NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM

DECISION

Agri-Mark, Inc. v. daniel lopez / Dennis Brown / Kingsley Bennett / Westley Ashbury

Claim Number: FA2609002244516

PARTIES

Complainant is Agri-Mark, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Brooke Erdos Singer of Davis+Gilbert LLP, New York, USA. Respondent is daniel lopez / Dennis Brown / Kingsley Bennett / Westley Ashbury ("Respondent"), Multiple Locations.

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES

The domain names at issue are <cabotcreamerydeli.shop>, <cabotcreamerykitchen.shop>, <officialcabotcreamery.shop> and <ordercabotcreamery.shop> registered with Dynadot 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.

Debrett G. Lyons as Panelist.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on September 9, 2026; Forum received payment on September 9, 2026.

On September 10, 2026, Dynadot Inc confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <cabotcreamerydeli.shop>, <cabotcreamerykitchen.shop>, <officialcabotcreamery.shop> and <ordercabotcreamery.shop> domain names are registered with Dynadot Inc and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Dynadot Inc has verified that Respondent is bound by the Dynadot 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 September 14, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 5, 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@cabotcreamerydeli.shop, postmaster@cabotcreamerykitchen.shop, postmaster@officialcabotcreamery.shop, postmaster@ordercabotcreamery.shop. Also on September 14, 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 October 6, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Debrett G. Lyons 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MUTLIPLE RESPONDENTS

Rule 1 provides that "[t]he Holder of a Domain Name Registration" means the single person or entity listed in the WHOIS registration information at the time of commencement. In this case, the disputed domain names are listed to separate holders – Daniel Lopez, Dennis Brown, Kingsley Bennett and Westley Ashbury.

Rule 3(c) states that a "complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder." Further, Forum's Supplemental Rules 1 and 4(c) provide that if a complainant wishes to make an argument for a single respondent having multiple aliases it must present that argument in the complaint for the Panel's consideration.

Rule 10(e) empowers the Panel to consolidate multiple domain name disputes in accordance with the Policy and the Rules, in particular, where the Panel considers that (i) the domain names or corresponding websites are subject to common control, and (ii) consolidation would be fair and equitable to all parties.

Indicia of common control include shared naming patterns, identical or substantially similar website content, common hosting or nameservers, the same top-level domain, and registration within a narrow time frame. Here, all the disputed domain names are registered in the ".shop" top-level domain. Complainant asserts trademark rights in CABOT and CABOT CREAMERY. The domain names follow one of two templates, combining "cabotcreamery" with a single descriptive prefix or suffix ("deli," "kitchen," "official," "order"). Each resolves, or resolved, to a website presenting itself as Complainant and offering Complainant's products at a heavily discounted price. The websites resolving from <cabotcreamerykitchen.shop>, <officialcabotcreamery.shop> and <ordercabotcreamery.shop> have the same HTML titles ("Vermont Cheese & Dairy Products | Cabot Creamery" and "Dairy Products & Cheese Cabot Creamery"), the same product images, the same verbatim company description ("Owned and operated by real farmers since 1919, Cabot Creamery produces award-winning cheese and dairy products with pride, love, and purpose.") and the same customer testimonials.

All four domain names were registered with the same Registrar, behind the same privacy service. Whilst the names were registered over a span of fifteen weeks, two were registered on consecutive days, and two share the same nameserver. Each registrant has an email address using the same free webmail service and in the same format.

Complainant's submission is that "[t]his content did not arise independently four times. It is the product of a single template deployed by a single operator, and the Domain Names are plainly subject to common control notwithstanding the different names in which they were registered."

The Panel agrees and finds that it is more likely than not that the domain names are under the control of a single person or entity and so for the purposes of application of this Policy regards the named respondents as aliases of a single party, collectively referred to herein simply as "Respondent".

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant is a dairy cooperative founded in 1919 in the US State of Vermont. It asserts trademark rights in CABOT and CABOT CREAMERY which it has long used in connection with dairy products.

Respondent registered the disputed domain names between April 8, 2026 and July 23, 2026, well after Complainant established rights in its trademarks. Complainant submits that the domain names are confusingly similar to its trademarks. Complainant states that the websites resolving from the disputed domain names display Complainant's trademark and elements of its trade dress and offer the same dairy products for sale at discounted prices.

Complainant submits that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain names. Complainant further submits that Respondent registered the domain names in bad faith with knowledge of Complainant's business and trademark and then used them in bad faith for commercial gain.

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

FINDINGS

The factual findings pertinent to the decision in this case are that:

1. Complainant sells dairy products, particularly cheeses, by reference to the trademarks, CABOT and CABOT CREAMERY;

2. Complainant owns, inter alia, United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") Reg. No. 4,111,813, registered on March 13, 2012, for the mark, CABOT and Reg. No. 7,524299, registered on October 1, 2024, for the mark, CABOT CREAMERY;

3. the disputed domain name <cabotcreamerydeli.shop> was created on April 8, 2026; <ordercabotcreamery.shop> on May 26, 2026; <cabotcreamerykitchen.shop> on July 22, 2026 and <officialcabotcreamery.shop> on July 23, 2026; all by Respondent using a privacy service to conceal its identity; and

4. the disputed domain names resolve or did resolve to very similar websites prominently showing Complainant's trademarks and offering for sale at discounted prices the same cheeses and dairy items sold by Complainant on its website.

DISCUSSION

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:

(1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and

(2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

(3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments (see, WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.1 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) ("Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint.")).

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires a two-fold enquiry—a threshold investigation into whether a complainant has rights in a trademark, followed by an assessment of whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark.

It is well established by decisions under this Policy that a trademark registered with a national authority is evidence of trademark rights (see, for example, Mothers Against Drunk Driving v. phix, FA 174052 (Forum Sept. 25, 2003)). Complainant therefore has rights as it provides proof of its registration of the trademark, CABOT and CABOT CREAMERY, with the USPTO, a national trademark authority.

Complainant submits that the domain names are confusingly similar to the trademark since they take the trademark and add non-distinctive matter in the form of the gTLD, ".shop", and one or other of the descriptive words "deli," "kitchen," "official" or "order". The Panel agrees with that submission and finds the domain names confusingly similar to the trademark (see, for example, Am. Int'l Group, Inc. v. Domain Admin. Ltd., FA 1106369 (Forum Dec. 31, 2007) holding that the gTLD can be disregarded; Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) holding that "[w]here 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.").

The Panel accordingly finds that Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy states that any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate rights or legitimate interests to a domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy:

(i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or

(ii) you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or

(iii) you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.

Complainant need only make out a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name, after which the onus shifts to Respondent to rebut that case by demonstrating those rights or interests (see, for example, Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, WIPO Case No. D2000‑0624).

In consequence of these administrative proceedings, the Registrar disclosed the names of the domain name registrants and there is no suggestion that Respondent might be commonly known by any of the disputed domain names, or that Respondent has any trademark rights of its own. The Panel accepts Complainant's submission that Respondent has no authority or permission to use the trademarks. The evidence in support of the Complaint shows that the domain names point (or until recently did point) to websites which copy branding, product images, and the look and feel of Complainant's website, thus creating the false impression of online locations maintained by Complainant.

The Panel finds no evidence of rights or legitimate interest and a prima facie case has been made (see, for example, Ripple Labs Inc. v. NGYEN NGOC PHUONG THAO, FA 1741737 (Forum Aug. 21, 2017) ("Respondent uses the 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 non-commercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)."); Dell Inc. v. Devesh Tyagi, FA 1785301 (Forum June 2, 2018) ("Respondent replicates Complainant's website and displays Complainant's products. The Panel finds that this use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) & (iii).")).

The onus shifts to Respondent. Absent a Response that onus is not met. The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or interests and so finds that Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

"by using the domain name, respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to respondent's website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the respondent's website or location or of a product or service on the site or location."

The domain names have already been found to be confusingly similar to the trademark, CABOT CREAMERY. The resolving websites clearly exist for commercial gain. In terms of the Policy, the Panel finds that Respondent intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, internet users to its websites by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of those websites or of the goods offered there (see, for example, Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum Dec. 27, 2017) finding bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent used a domain name incorporating the complainant's mark to direct users to a website that mimicked the complainant's own, thereby confusing users into believing the respondent was affiliated with or was the complainant; Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC v. Webdesk Two, FA 1800636 (Forum Sept. 5, 2018) finding bad faith in registration of <spectrumpack.com> because "[u]se of a domain name to create a false impression of affiliation with a complainant in order to compete with and disrupt the complainant's business is behavior indicative of bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv).").

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has established the third and final element of the Policy.

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 <cabotcreamerydeli.shop>, <cabotcreamerykitchen.shop>, <officialcabotcreamery.shop> and <ordercabotcreamery.shop> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

Debrett G. Lyons, Panelist

Dated: October 8, 2026