DECISION

Walmart Apollo, LLC v. xiaoguang yang

Claim Number: FA2610002249838

PARTIES

Complainant is Walmart Apollo, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Fatima Y. Kassem of Brooks Kushman P.C., Michigan, USA. Respondent is xiaoguang yang (“Respondent”), China.

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is grills.expert, 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.

Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on October 8, 2026; Forum received payment on October 8, 2026.

On October 9, 2026, Dynadot Inc confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the grills.expert 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 9, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 29, 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 [email protected]. Also on October 9, 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 30, 2026, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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

Complainant contends in part as follows:

Complainant Walmart Apollo LLC is a multinational retail corporation operating a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and grocery stores. Walmart was founded in 1962 in Rogers Arkansas. Each week, approximately 240 million customers and members visit more than 10,500 stores and numerous eCommerce websites in 20 countries. With fiscal year 2025 revenue of $674.5 billion, Complainant employs approximately 2.1 million associates worldwide, Complainant operates nearly 10,000 stores around the world, with over 4,000 stores in the United States. Complainant’s annual U.S. consolidated revenue is at $179.5 billion. As of 2026, Walmart employs approximately 2.1 million associates in the U.S.

Complainant has been using its EXPERT GRILL trademark in United States commerce since at least as early as April 2016, approximately 10 years. Complainant owns eight registrations and two pending applications for its EXPERT GRILL trademark in the United States Patent and Trademark Office, covering a wide variety of products related to outdoor cooking and grilling. In 2017, years prior to Respondent’s domain registration, Walmart registered its EXPERT GRILL trademark. Registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to establish rights in that mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

Complainant’s EXPERT GRILL trademarks have become widely recognized among consumers in the United States and abroad.

Respondent’s Infringing Activities

The at-issue domain name was initially registered on July 10, 2026—long after Complainant had already established its rights in the EXPERT GRILL Trademarks.

The at-issue domain name fully incorporates and is identical to the EXPERT GRILL trademarks. When considered in its entirety, the domain name contains both principal elements of Complainant’s EXPERT GRILL mark, merely reversing their order across the dot and adding the letter “s” to “GRILL.”

Respondent’s website falsely presents itself as the official website for Walmart’s EXPERT GRILL brand. It advertises Complainant’s EXPERT GRILL products and includes direct links to purchase competing products from third-party sellers on Amazon.

Respondent’s website also displays images of Complainant’s EXPERT GRILL products, featuring the EXPERT GRILL logo, all of which are protected by applicable trademark and copyright laws.

Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights to the EXPERT GRILL trademarks at the time Respondent registered the domain name. Respondent had (at a minimum) constructive knowledge of the EXPERT GRILL trademarks. Such knowledge may be inferred based on Complainant’s registration of the EXPERT GRILL trademarks with the United States Patent and Trademark Office and the well-known nature of the brand that has been in operation for over nine years.

It strains credibility that the Respondent was oblivious of the existence of the Complainant’s widely known and widely used EXPERT GRILL trademarks when registering the at-issue domain name. Additionally, in order to pass off as Complainant or an affiliate on its websites and advertise exactly the same products that are advertised on Complainant’s website, Respondent had to have had actual knowledge of Complainant and its mark. EXPERT GRILL is a unique name that has no meaning apart from its association with Complainant. There would be no reason for any person selecting a domain to choose this domain name except to target this Complainant. Given the non-exclusive nature of Policy ¶ 4(b), registering a confusingly similar domain name with actual knowledge of a complainant’s rights in its mark is evidence of bad faith registration and use for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

Respondent’s website advertises Complainant’s  EXPERT GRILL branded products and is being used for a fraudulent website that directs consumers to subscribe to the website with an email address—”Subscribe and Get A Discount.” Respondent retains personal information of users presumably for commercial gain. Respondent’s actions exploit the goodwill of the well-known  EXPERT GRILL trademarks to divert Complainant’s customers for commercial gain. These actions also create a likelihood of confusion regarding the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website and the goods promoted there. As a result, consumers who mistakenly believe that Respondent is affiliated with Complainant or  EXPERT GRILL are likely to be diverted from Complainant’s website.

Respondent’s website prominently uses the EXPERT GRILL trademarks, copyrighted images, and first-person language (“our,” “we,” etc.), while replicating Complainant’s exact product names and descriptions. These elements collectively reinforce a false impression of affiliation. Respondent is flat out impersonating the EXPERT GRILL brand, mimicking its tone, and adopts its product language, creating a deceptive online presence clearly intended to mislead consumers and trade on Complainant’s goodwill.

Respondent’s website advertises Complainant’s EXPERT GRILL branded products and provides links labeled “Buy on Amazon” and “Shop Grills,” which redirect to Amazon pages featuring competing products.

Complainant does not sell its EXPERT GRILL branded products on Amazon. Amazon is an online marketplace that competes with Walmart’s online marketplace, walmart.com. Respondent’s actions exploit the goodwill of the well-known EXPERT GRILL trademarks to divert Complainant’s customers for financial gain. These actions also create a likelihood of confusion regarding the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website and the goods promoted there. As a result, consumers who mistakenly believe that Respondent is affiliated with Complainant or EXPERT GRILL are likely to be diverted from Complainant’s website.

Respondent registered the at-issue domain name to take advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Complainant and the EXPERT GRILL trademarks, and Respondent has no legitimate interests in the at-issue domain name. At no time has Complainant authorized Respondent to use or register the domain name.

Respondent Does Not Have Rights or Legitimate Interest in the Domain Name

Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and Respondent’s use of the EXPERT GRILL Trademarks is unauthorized.

The unusual structure of the at-issue domain name does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. Ordinarily, the applicable Top-Level Domain (“TLD”) is disregarded under the first-element analysis. However, WIPO Overview 3.1 § 1.11.3 expressly recognizes that “[w]here the applicable TLD and the second-level portion of the domain name in combination contain the relevant trademark, panels may consider the domain name in its entirety for purposes of assessing confusing similarity.” Here, the second-level portion “grills” and the “.expert” gTLD, considered together, reproduce the two principal elements of Complainant’s EXPERT GRILL mark, merely in reverse order and with the addition of the letter “s” to GRILL.

The at-issue domain name points to a site that falsely presents itself as the official website for Complainant’s EXPERT GRILL brand and products. Such is not a legitimate interest.

Here, Respondent is clearly using the EXPERT GRILL trademarks and logos on its website to attract Walmart customers to purchase competing products. Respondent created a website claiming to be an official online store where buyers could purchase the Complainant’s branded goods, which is designed to give the appearance of an association with the Complainant. However, in reality, the website is fraudulent and is not authorized by Complainant. The at-issue domain incorporates the Complainant’s registered mark without authorization and is being used for what appears to be a fraudulent website that directs consumers to purchase goods that compete with EXPERT GRILL branded goods. It is evident that the Respondent intends to disrupt the Complainant’s business, as outlined in Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).

Using a confusingly similar domain name to impersonate and pass off as and sell the same types of products as a complainant does not qualify as a bona fide offering of goods or services within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or as a legitimate noncommercial or fair use within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).

Respondent is not and has not been commonly known by the at-issue domain name and Complainant has not authorized or licensed Respondent to use any of its EXPERT GRILL trademarks. First, Respondent has not applied for nor registered trademarks or trade names for EXPERT GRILL, or variations thereof. Second, Respondent’s identity is not disclosed on the WHOIS data. Here, the WHOIS for the at-issue domain name does not give any other indication that the Respondent is commonly known by the respective domain name. WHOIS evidence of a registrant name which does not correspond with the domain name is sufficient to prove that the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name. Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) does not provide a defense for Respondent’s actions in this case.

Respondent’s Bad Faith Acts

Respondent uses the domain name to intentionally attract Internet users, for commercial gain, to the grills.expert website by taking advantage of users searching for Complainant on the Internet, creating a likelihood of confusion with the EXPERT GRILL trademarks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, and endorsement of Respondent’s website. Respondent uses the at-issue domain name and Complainant’s intellectual property, including the EXPERT GRILL trademarks, logo, and copyrighted images to impersonate Complainant, redirecting consumers to purchase competing products without authorization. Respondent presumably derives revenue from such unauthorized actions. Respondent’s website disrupts Complainant’s business as Respondent registered the disputed domain name to divert users away from Complainant’s business and offer competing products for sale.

Respondent’s domain name was registered and used in bad faith. The domain name is used to assist Respondent in passing off as Complainant to deceive internet users into falsely believing that the domain name and its referenced website are sponsored by Complainant. Respondent’s website promotes and offers products that are identical to Complainant’s EXPERT GRILL products for sale. Respondent’s use of the at-issue domain name demonstrates Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).

In the footer of Respondent’s website, there are social media icons that appear to link to Respondent’s official Facebook, X, YouTube, and Instagram profiles. However, these icons are inactive and do not direct users to any actual social media pages. This raises concerns and suggests an attempt to give the false impression of legitimacy.

Under the “CONTACT US” tab and in the footer of the disputed domain name’s website, the address listed— 1100 Goff Avenue, JERSEY, GA— is a legitimate residential address not affiliated with Respondent. The fact that Respondent uses false contact information on its website undermines the Respondent’s claim to legitimate interests in the domain. Respondent is clearly acting in bad faith with the intention to mislead consumers.

Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the EXPERT GRILL trademark when Respondent registered the at-issue domain name. This is evident given the EXPERT GRILL brand’s notoriety and given Respondent’s use of the trademark laden domain name to pass itself off as Complainant and offer merchandise for sale similar to Complainant’s offering.

There is a legal presumption of bad faith when Respondent reasonably should have been aware of Complainant’s trademarks, actually or constructively.

Respondent intentionally and willfully misrepresented to the Registrar that the registration of the domain name did not interfere with or infringe upon the rights of any third parties. This type of misrepresentation has been held to constitute bad faith. Under Policy ¶ 2, a domain name registrant represents and warrants to the domain name registrar that to the registrant’s knowledge, “the registration of the domain name will not infringe upon or otherwise violate the rights of any third party.” Here, Respondent has registered a domain name that uses and fully incorporates Complainant’s EXPERT GRILL trademarks, without Complainant’s authorization. Thus, Respondent’s registration of the domain name is a clear violation of the UDRP, and they have therefore acted in bad faith.

The evidence indicates that Respondent’s website replicates the content of the Complainant’s legitimate site, further supporting the conclusion that the domain was registered and is being used in bad faith. Respondent utilizes images and text directly obtained from Complainant’s website pertaining to product details, and the presence of such material suggests bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name.

Respondent offers competing or counterfeit products falsely associated with Complainant’s EXPERT GRILL trademarks through the at-issue domain, aiming to divert consumers from the legitimate website. Specifically, Respondent has blatantly copied product images directly from Complainant’s legitimate website onto the at-issue domain.

Respondent is likely profiting commercially by diverting internet users searching for Complainant’s website, as these users “may find Respondent’s website due to the confusingly similar domain name and become confused regarding Complainant’s affiliation with, or sponsorship of, the domain name and featured content.”

Respondent uses Complainant’s EXPERT GRILL trademarks in the at-issue domain name to disrupt Complainant’s business for Respondent’s own commercial gain. By using the domain name, Respondent causes confusion among Internet users seeking Complainant’s services and diverts them to Respondent’s website. The circumstances identified in Policy ¶ 4(b) are not exhaustive, and any of the circumstances described above, whether alone or in combination, is sufficient to justify a finding that Respondent has acted in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

FINDINGS

Complainant has trademark rights in the EXPERT GRILL mark.

Complainant’s rights in EXPERT GRILL predate Respondent’s registration of the at-issue domain name,

Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant nor authorized to use Complainant’s trademarks in any capacity.

Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to pass itself off as Complainant or as being authorized by Complainant. Respondent’s website falsely presents itself as an official website for Complainant’s EXPERT GRILL brand. and includes links to purchase competing products from third-party sellers on Amazon.

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

The at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.

Complainant has multiple USPTO registrations for its EXPERT GRILL trademark. Any of such registrations is sufficient to demonstrate Complainant’s rights in a mark under the Policy. See BGK Trademark Holdings, LLC & Beyoncé Giselle Knowles-Carter v. Chanphut / Beyonce Shop, FA 1626334 (Forum Aug. 3, 2015) (asserting that Complainant’s registration with the USPTO (or any other governmental authority) adequately proves its rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).

Respondent’s grills.expert domain name contains both elements of Complainant’s EXPERT GRILL trademark, albeit in reverse order and with an “s” added to the term “grill”. The differences between the grills.expert domain name and Complainant’s EXPERT GRILL trademark are insufficient to distinguish the domain name from Complainant’s mark for the purposes of the Policy. Therefore, the Panel finds pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) that Respondent’s grills.expert domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s EXPERT GRILL trademark. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) (“Where 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.”); see also T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. v. Venkateshwara Distributor Private Limited. / HEMANG INFRASRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, FA 1705342 (Forum Jan. 16, 2017) (“Respondent’s [domain name] differs from the mark by inverting the words “Rowe” and “price” in the mark. Inverting the words in a mark is not sufficient to overcome a finding of confusing similarity.”)

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).

Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity and as discussed below there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. See Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC v. Taha Shaikh / Tskdesigners, FA 1814475 (Forum Nov. 25, 2018) (finding no rights or legitimate interests in spectrumfeature.com because complainant never gave respondent permission to use the mark in any manner and “Panels may use these assertions as evidence that no rights or legitimate interests exist in a disputed domain name.”)

WHOIS information for grills.expert leads to finding that “xiaoguang yang” is the domain name’s registrant and there is nothing in the record tending to prove that Respondent is known by grills.expert or any relevant variant thereof. As such, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the coppertown.com domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).

Respondent uses the confusingly similar grills.expert domain name to address a commercial website that appears to have lifted content from Complainant’s official website creating the illusion that the domain name and its website may be sponsored or authorized by Complainant. The website contains multiple direct references to Complainant’s EXPERT GRILL mark. Respondent is undoubtedly benefiting from internet traffic meant for Complainant that is misdirected to Respondent’s grills.expert website since the website links to competing products on Amazon. Such use is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services per Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Ripple Labs Inc. v. Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund, FA 1790949 (Forum July 9, 2018) (finding the respondent did not use the domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services per Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) where the website resolving from the disputed domain name featured the complainant’s mark and various photographs related to the complainant’s business).

Given the forgoing, Respondent lacks rights and lacks legitimate interests in respect of grills.expert.

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

As discussed below without being exhaustive, Respondent acted in bad faith.

Respondent’s at-issue domain name addresses Respondent’s grills.expert website; that website poses as an affiliated website of Complainant. There, the confusingly similar grills.expert domain name together with its associated website deceives internet users into falsely believing that the at-issue domain name and website may be sponsored by, or authorized by, Complainant. Respondent’s grills.expert website displays Complainant’s EXPERT GRILL trademarks, refers to Complainant’s products, and links users to the Amazon purchase pages via links labeled “Buy on Amazon” and “Shop Grills.” Respondent undoubtedly benefits from advertising fees and/or otherwise benefits. Respondent’s unauthorized use of grills.expert is disruptive to Complainant’s business and designed to attract internet users so that Respondent may capitalize on the confusion it created between its grills.expert domain name and Complainant’s EXPERT GRILL trademark. Respondent’s use of the grills.expert domain name and its referenced website demonstrate Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of grills.expert under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Classic Metal Roofs, LLC v. Interlock Indus., Ltd., FA 724554 (Forum Aug. 1, 2006) (finding that the respondent registered and used the classicmetalroofing.com domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) by redirecting Internet users to the respondent’s competing website); see also, Allianz of Am. Corp. v. Bond, FA 680624 (Forum June 2, 2006) (finding bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent was diverting internet users searching for the Complainant to its own website and likely profiting).

Next, by deploying a putative subscription mechanism on the grills.expert website Respondent facilitates the collection of proprietary private data from parties that falsely believe they are visiting Complainant’s genuine website. Such deceitfully harvested information may be used by Respondent for an assortment of malicious purposes including identity theft, unauthorized account access and various phishing scams further demonstrating Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the grills.expert domain name. See Morgan Stanley v. Bruce Pu, FA 1764120 (Forum Feb. 2, 2018) (“[T]he screenshot of the resolving webpage allows users to input their name and email address, which Complainant claims Respondent uses that to fraudulently phish for information. Thus, the Panel agrees that Respondent phishes for information and finds that Respondent does so in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”)

Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the EXPERT GRILL mark when Respondent registered grills.expert as a domain name. Respondent’s actual knowledge is apparent given the EXPERT GRILL mark’s notoriety and given Respondent’s use of the grills.expert domain name to address a website posing as if it is sponsored by Complainant and hosting links to Complainant’s products on Amazon. See Lemon Inc. v. Sumer Singh, FA 2110519 (Forum September 5, 2024 (“registration of a disputed domain name with actual knowledge of another’s trademark rights is sufficient to establish bad faith, and can be shown by the notoriety of the mark and the use the Respondent makes of the disputed domain name”); see also, Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark when registering the disputed domain name).

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 grills.expert domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist

Dated: October 31, 2026