Featured Domains


Edible Arrangements sues to get Edibles.com

Company alleges that the valuable domain name infringes on its ‘edible’ mark.

A screenshot of Edible Arrangements' website

Edible Arrangements, a franchisor of stores that sell fruit arrangements, has filed a lawsuit (pdf) in an effort to get the domain name Edibles.com.

The company appears to have changed the primary branding on its website from Edible Arrangements to Edible within the past three years. It owns Edible.com and forwards it to EdibleArrangements.com.

World Media Group, LLC, which owns a number of valuable domain names, currently uses the Edibles.com domain name to promote a dietary app.

Edible Arrangements alleges this app is a ruse:

Rather, the EDIBLES App is a generic food database that merely sources data from the United States Government, giving the strong impression that the EDIBLES App is a sham and ruse merely to reserve for Defendant the Disputed Domain for potential and speculative future use and development while preventing Edible from using it and intentionally attempting to attract uses for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion as to source or affiliation with Edible.

In its lawsuit, Edible Arrangements argues that the domain name Edibles.com infringes on its mark for “Edible”.

The plural form of Edible’s incontestable EDIBLE mark has no material distinction from the Defendant’s EDIBLES, and the two are therefore legal equivalents such that there is a likelihood of confusion.

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court – Northern District of Georgia, where the company is located.

The most in-depth analysis of the global domain market

Get Our Newsletter

Stay up-to-date with the latest analysis and news about the domain name industry by joining our mailing list.

No spam, unsubscribe anytime.

Reader Interactions


    Leave a Comment

  1. Lifesavings.online says

    Really sad things are going this way..

    Domaining suggests you ‘USE’ your domain as a means of protection.

    Is that sound advice still?

    Domaining getting cucked by generic trademarks. Obviously, this is a trend now.

    Weather this is won or not, it’s a headache and money sink. Booking.com paved the way. Domaining praises the decision. It’s game on, and these courts have no sympathy for you ‘squatters’!

    Be found to lose even a UDRP or any kind case against your domains, and see how they use it against you. You’ll get rolled, they call it ‘habitual offense’. As soon as those words are uttered, kiss your ass goodbye.

    Keep out-bounding etc…make the WHOLE world hate you. And see! You’ll lose it all in the name of SOCIAL JUSTICE!

  2. Brad Mugford says

    This is obviously a completely absurd, meritless dispute.

    I dealt with these clowns in the past over a nonsense “Edible” TM claim. They think they own the English language when it comes to a generic term with a generic use.

    I pushed back on their claims and sold my domain at fair market value.

    This company is an example of what happens when stupidity meets an overwhelming sense of entitlement.

    This is an obvious case of RDNH and should be decided that way.


  3. Nick says

    The process usually goes that the defendent tries to get the trademark cancelled. The plaintiff get scared and knows their initial case is nonsense anyaway. Gets setteled before the trial ends and the plaintiff get the domain. And we never know the selling price.

  4. John Berryhill says

    Don’t worry, the ICA will be along any minute to file an amicus brief on behalf of the plaintiff.

  5. Johnny Cupcake says

    Ever see the child yelling and screaming on the floor in the store because they didn’t get the toy they wanted?! Tariq Farid Ladies and Gentlemen!

  6. David Michaels says

    I predict that a court will grant a motion to dismiss. Under a Rule 12(b)(1) motion, the burden of proving that jurisdiction does exist falls to the party asserting jurisdiction. … The motion to dismiss should only be granted “if it appears certain that the plaintiff cannot prove any set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle plaintiff to relief.”

    Why is this case in Georgia?

    Edible Arrangements says that since they can access the website there, the GA long-arm statute applies. I don’t think that’s sufficient minimum contacts with GA.

    If the case survives a motion to dismiss or moves to NJ, then a petition to cancel all of the plaintiff’s trademarks on the basis they are an Assignment in Gross might work since the Plaintiff Edible IP, LLC is just a holding company.

    This definitely isn’t a valid cybersquatting case. Edibles is a generic term.

  7. Michael Aguilar says

    I purchased some chocolate strawberries and was very disappointed on the purchase. It didn’t look anything like the picture they showed. Half the strawberries didn’t have chocolate on them. the strawberries weren’t that fresh like they said. way over priced, spent $75 on something that’s only worth $25. I do not recommend this company!!!!!!!

Domain Name Wire | Domain Name News
%d bloggers like this: