Stellar Pizza LLC is an LA-based chain of pizza joints, offering New York-style pizza since its foundation in 2014. Its main trademark, PRIME PIZZA, became a recognizable brand through social media influencers and marketing.
They filed a UDRP to get the domain PrimePizza.com, registered in 2002. There is not much information about the Respondent in the file. From what the Complainant has alleged, and the Respondent has not denied, the Respondent seems to be an individual working for a software development company, not active in the field of restaurants.
The Respondent acquired the domain in 2018, however, losing the benefit of seniority in this case.
The sole Forum panelist found that the Respondent infringed on the rights of the Complainant’s mark and ordered the domain to to be transferred to the Complainant.
Copyright © 2025 DomainGang.com · All Rights Reserved.STELLAR PIZZA LLC v. Joe Sandin / Onsharp, Inc.
Claim Number: FA2510002181735
PARTIES
Complainant is STELLAR PIZZA LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Anessa Owen Kramer of Honigman LLP, Michigan, USA. Respondent is Joe Sandin / Onsharp, Inc. (“Respondent”), represented by Amanda M. Prose of Westman, Champlin & Koehler, P.A., Minnesota, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is primepizza.com, registered with Amazon Registrar, 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.
Sozos-Christos Theodoulou as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on October 8, 2025; Forum received payment on October 8, 2025.
On October 10, 2025, Amazon Registrar, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the primepizza.com domain name is registered with Amazon Registrar, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Amazon Registrar, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Amazon Registrar, 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 14, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 3, 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@primepizza.com. Also on October 14, 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.
A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on October 31, 2025.
On November 3, 2025, pursuant to the Parties’ requests to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Sozos-Christos Theodoulou as Panelist.
On November 4 and 5, 2025, respectively, the Parties filed Additional Submissions.
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.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name is identical and/or confusingly similar to its “PRIME PIZZA” trademark, as it fully incorporates that trademark. This last element is sufficient to support the finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. As to the gTLD “.com”, the Complainant suggests that it should be disregarded, as per the usual practice.
The Complainant maintains that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name because the Respondent is not known by the Disputed Domain Name, the Complainant is neither affiliated with nor has it ever authorized the Respondent to register its trademark as a domain name, the Complainant has no business with the Respondent, and the Respondent has not used the Disputed Domain Name for a bona fide offering of goods and services.
According to the Complainant, given the distinctiveness and reputation of the PRIME PIZZA trademark, the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name with constructive knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark, and this is sufficient evidence of the fact that the Disputed Domain Name was registered in bad faith, as allegedly was his initial intention to eventually attract Internet users, for commercial gain, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s PRIME PIZZA Trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the site. With respect to use in bad faith, the Complainant points out – among others – that the Respondent has passively held the Disputed Domain Name, which in combination with the well-known character of the Complainant’s trademark is a clear indication of bad faith. Last but not least, the Respondent has offered for sale the Disputed Domain Name to the Complainant, for a significant amount of money.
Also, through its Additional Submission dated November 4, 2025 – which the Panel hereby accepts in its sole discretion according to Forum Supplemental Rule 7 – the Complainant has rebutted the Respondent’s allegations, as expressed in the latter’s submitted response.
For all these reasons, the Complainant concludes that the Respondent registered and used the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith.
B. Respondent
On the other hand, the Respondent, while not putting in doubt Complainant’s rights over the trademark PRIME PIZZA after he had registered the Disputed Domain Name, basically argues that he had not known of the Complainant’s trademark before he was contacted by Complainant’s broker and that he has every legitimate right to own and use the Disputed Domain Name, for non-commercial and/or non-competitive to the Complainant use, in good faith. Respondent further claims that Complainant has not proven Respondent’s bad faith for the registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name. Last but not least, Respondent alleges that Complainant is acting in reverse domain name hijacking mode and requests the Panel to, in addition to denying the Complaint, proceed to such finding.
Also, through its Additional Submission dated November 5, 2025 – which the Panel hereby accepts in its sole discretion according to Forum Supplemental Rule 7 – the Respondent has rebutted the Complainant’s allegations, as expressed in the latter’s submitted Additional Submission.
FINDINGS
The Complainant is a LA-based chain of pizza joints, offering New York-style pizza since its foundation in 2014. Its main trademark, PRIME PIZZA, has become a recognizable brand locally but also nationally, through social media influencers and marketing. It aspires to expand in Orange County with more restaurants, soon.
There is not much information about the Respondent in the file. From what the Complainant has alleged, and the Respondent has not denied, the Respondent seems to be an individual working for a software development company, not active in the field of restaurants.
In these proceedings Complainant relies on prior common law and trademark rights, citing 3 US federal trademark registrations registered since May 2022, for “PRIME PIZZA” (word and design), Nos. 7,091,376, 7,086,498 and 7,192,263, with a first use claimed back in 2014, 2014 and 2017, respectively.
Complainant has in fact also owned and used the much similar to the Disputed Domain Name primepizza.la since August 30, 2014.
The Disputed Domain Name primepizza.com, originally registered back in 2002, was purchased on December 14, 2018 by the Respondent.
DISCUSSION
Before launching itself into the usual threefold test of the Policy, the Panel wishes to confirm that, based on Rules 10 and 12 of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, as well as on Forum Supplemental Rule 7, it has decided to accept the Additional Submissions, as filed by the Parties, so as to have the most complete image of the dispute possible.
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.
Identical and/or Confusingly Similar
The Disputed Domain Name consists of the Complainant’s whole trademark (PRIME PIZZA). Indeed, the disputed domain name is identical and thus confusingly similar to the trademark of the Complainant. This is not changed by the arguably low distinctiveness of the specific word combination.
As far as the gTLD “.com” is concerned, it is generally recognized that top level domains do not have any bearing in the assessment of identity or confusing similarity, according to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
Hence, the Panel is satisfied that the first requirement under the Policy is met.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
Since proving a negative fact is almost impossible, Panelists in UDRP proceedings have generally agreed that it is sufficient for the Complainant to establish a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name to shift the burden of proof to the Respondent.
In the case at issue, the Complainant argued that it had never authorized the Respondent to register the PRIME PIZZA trademark in a domain name, and that it had never licensed its trademark to the Respondent.
Furthermore, the Respondent has not demonstrated any use of the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name.
Finally, there is no other evidence in the case file that could demonstrate that the Respondent has been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name.
In view of the foregoing, the Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. In order to rebut the Complainant’s arguments, the Respondent had the possibility to make its own defense. However, the Respondent’s Response, essentially alleging good faith and rights based on its personal interests, has not convinced the Panel, as Respondent could have at least requested Complainant’s prior authorization for registering the Disputed Domain Name, which it had not done. Furthermore, the Panel reminds that the gTLD “.com” stands for “commercial” use, so there are no obvious legitimate rights in blocking a domain name from a third party business, allegedly just for fun, when that business claims the said domain name.
Therefore, the Panel is satisfied that also the second requirement under the Policy is met.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
As far as registration in bad faith is concerned, given the local and relatively national reputation of the Complainant’s trademark in the pizza restauration field, in use since 2014, and the fact that the Disputed Domain Name fully incorporates this trademark, it is hereby accepted by the Panel that, at the time of the registration of the Disputed Domain Name in 2018, the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant’s trademark. The registration as domain name of a third party’s known trademark with sufficient knowledge of the fact that the rights over this trademark belong to a third party could amount to registration in bad faith under the circumstances.
With respect to use in bad faith, the Disputed Domain Name appears to have been passively held by the Respondent, ever since its acquisition back in 2018. Also, the Respondent has offered the Disputed Domain Name to the Complainant at a quite high price, in spite of Complainant’s prior trademark rights that Respondent was expected to know of. For this Panel, such fraudulent behavior combined to the known character of the Complainant’s trademark is sufficient to conclude use in bad faith. Thus, it is impossible for this Panel to conceive any plausible active use of the Disputed Domain Name by the Respondent that would be legitimate.
What is more, as already stated in the previous section of this decision, people tend to forget that the gTLD “.com” had initially been created to cover the business needs of enterprises in commerce. Had the Respondent wished to acquire the Disputed Domain Name “for fun”, he could at least have preferred other, more suitable gTLDs, such as “.me”, “.blog” or even “.site”.
Therefore, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name was used in bad faith.
For all circumstances mentioned above, the Panel is satisfied that also the third requirement under the Policy is satisfied.
REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKING
Given the finding in favour of the Complainant, this Respondent’s additional claim is rejected.
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 primepizza.com domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Sozos-Christos Theodoulou, Panelist
Dated: November 16, 2025
