WIPO Panel rules that miodrink.com was registered in bad faith and orders its transfer to Kraft Heinz

In the domain name dispute before the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center, the complainant is The Kraft Heinz Company of the United States, the respondent is duanqi yan of China, the disputed domain name is <miodrink.com>, and the registrar is Dynadot Inc; the decision date is 2026 year 10 month 23 day, and the sole panelist is Ike Ehiribe.

The complaint in this case was filed on 2026 year 8 month 26 day, the proceedings were commenced on 9 month 9 day, and the deadline for a response was 9 month 29 day. The respondent did not submit any response, and the Center notified the parties of the respondent's default on 2026 year 10 month 5 day.

The complainant holds the MIO trademark through its subsidiary Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, including United States Registration No. 4168532 (Class 32, registered 2012 year 7 month 3 day), Canadian TMA 948941 (Class 30, 2016 year 9 month 12 day) and Norwegian Registration No. 175452 (Class 30, 1996 year 7 month 18 day). MIO is a flavored water enhancer launched by the complainant in 2011 year. The disputed domain name was registered on 2025 year 9 month 7 day and resolves to a website displaying images of the complainant's MIO products together with computer-generated images imitating their font style.

The Panel found that the MIO trademark is reproduced in its entirety within the disputed domain name, and that the domain name is therefore confusingly similar to the complainant's MIO trademark within the meaning of the Policy.

The Panel noted that the addition of other terms such as "drink" may affect the assessment under the second and third elements, but does not prevent a finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the MIO trademark.

Having reviewed the record before it, the Panel found that the complainant had made a prima facie showing that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The respondent did not rebut that prima facie showing and submitted no relevant evidence; on the contrary, its conduct indicates an intent to obtain unfair commercial gain or to disparage the MIO trademark. Citing Section 2.13.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.1, the Panel noted that use of a domain name for a counterfeit or impersonating website (as in this case) cannot confer rights or legitimate interests on the respondent.

After reviewing the record, the Panel finds that the Respondent's registration and use of the disputed domain name constitute bad faith under the Policy: the Respondent must have known of the Complainant's brand and rights at the time of registration, and it intentionally directed Internet users to the domain name to obtain traffic and illicit commercial gain; using the domain name for a counterfeit website or impersonation also constitutes bad faith (WIPO Overview 3.1, Section 3.4). The Panel further finds that the Respondent's use of a privacy service to conceal its identity is an additional indication of bad faith—particularly given that it had previously been found to have engaged in cybersquatting (Rockwell Automation Inc. v. duanqi yan, WIPO Case No. D2026-1882).

For the foregoing reasons, the Panel orders, pursuant to Paragraph 4(i) of the Policy and Paragraph 15 of the Rules, that the disputed domain name <miodrink.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Source: WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center Case D2026-3825, Sole Panelist Ike Ehiribe, 2026 year 10 month 23 day.
Note: The content of this article is compiled from public information and is only general intellectual property popularization and practical observation, for information reference only; it does not constitute legal advice or other professional advice for any specific case, and the relevant determinations and conclusions should be subject to the official published documents and the actual circumstances of the individual case.