WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Medical Marijuana, Inc. v. Domains By Proxy, LLC / Michael Wigton Case No. D2018-1865 1. The Parties

Complainant is Medical Marijuana, Inc. of Poway, California, United States of America (“United States” or “U.S.”), represented by Premium IP Services, P.C., United States.

Respondent is Domains By Proxy, LLC of Scottsdale, Arizona, United States / Michael Wigton of Columbus, Ohio, United States, represented by Goyette & Associates, Inc., United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name is registered with GoD, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 15, 2018. On August 16, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 17, 2018, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.

The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on August 24, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 13, 2018. Upon request of Respondent, the due date for Response was extended to September 17, 2018, in accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(b). The Response was filed with the Center September 15, 2018.

The Center appointed Lawrence K. Nodine, Paul M. DeCicco, and Andrew P. Bridges as panelists in this matter on November 1, 2018. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. Each member of the Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background

Since 2009, Complainant has supplied and retailed various products, including nutritional supplements, candies, and cosmetics, containing cannabidiol (“CBD”) derived from hemp. Complainant sells its products not only in the United States but also in Europe, Mexico, and Brazil. Complainant registered HEMPMEDS on the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s Supplemental Register (Reg. No. 4622820) on October 14, 2014, followed by a registration for HEMPMEDS YOUR TRUSTED ^CBD SOURCE as a trademark in both block letter form and word and design form (disclaiming in both any exclusive right to use HEMPMEDS apart from the mark as shown) on the Principal Register (Registration Nos. 4715663 and 4715664, respectively) on April 7, 2015. Thereafter, Complainant registered the trademark HEMPMEDS (stylized) in Mexico (Reg. Nos. 1745376 and 1748396, registered April 20, 2017 and April 26, 2017, respectively) and HM HEMPMEDS and logo in Peru (Reg. No. 00265819, registered June 13, 2018).

Respondent registered the disputed domain name on July 4, 2017. The disputed domain name resolves to a website where Respondent sells products containing CBD. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant

Complainant argues that, because the disputed domain name incorporates the essential elements of Complainant’s trademarks, namely “cbd” and “HempMeds,” it is confusingly similar to each of Complainant’s United States trademarks, which all include “HempMeds”, and particularly to the two trademark registrations (Nos. 4715663 and 4715664) that also include “cbd”.

Complainant contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because Respondent is known by the name Bionic Sports Nutrition, LLC and not by the disputed domain name. Respondent uses the disputed domain name to sell “hemp CBD products just like Complainant’s.”

As to bad faith, Complainant asserts that Respondent not only had constructive notice of Complainant’s trademarks but Respondent must also have been aware of Complainant’s rights because Complainant is well known in the CBD industry and has received press coverage. According to Complainant, Respondent does business as Bionic Sports Nutrition, LLC and had no reason to register the disputed domain name except as an attempt to “lure away” Complainant’s customers. Finally, Complainant maintains Respondent has engaged in a systematic cybersquatting as evidenced by Respondent’s representation that it intends to develop websites under other names, including “Petco,” which is a trademark owned by a pet goods company. B. Respondent

According to Respondent, the disputed domain name is not confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademarks because Complainant does not have a trademark for “CBD Hemp Meds,” Complainant does not have the exclusive right to use “HempMeds”, and Respondent uses “hemp meds” and does not use a logo that resembles Complainant’s.

Respondent asserts rights in the disputed domain name based on Respondent’s bona fide use of the disputed domain name to offer CBD products through its company CBD Medical, LLC. For the same reason, Respondent