Hershey Chocolate & Confectionery LLC successfully transferred the domain hersheypark.pro after the respondent used it to create a fraudulent website mimicking the official park site. The panel ruled in favor of the complainant due to the respondent’s default and clear evidence of bad faith.
Case Snapshot
| Case Number | D2026-4057 |
|---|---|
| Complainant | Hershey Chocolate & Confectionery LLC |
| Respondent | Hassan Morales |
| Disputed Domain | hersheypark.pro |
| Threat Tactic | Fake Stores |
| Decision Date | 2026-10-30 |
| Panelist | Nels T. Lippert |
| Outcome | Transfer |
| Official Source | https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2026-4057 |
Facing Unauthorized Domain Registrations or Brand Abuse?
Our domain dispute attorneys represent trademark owners and businesses worldwide before WIPO, Forum (NAF), and CAC. Explore our Domain Name Disputes and Enforcement & Takedowns services, or request a free case evaluation.
Request Case EvaluationOperational Risks of Brand Impersonation and Fake Commercial Portals
The registration of hersheypark.pro represents a clear attempt to engage in sophisticated brand impersonation by establishing a fraudulent commercial portal. By mimicking the visual identity of the official HERSHEYPARK platform—including the unauthorized use of established logos and specific stylistic elements—the respondent created a high-risk environment for consumers. This tactic of deploying a deceptive storefront to sell admission tickets and lodging services directly compromises the brand’s integrity and exposes customers to financial loss through transactions facilitated on a platform that possessed no legitimate connection to the Hershey enterprise.
Beyond the immediate financial fraud, such activities foster severe initial interest confusion that dilutes the brand’s authorized digital presence. By intentionally mirroring the Complainant’s proprietary content, the respondent successfully diverted traffic from legitimate channels to an infringing site, forcing the Complainant to assume the operational burden of initiating a WIPO dispute to protect its marketplace. The risk extends to the brand’s reputation, as consumers misled by the site may associate any service failures, transaction errors, or inability to fulfill bookings directly with the authentic brand owner, thereby eroding years of established customer trust.
Evaluating Confusing Similarity, Legitimate Interests, and Bad Faith in UDRP Proceedings
Under the UDRP Policy, a complainant must satisfy a three-pronged test to divest a respondent of a domain name: establishing identity or confusing similarity, demonstrating a lack of respondent rights or legitimate interests, and proving registration and use in bad faith. In the matter of hersheypark.pro, the panel relied upon paragraph 15(a) of the Rules to determine the dispute based on the submitted evidence. The complainant successfully demonstrated that the domain was confusingly similar to the HERSHEY and HERSHEYPARK trademarks, which have been in use since 1894. Because the domain incorporated the trademark entirely or utilized the HERSHEY mark with the term ‘park’, the panel found a high risk of consumer confusion regarding the source of the website’s offerings.
The respondent’s failure to submit a response significantly hindered any defense of potential rights or legitimate interests. Without evidence of a bona fide offering of goods or services or evidence that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name, the panel concluded the respondent possessed no legitimate interests. The use of the complainant’s specific sunburst logo and established style guide on the site further eliminated any credible argument for legitimate commercial use. The respondent’s default in the proceeding allowed the complainant’s uncontested evidence to establish that the respondent was not authorized by, nor affiliated with, the trademark holder.
Bad faith was established through evidence of intentional mimicry designed to deceive internet users. The complainant argued that the respondent knowingly registered the domain to capitalize on the complainant’s brand equity, creating initial interest confusion that misled visitors into believing they were interacting with the official HERSHEYPARK platform. By purporting to sell admission tickets and lodging, the site functioned as a fraudulent portal, which the panel accepted as clear evidence of bad faith registration and use. This decision highlights the importance of documented trademark history and visual brand assets when proving that a domain was secured with the primary intent of capitalizing on another entity’s reputation for fraudulent financial gain.
Strategic Efficacy: Leveraging Evidence of Consumer Deception
The Complainant’s strategy effectively utilized the stark visual alignment between its established HERSHEYPARK brand identity and the Respondent’s unauthorized site. By documenting that the domain hersheypark.pro resolved to a site mimicking official imagery, type styles, and the specific sunburst logo used on the legitimate hersheypark.com platform, the Complainant provided the Panel with undeniable evidence of initial interest confusion. This forensic approach allowed the Panel to bypass complex arguments regarding intent by demonstrating that the Respondent’s commercial portal was purpose-built to deceive consumers into believing they were purchasing authentic admission tickets and lodging from an official source.
A secondary, yet equally critical component of the Complainant’s success was the Respondent’s complete failure to participate in the UDRP proceedings. By initiating the complaint rapidly following the August 18, 2026, registration and presenting comprehensive trademark usage records dating back to 1894, the Complainant forced the Respondent into a default position. This procedural vacuum removed any opportunity for the Respondent to assert potential rights or legitimate interests, enabling the Panel to conclude that the registration was executed with full knowledge of the Complainant’s rights and operated in bad faith. For brand owners, this case highlights that meticulous documentation of visual mimicry combined with a proactive filing timeline significantly lowers the threshold for proving bad-faith registration.
Practical Recommendations
- Capture high-resolution screenshots of the infringing site immediately upon discovery, specifically focusing on the unauthorized use of logos, copyrighted imagery, and layout designs that mirror official brand assets.
- Draft the UDRP complaint to explicitly document the ‘initial interest confusion’ caused by the domain, citing how the site diverts traffic by mimicking official ticket and lodging booking interfaces.
- Leverage the Respondent’s default to request an expedited decision, emphasizing the lack of any rights or legitimate interests and the clear pattern of bad-faith commercial impersonation.
- Monitor registrar verification data promptly after filing the complaint to ensure all contact details are correctly identified, facilitating the WIPO center’s procedural notification process.
- Include specific evidence of the brand’s long-standing trademark history to establish the strength and recognition of the mark in the context of the respondent’s intentional, predatory registration.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Why was the domain hersheypark.pro considered confusingly similar to the Complainant’s brand?
The domain name incorporated the well-known HERSHEY and HERSHEYPARK trademarks in their entirety. The panel found that this created a high risk of initial interest confusion for consumers seeking the legitimate amusement park services provided by the Complainant.
How did the respondent demonstrate a lack of rights or legitimate interests in the domain?
The respondent had no affiliation, sponsorship, or authorization from Hershey Chocolate & Confectionery LLC. By creating a site that mimicked the official hersheypark.com platform to sell fraudulent tickets, the respondent failed to establish any bona fide offering of goods or services.
What evidence confirmed bad faith registration and use in this case?
Bad faith was established by the respondent’s use of the identical HERSHEYPARK style, images, and branding to deceive users. This intentional impersonation, coupled with the attempt to sell unauthorized park admission and lodging, proved the respondent’s motive was to profit from the Complainant’s goodwill.
What was the tactical impact of the respondent’s failure to respond to the WIPO complaint?
Because the respondent failed to submit a response, the panel proceeded to a decision based on the Complainant’s evidence. The respondent’s default effectively forfeited their position, allowing the panel to rule in favor of transferring the domain to the Complainant as a necessary protective measure.
Found a fake shop using your brand?
Protect your customers and revenue. If your brand is being impersonated to sell fraudulent products or services, our team can help you assess your UDRP eligibility and secure the evidence needed for a domain transfer.
This case note is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice.
