Toasted Brothers LLC, owner of THE FRIENDLY TOAST mark for restaurant services since 2015, filed a UDRP over FriendlyToast.com, a .com domain that once sat in HugeDomains’ portfolio before being dropped and re-registered by Respondent Dahui Yang of Hong Kong.
The Panel found the domain confusingly similar, noting that dropping “the” and adding .com doesn’t change the brand meaning for users looking for The Friendly Toast.
The killer issue was passing off: the site offered competing restaurant services, used “Friendly Toast” as the masthead, mimicked the Portsmouth, New Hampshire origin story from the Complainant’s own “About Us,” and displayed fake addresses. That combination showed no rights or legitimate interests and clear bad faith, with the site designed to confuse users for commercial gain.
It’s also a reminder that “The + Brand” owners should also secure the plain brand.com variant to avoid impersonation and drop-catching headaches down the road.
Final decision: Transfer of friendlytoast.com to Toasted Brothers LLC.
Copyright © 2025 DomainGang.com · All Rights Reserved.Toasted Brothers LLC v. dahui yang
Claim Number: FA2510002186130
PARTIES
Complainant is Toasted Brothers LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Mark A. Wright of McLane Middleton, Professional Association, New Hampshire, USA. Respondent is dahui yang (“Respondent”), Hong Kong.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is friendlytoast.com, (the “Domain Name”) registered with Dynadot Inc.
PANEL
The undersigned certifies that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Dawn Osborne as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on October 30, 2025; Forum received payment on October 30, 2025.
On October 31, 2025, Dynadot Inc confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the friendlytoast.com Domain Name is registered with Dynadot Inc and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. 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 October 31, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 20, 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@friendlytoast.com. Also on October 31, 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 November 21, 2025 pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Dawn Osborne 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
The Complainant’s contentions can be summarised as follows:
The Complainant is the owner of the trade mark THE FRIENDLY TOAST registered, inter alia, in the USA for restaurant services since 2015.
The Domain Name registered in 2025 is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark, merely omitting the generic word “the” and adding the gTLD .com which do not distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant’s mark.
Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name and has no permission from the Complainant to use the Complainant’s mark. The Domain Name has been used for competing services using the Complainant’s name as a masthead, confusing wording claiming a history related to Portsmouth New Hampshire where the Complainant’s business originated which seems to be inspired by the ‘About Us’ section on the Complainant’s web site, and using two false addresses. This is not a bona fide offering of goods and services or a non commercial legitimate fair use. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.
The Respondent registered the Domain Name to direct it to a site to confuse Internet users into believing the web site and Domain Name are associated with the Complainant for commercial gain. The Domain Name has been registered and used in bad faith. The Respondent did not answer a cease and desist letter from the Complainant.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
FINDINGS
The Complainant is the owner of the trade mark THE FRIENDLY TOAST registered, inter alia, in the USA for restaurant services since 2015.
The Domain Name registered in 2025 has been used for a site offering competing services using ‘friendly toast’ a sign similar to the Complainant’s name as a masthead, confusing wording claiming a history related to Portsmouth New Hampshire where the Complainant’s business originated and using two false addresses.
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
The Domain Name consists of a sign similar to the Complainant’s THE FRIENDLY TOAST mark (which is registered, inter alia, in the USA for restaurant services since 2015), merely omitting the generic term “the” and adding the gTLD .com.
The mere abbreviation of a mark to a sign which deletes a non distinctive term combined with a gTLD does not sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark. See Sainato’s Restaurant and Catering Limited v. chen xue ming, FA 1781748 (Forum June 4, 2018) (finding the sainatos.com domain name is confusingly similar to the SAINATO’S RESTAURANT mark as it “appends the gTLD “.com” to an abbreviated version of the mark.”). Accordingly the Panel holds that the deletion of the word ‘the’ from the Complainant’s mark and the addition of the gTLD .com does not prevent confusing similarity between that mark and the Domain Name.
Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar for the purpose of the Policy to a mark in which the Complainant has rights.
As such the Panel holds that Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant has not authorised the use of its mark. There is no evidence or reason to suggest the Respondent is, in fact, commonly known by the Domain Name. See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA 1574905 (Forum September 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark).
The Domain Name has been used for a site offering competing restaurant services using ‘Friendly Toast’ a sign confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark as a masthead, a confusing about us section that is intended to associate the site with the Complainant, and false address details. Use of the domain name containing a third party mark for competing services in such manner is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate non commercial fair use. See Am. Intl Group Inc v Benjamin FA 944242 (Forum May 11, 2007) (finding that the Respondent’s use of a confusingly similar domain name to advertise real estate services which competed with the Complainant’s business did not constitute a bona fide use of goods and services.)
The Respondent has not submitted a Response in these proceedings or rebutted the prima facie case evidenced by the Complainant herein.
As such the Panelist finds that the Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
In the opinion of the Panelist, the use made of the Domain Name in relation to the site is confusing and disruptive in that visitors to the site might reasonably believe it is connected to or approved by the Complainant as it offers competing services under a Domain Name containing ‘friendly toast’ a sign similar to the Complainant’s mark known for restaurant services, uses that sign additionally as a masthead and uses confusing wording intending to associate the site with the Complainant. The reference to being from the same place in New Hampshire as the Complainant which appears to mimic the ‘About Us’ section on the Complainant’s web site indicates that the Respondent is aware of the Complainant and its business, rights and services.
Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trade mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the web site and services offered on it likely to disrupt the business of the Complainant. See Asbury Auto Group Inc v Tex. Int’l Prop Assocs FA 958542 (Forum May 29, 2007) (finding that the respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to advertise car dealerships that competed with the complainant’s business would likely lead to confusion amongst Internet users as to the sponsorship or affiliation of those competing dealerships and was therefore evidence of bad faith and use). The giving of false addresses on the web site also indicates bad faith.
As such, the Panelist believes that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith and has satisfied the third limb of the Policy under para 4(b)(iii) and (iv).
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 friendlytoast.com domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Dawn Osborne, Panelist
Dated: November 21, 2025
