CleansNutra.com: Merely descriptive mark led to UDRP loss

Allseason Enterprises, maker of CLEAN NUTRA supplements, tried to take CleansNutra.com through a UDRP complaint, claiming the domain was used to push counterfeit products and infringed on its trademarks.

But the panel found the company’s trademarks were design-only with disclaimers on the words themselves. Without proof that “Clean Nutra” had gained distinctiveness the complaint failed on the first requirement: showing confusing similarity to a valid mark. The panel didn’t review the bad faith or legitimacy claims.

Final decision: CleansNutra.com was ordered to remain with the Respondent.

Allseason Enterprises, LLC v. Tanvir Ahmad / WinTech IT Solutions LLC

Claim Number: FA2504002153092

PARTIES

Complainant is Allseason Enterprises, LLC (“Complainant”), United States, represented by Neil Peluchette of Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP, United States. Respondent is Tanvir Ahmad / WinTech IT Solutions LLC (“Respondent”), United States.

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is cleansnutra.com, 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 E. Sorkin as Panelist.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on April 29, 2025; Forum received payment on April 29, 2025.

On April 30, 2025, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by email to Forum that the cleansnutra.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”).

On May 6, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 27, 2025 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@cleansnutra.com. Also on May 6, 2025, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email 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.

Forum received an email message from Respondent on May 22, 2025, but did not treat it as a formal response, likely because it did not include the certification statement and other elements required by Paragraph 5(c) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”). Accordingly, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

On May 28, 2025, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed David E. Sorkin 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 “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 a formal response from Respondent.

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant markets and sells nutritional supplements under the brand names and marks CLEAN NUTRA and CLEAN NUTRACEUTICALS, and states that it has used these marks since at least as early as August 2020. Complainant owns a United States trademark registration for a design mark composed of the stylized words “Clean nutra.” next to two overlapping leaves, with a disclaimer of any exclusive right to use CLEAN NUTRA apart from the design mark. Complainant also owns a similar registration for a design mark containing “Clean Nutraceuticals,” with a similar disclaimer.

The disputed domain name cleansnutra.com was registered in July 2024. The name is registered in the name of a privacy registration service on behalf of Respondent. The domain name currently resolves to a Shopify website stating that “this store is currently unavailable.” Complainant alleges that Respondent is using the domain name in connection with a fraudulent scheme to promote counterfeit versions of Complainant’s products. Respondent has a pending application for a United States trademark registration for a design mark composed of the stylized words “Cleans NUTRA” below two overlapping hands. Complainant submitted screenshots from eBay and Etsy containing images of products similar to those offered by Complainant, in at least one instance using a virtually identical label, with Respondent’s pending CLEANS NUTRA design mark appearing in place of Complainant’s CLEAN NUTRA mark, and the disputed domain name appearing on the side of the label. Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name, is not affiliated with Complainant, and is not authorized to use Complainant’s marks.

Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name cleansnutra.com is confusingly similar to its CLEAN NUTRA and CLEAN NUTRACEUTICALS marks; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

B. Respondent

In email correspondence, Respondent challenges some of the claims made by Complainant and alleges that some of the evidence offered by Complainant is fake or misleading.

FINDINGS

The Panel finds that Complainant has failed to prove that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights. Because this finding is dispositive, the Panel declines to enter findings as to the other elements set forth in the Policy.

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 formal 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 Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, § 4.3 (3d ed. 2017), available at http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/; UDRP Perspectives on Recent Jurisprudence, §§ 0.2, 0.8 (updated Jan. 15, 2025), available at https://udrpperspectives.org/; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (dismissing complaint where complainant failed to “produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations”).

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name cleansnutra.com is confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered CLEAN NUTRA and CLEAN NUTRACEUTICALS design marks. Both registrations, however, include a broad disclaimer of their textual components.

Where an asserted registration consists of a design mark and the relevant words have been disclaimed apart from the mark as a whole, this requires the Complainant to provide additional evidence that the words have acquired a secondary meaning and, thus, status as a trademark as required by policy.

UDRP Perspectives on Recent Jurisprudence, supra, § 1.5. Accord WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, supra, § 1.10 (“[W]here the trademark registration entirely disclaims the textual elements (i.e., the scope of protection afforded to the mark is effectively limited to its stylized elements), panels may find that the complainant’s trademark registration is insufficient by itself to support standing under the UDRP.”); id. § 1.2.3 (“[I]f the similar elements of the domain name are made up exclusively of disclaimed terms, trademark rights under the Policy may not be found unless the complainant can show sufficient secondary meaning in the disclaimed terms”). See, e.g., USA QP ENTERPRISES Inc. dba USA Quickprint v. Admin Support / CR Consulting Ohio LLC, FA 2066056 (Forum Oct. 29, 2023) (finding insufficient trademark rights based upon registration of USA QUICKPRINT design mark with disclaimer of “‘USA QUICKPRINT’ apart from the mark as shown”). But see Allseason Enterprises, LLC v. Domain Administrator / Fundacion Privacy Services LTD, FA 2136914 (Forum Feb. 20, 2025) (finding sufficient rights based upon Complainant’s CLEAN NUTRA design mark registration without addressing effect of disclaimed terms); Allseason Enterprises, LLC v. james lamply, FA 2136913 (Forum Feb. 20, 2025) (same).

Complainant has not demonstrated that the disclaimed textual components of its design marks have acquired secondary meaning. In addition, the Panel notes that Complainant has pending applications to register CLEAN NUTRA and CLEAN NUTRACEUTICALS as standard character marks, both of which have thus far been refused as merely descriptive.

The Panel finds that Complainant has not proven the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights. As this conclusion is dispositive of the present dispute, the Panel need not address the other elements set forth in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.

DECISION

Having considered the elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED.

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the cleansnutra.com domain name REMAIN WITH Respondent.

David E. Sorkin, Panelist

Dated: May 28, 2025

This post is 100% True!

Copyright © 2025 DomainGang.com · All Rights Reserved.