Mile High Compounds, LLC filed a UDRP against Mike Driz / Legend Tech Service of Cameroon over MileHighCompound.com, alleging the domain targeted its peptide business and was used for fraudulent sales pretending to be the Complainant.
The company claimed common law rights in MILE HIGH COMPOUNDS (and variations such as MILE HIGH) based on its use since May 2025 and a pending USPTO application filed in August 2025. It argued that dropping the final “s” from its domain, milehighcompounds.is, created a confusingly similar imitation.
The Panelist found those claims unsubstantiated. The Complainant failed to provide concrete evidence of secondary meaning—no data on sales, advertising, customer reach, or recognition—beyond general statements about rapid growth and social media visibility. Its alternating references to both MILE HIGH and MILE HIGH COMPOUNDS further weakened the case.
Without proof of trademark rights, the Panel declined to examine legitimate interests or bad faith.
Final decision: Complaint denied and the domain milehighcompound.com remains with the Respondent.
Copyright © 2025 DomainGang.com · All Rights Reserved.Mile High Compounds, LLC v. Mike Driz / Legend Tech Service
Claim Number: FA2509002175801
PARTIES
Complainant is Mile High Compounds, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Sinead Killeen of Florida Healthcare Law Firm, Florida, USA. Respondent is Mike Driz / Legend Tech Service (“Respondent”), Cameroon.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is milehighcompound.com, 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.
Darryl C. Wilson, as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on September 8, 2025; Forum received payment on September 8, 2025.
On September 8, 2025, NameSilo, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the milehighcompound.com 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 September 15, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 6, 2025 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@milehighcompound.com. Also on September 15, 2025, 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 7, 2025, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Darryl C. Wilson 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
Mile High Compounds, LLC, owns common law rights in MILE HIGH and on August 15, 2025 filed for federal registration for the trademark MILE HIGH COMPOUNDS under U.S. Serial Number 99339710.
Complainant is a private company that operates in the peptide space, a quickly growing sector of the U.S. economy. As a result of Complainant’s use and advertising in a quickly growing business, the Complainant’s mark has achieved extensive goodwill and customer recognition.
The Complainant also maintains its own website and does business via milehighcompounds.is. Respondent has registered the domain name milehighcompound.com, removing an “s” from Complainant’s mark and domain, thus creating a substantially similar and spurious mark.
The Respondent has targeted Complainant’s customers with fraudulent discounted product offerings to divert sales that are due to Complainant, into Respondent’s own coffers. Further, Respondent is not providing the purchased products to Complainant’s customers, creating anger and frustration directed at Complainant for actions undertaken by Respondent.
Complainant has established rights in the MILE HIGH mark through continuous and extensive use of the mark beginning in May of 2025.
Complainant’s rights in its marks were, therefore, acquired before the Respondent’s acquisition of the disputed domain name on August 4, 2025.
The disputed domain name is nearly identical and confusingly similar to the Complainant’s marks.
The Respondent possesses no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name that is the subject of this Complaint.
Respondent has made no use of, or made demonstrable preparation for, use of the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services before Complainant first used the marks.
The Respondent has registered and used the domain name in bad faith.
Respondent is using its website for nefarious purposes. Respondent has been accepting orders and payment for products to Complainant’s customers pretending to be Complainant and not delivering any product in return.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
FINDINGS
Complainant is Mile High Compounds, LLC (“Complainant”), of Denver, CO, USA. Complainant asserts that it has common law rights in the mark MILE HIGH COMPOUNDS and variations thereof which it has continuously used since at least as early as May, 2025 for the sale of peptide goods and services. Complainant filed for domestic federal trademark registration for one or more marks on August 15, 2025 with the USPTO however that application has not yet been approved for registration.
Respondent is Mike Driz / Legend Tech Services (“Respondent”), of Buea, Cameroon. Respondent’s registrar’s address is indicated as Miami, FL, USA. Respondent registered the disputed domain name on or about August 4, 2025.
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 3.0 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 contends that, despite lacking any registrations for the mark MILE HIGH COMPOUNDS, it has acquired common law rights in the mark. The Panel notes that while a trademark registration is not required under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), a complainant must show that the mark has acquired secondary meaning to demonstrate common law rights. See Microsoft Corporation v. Story Remix / Inofficial, FA 1734934 (Forum July 10, 2017) (finding that “The Policy does not require a complainant to own a registered trademark prior to a respondent’s registration if it can demonstrate established common law rights in the mark.”); see also Marquette Golf Club v. Al Perkins, 1738263 (Forum July, 27, 2017) (finding that Complainant had established its common law rights in the MARQUETTE GOLF CLUB mark with evidence of secondary meaning, including “longstanding use; evidence of holding an identical domain name; media recognition; and promotional material/advertising.”).
Here Complainant asserts that it has achieved extensive goodwill and customer recognition based on use in advertising in a quickly growing business industry. Complainant offers no details on the type or extent of its advertising nor does Complainant specify who its customers are or how Complainant measured customer recognition.
Secondary meaning requires establishing that the public primarily associates the mark in question with certain goods or services originating from the purported mark holder. See AOL LLC v. DiMarco, FA 1275978 (Forum Sept. 9, 2009) (“‘Secondary meaning’ is acquired when ‘in the minds of the public, the primary significance of a product feature . . . is to identify the source of the product rather than the product itself.'”). Secondary meaning generally requires that the claimant indicate length of use and amount of sales under the mark, the nature and extent of advertising, and consumer association through surveys and media recognition. See Golden Title Loans, LLC dba 745Cash v. roylee, FA 1618801 (Forum June 23, 2015) (holding, “Relevant evidence of secondary meaning includes continuous and ongoing use of a mark, holding of a domain name identical to the mark, or using the mark in commerce before a disputed domain name is created.” Finding “Complainant has provided evidence of secondary meaning . . . displaying Complainant’s business registration with the state of Tennessee, showing use of the 745-CASH mark since July 2005 . . . showing the creation date as March 30, 2004 of Complainant’s own website 745cash.com. Complainant also urges that its business phone number is 745-CASH.).
Complainant provides no evidence of the type referred to above in support of its claim of common law rights. Complainant states that it realizes that its use since May 2025 is not very long but the peptide industry has relatively few commercial participants and Complainant has used social media to leverage Complainant’s marketing efforts thus providing visibility to its corporate entity. None of Complainant’s vague contentions provide quantitative or qualitative proof of Complainant’s mark(s) having achieved the type of secondary meaning generally required to achieve common law rights.
Further, Complainant’s trademark application, that includes a design claim, lists several words as its literal elements including Mile High Compound, Mile High, Mile, High, Compounds, Mile High Compound, and MHC. Complainant’s pleadings contests Respondent’s use of milehighcompound.com as spurious with intent to defraud Complainant’s customers by dropping the “s” from “compounds” as it is used in Complainant’s domain name. However, Complainants pleadings alternatively claim common law rights in MILE HIGH in some instances and MILE HIGH COMPOUNDS in others. Complainant’s equivocations on what mark(s) it is claiming coupled with its admitted usage of all for “not very long”, and the corresponding lack of details relative to secondary meaning fail to support Complainant’s claim of common law rights in either of the marks noted above.
Complainant has NOT proven this element.
Because the Panel concludes that Complainant has not satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), the Panel declines to analyze the other two elements of the Policy. See Netsertive, Inc. v. Ryan Howard / Howard Technologies, Ltd., FA 1721637 (Forum Apr. 17, 2017) (finding that because the complainant must prove all three elements under the Policy, the complainant’s failure to prove one of the elements makes further inquiry into the remaining element unnecessary); see also Wasatch Shutter Design v. Duane Howell / The Blindman, FA 1731056 (Forum June 23, 2017) (deciding not to inquire into the respondent’s rights or legitimate interests or its registration and use in bad faith where the complainant could not satisfy the requirements of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).
Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Panel declines to analyze this element.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
The Panel declines to analyze this element.
DECISION
Having not established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the milehighcompound.com domain name REMAIN WITH Respondent.
Darryl C. Wilson, Panelist
Dated: October 20, 2025
