considered the submissions and the evidence of both Parties.

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Complainant has established rights in the HUDSON'S DETROIT and HUDSON'S marks through its registrations on the Principal Register of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A nationally registered trademark satisfies the rights requirement of the first element. See WIPO Overview 3.1, ¶ 1.2.1.

 

The Disputed Domain Name reproduces the HUDSON'S DETROIT mark in its entirety, omitting only the apostrophe, which cannot be represented in a domain name, and adding the generic top-level domain ".com", which is disregarded in the comparison. See WIPO Overview 3.1, ¶ 1.11.1.

 

Respondent contends that Complainant fails the first element because Complainant's rights postdate the registration of the Disputed Domain Name. The Panel declines that contention. The first element is a standing requirement, directed to whether Complainant holds relevant rights and whether the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to them; it does not require that those rights predate the registration. The chronology on which Respondent relies is nonetheless material, and the Panel addresses it under the third element, where it is decisive.

 

The Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights 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, whereupon the burden of production shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence that he has such rights or interests. See WIPO Overview 3.1, ¶ 2.1.

 

Complainant's prima facie case rests on its assertions that Respondent is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name, that Respondent is neither a licensee of Complainant nor otherwise authorized to use its marks, and that Respondent uses the Disputed Domain Name to divert Internet traffic for commercial gain. The Panel accepts that showing as sufficient to shift the burden of production to Respondent.

 

Respondent has discharged that burden, on each of the two grounds he advances.

 

Under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), a respondent has rights or legitimate interests where he has been commonly known by the domain name, whether or not he has acquired trademark rights. The Michigan filing records show that Respondent registered HUDSON'S DETROIT LLC as an assumed name in December 2020 and renewed that registration in October 2025. The Avison Declaration and the Davidson Declaration, from the manager and the owner respectively of a retail business unconnected with either Party, place Respondent's HUDSON'S DETROIT-branded goods in their stores from at least 2012 and from at least 2019 to 2020 respectively, and describe continuing sales. Complainant's contrary contention rests on the published WHOIS record, which named the Registrar's privacy service. Where the Registrar's verification has identified the underlying registrant, and the record independently shows that the registrant has traded under the name for years, a privacy shield in the published WHOIS does not answer Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

Under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), a respondent has rights or legitimate interests where, before any notice of the dispute, he used the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The website resolving from the Disputed Domain Name offers Respondent's own goods, being home décor, plush bears, wall art, clothing and vintage Detroit items, under the name of Respondent's own business. It went live on or about mid-2025, more than a year before Respondent had notice of this dispute in August 2026. The website does not refer to Complainant, does not imitate Complainant's website, and does not hold itself out as connected with Complainant's development. On this record the offering is Respondent's own, and not a pretext for trading on Complainant's marks.

 

Complainant invites the further finding that Respondent's plush bears mimic Complainant's THE BEAR AT HUDSON'S products. The Panel declines that finding. Complainant's THE BEAR AT HUDSON'S registration claims first use on November 6, 2025 and issued on July 21, 2026, whereas the record places Respondent's sales of plush bears under the HUDSON'S DETROIT name from at least 2012 and traces their inspiration, as Respondent's website recounts, to the historic Detroit department store's "famous Santa Bears." Whether either Party's use of a plush bear infringes the other's rights is a trademark question for a court, and not one this Panel decides.

 

The Panel finds that Respondent has rights and legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and 4(c)(ii), and that Complainant has not established the second element under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) requires Complainant to prove both that the Disputed Domain Name was registered in bad faith and that it is being used in bad faith. Bad faith at registration is assessed as at the date on which the registrant acquired the domain name.

 

The Disputed Domain Name was created on February 5, 2015. Complainant's earliest asserted rights are the applications filed on September 27, 2023 and a claimed first use in commerce on April 30, 2024; the earliest of its registrations issued on June 10, 2025. Complainant's rights therefore came into existence more than eight years after the registration. Where a respondent registers a domain name before the complainant's trademark rights accrue, a panel will not normally find bad faith registration. See WIPO Overview 3.1, ¶ 3.8.1; see also Faster Faster, Inc. DBA Alta Motors v. Jeongho Yoon c/o AltaMart, FA 1708272 (Forum Feb. 6, 2017) (no bad faith registration where the respondent registered the domain name more than a decade before the complainant introduced its mark in commerce, so that the respondent could not have contemplated the complainant's then non-existent rights).

 

The recognized exceptions to that principle arise where the respondent knew of the complainant and registered in anticipation of rights about to come into being, as shortly before a publicized merger or product launch, or where the respondent is an insider such as a former employee or business partner. See WIPO Overview 3.1, ¶ 3.8.2; TT of Riviera Beach, Inc. d/b/a I-95 Nissan v. Ryan Pierce, FA 1955296 (Forum Aug. 16, 2021) (setting out the prior rights doctrine and the exceptions to it, and finding the doctrine displaced where the respondent registered the domain name aware of the complainant's impending rights). Nothing of that kind appears here.

 

Complainant does not contend that its development or its marks existed in any form in February 2015, and the Respondent's Declaration states that Respondent had not heard of Complainant until he was served in this proceeding. Respondent's explanation for his choice of name, resting on his son's name, his grandmother's employment at the J.L. Hudson store and his studio in a former Hudson Motor Car Company building, is coherent, is reflected in the content of the website itself, and is uncontradicted. The Panel accepts it.

 

Complainant's case under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and 4(b)(iv) is directed to Respondent's use of the Disputed Domain Name. The Panel need not resolve it, because the third element requires bad faith registration as well as bad faith use, and bad faith registration cannot be shown on these dates. The Panel adds only that the allegations of a confusion-based revenue scheme and of passing off were pleaded upon information and belief and were unsupported by evidence of any actual confusion or, as the Panel has found, by any resemblance between the Parties' respective websites.

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has not established that the Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKING

Paragraph 15(e) of the Rules provides that, if "after considering the submissions the Panel finds that the complaint was brought in bad faith, for example in an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking or was brought primarily to harass the domain-name holder, the Panel shall declare in its decision that the complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding." Reverse Domain Name Hijacking is defined in Rule 1 as "using the Policy in bad faith to attempt to deprive a registered domain-name holder of a domain name." The mere lack of success of a complaint is not, of itself, sufficient. See WIPO Overview 3.1, ¶ 4.16; see also Mengjia Li (Eve Li) v. zhou zong wen, FA 2156311 (Forum June 20, 2025) (finding Reverse Domain Name Hijacking where the complainant's registered rights arose nearly twenty years after the disputed domain name was registered).

 

Respondent has expressly requested such a finding. The Panel considers that such a finding is warranted, for three reasons.

 

First, the Complaint's central factual assertion was contradicted by Complainant's own evidence. As the Panel has found, the February 6, 2026 registration date pleaded in both the Complaint and the Amended Complaint is the date on which the WHOIS record was last updated, and the creation date of February 5, 2015 appears on the line immediately below it on the printout Complainant itself filed. The chronology on which Complainant's bad faith case depended was thus inverted, and the material correcting it was in Complainant's own hands from the outset.

 

Second, Complainant repeated the assertion after receiving the Registrar's verification. Forum transmitted that verification, which independently gives the creation date, to Complainant with its deficiency letter of August 19, 2026, and Complainant amended the Complaint in response to that letter. The amendment corrected Respondent's identity and left the registration date as it stood.

 

Third, Complainant was represented throughout by trademark counsel. A represented complainant is expected to establish the registration date of the domain name it seeks and to address, rather than pass over, a registration that, as the Panel has found, predates every right Complainant asserts. The Complaint does not mention the point, and it advances no basis upon which bad faith registration could have been found.

 

The Panel makes no finding as to the merits of any grievance Complainant may have about the Parties' concurrent use of similar names; that is a trademark question, and nothing in this Decision determines it. What the Panel finds is that this proceeding was not an available route to the relief Complainant sought, on facts Complainant knew or ought to have known, and that the Complaint was pressed nonetheless.

 

The Panel accordingly finds that the Complaint was brought in bad faith, and that it constitutes Reverse Domain Name Hijacking within the meaning of Paragraph 15(e) of the Rules and an abuse of the administrative proceeding.

 

DECISION

Having not established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED. Complainant has established the first element, but neither the second nor the third.

 

The Panel further finds that the Complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <hudsonsdetroit.com> domain name REMAIN WITH Respondent.

 

 

 

David L. Kreider, Panelist

Dated: September 9, 2026