The Complainant is Lennar Pacific Properties Management, Inc. and Lennar Corporation, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Slates Harwell LLP, United States.
The Respondent is Badboi ot, Nigeria. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 3, 2020. On June 4, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On June 5, 2020, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the 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 the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on June 9, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 29, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on June 30, 2020. The Center appointed Mathias Lilleengen as the sole panelist in this matter on July 10, 2020. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. 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 The Complainant has offered real estate management, brokerage, development, construction and financial services under the LENNAR trademarks since at least 1973. The Complainant has been in homebuilding since 1954. The Complainant builds and sells homes in twenty-one states in the United States. The Complainant owns and operates a website utilizing the LENNAR trademark. The Complainant owns numerous trademarks in the United States, such as United States trademark registrations No. 3,108,401, registered on June 27, 2006, and No. 3,477,143, registered on July 29, 2008. According to the Complainant, the Domain Name was registered on March 24, 2020. At the time of the Complaint, and at the time of drafting the Decision, the Domain Name resolved to an error page. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant provides evidence of trademark registrations. The Complainant argues that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its trademark, as the Domain Name incorporates the LENNAR trademark in its entirety, with the addition of the descriptive word “inc”. The Complainant argues that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. The Complainant asserts that it has not found any evidence of the Respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Domain Name or a name corresponding to the Domain Name in connection with bona fide offering of goods or services. The Respondent has not been commonly known by the Domain Name and has acquired no trademark or service mark rights in the LENNAR trademark. The Complainant believes the Respondent was aware of the fact that it incorporated the Complainant’s trademark. The registration must have been primarily for the purpose of disrupting the Complainant’s business and/or for the purpose of selling it to the Complainant or a competitor, as evidenced by the Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complainant’s cease and desist letter. The Respondent’s use of name “Badboi” in the registration details, further evidences bad faith. The Respondent’s passive holding of the Domain Name constitutes bad faith under the Policy, because the Complainant’s trademark is widely known, the Respondent has attempted to conceal his or her true identity under the pseudonym “BadBoi”, and there is no conceivable good faith use to which the Respondent could put the Domain Name that would not infringe the Complainant’s trademarks. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainants’ contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has established that it has rights in the trademark LENNAR. The test for confusing similarity involves the comparison between the trademark and the Domain Name. In this case, the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The Domain Name incorporates the LENNAR trademark in its entirety, with the addition of the descriptive term “inc”. The addition does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. For the purpose of assessing under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, the Panel may ignore the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”; see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.11. The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Based on the evidence, the Respondent is not affiliated or related to the Complainant in any way. There is no evidence that the Respondent has registered the Domain Name as a trademark or acquired common law or unregistered trademark rights. There is no evidence of the Respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Domain Name or a name corresponding to the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Respondent has not been commonly known by the Domain Name. The Panel finds that the Complainant has made out an unrebutted prima facie case. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the trademark LENNAR. The Panel finds it likely that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant when the Respondent registered the Domain Name. The Panel agrees with the Complainant that on the balance of probabilities the Respondent’s registration must have been primarily for the purpose of disrupting the Complainant’s business and/or for selling it to the Complainant or a competitor. The Respondent has failed to respond to the Complainant’s cease and desist letter. Moreover, the Respondent’s use of the name “Badboi” in the registration details. This is likely to be incomplete registration details, which must be regarded as further evidence of bad faith. The Respondent’s passive holding of the Domain Name qualifies as bad faith use, cf. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3. The Complainant’s trademark is known, the Respondent has attempted to conceal his or her true identity under “BadBoi”, and the Panel cannot think of any conceivable good faith use to which the Respondent could put the Domain Name that would not infringe the Complainant’s trademarks. For the reasons set out above, the Panel concludes that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith, within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. 7. Decision For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the Domain Name Mathias Lilleengen
Sole Panelist
Date: July 20, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy