Complainants are Lennar Pacific Properties Management, Inc. and Lennar Corporation, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Slates Harwell LLP, United States.
Respondent is Registration Private, DomainsByProxy.com, LLC, United States / James York, United States. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar
The disputed domain names 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 disputed domain names. On June 5, 2020, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain names which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainants on June 7, 2020 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainants filed an amendment to the Complaint on June 9, 2020. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to 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 June 17, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 7, 2020. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on July 12, 2020. The Center appointed Lynda J. Zadra-Symes as the sole panelist in this matter on August 3, 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 Complainants are the owner and licensee of the mark LENNAR used in connection with real estate development, management and brokering services, and related financial services. Complainants build and sell homes in 21 states in the United States and have used the LENNAR mark since at least as early as 1973. Complainants are the owner and licensee of the following United States Trademark Registrations Nos. 3,108,401 (registered on June 27, 2006), and 3,477,143 (registered on July 29, 2008) for the mark LENNAR covering the following services: “Consultation in the fields of real estate management and real estate brokering; real estate management and real estate brokerage services of residential communities, undeveloped properties and individual residences; financial services, namely mortgage services, title insurance services, and insurance agency services; real estate development and planning services, namely developing, laying out and constructing residential communities and individual residences; real estate listing services; real estate management, namely, the operation, maintenance, brokerage, and rental of mid and high-rise condominium properties for both residential, business, and retail use; real estate development of mid and high-rise buildings for both residential, business, and retail use, namely construction consulting in the nature of site selection and construction planning; construction management and supervision; and construction services, namely, planning, laying out and custom construction of mid and high-rise properties.” In addition, Complainants own and operate a website using the LENNAR mark, located at the domain name All of the disputed domain names were registered on January 29, 2020 and resolve to pay-per-click (“PPC”) websites. On March 17, 2020, Complainants sent Respondent a cease and desist letter regarding the unauthorized registration and use of the disputed domain names. Respondent failed to acknowledge or respond to this cease and desist correspondence. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainants contend that the disputed domain names are identical to or confusingly similar with Complainants’ LENNAR mark, that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names, and that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainants’ contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings In order to succeed in their claim, Complainants must demonstrate that all of the elements enumerated in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainants have rights; and (ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs the Panel to decide a complaint “on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable”. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Complainants have demonstrated that they have rights in the trademark LENNAR. The disputed domain names incorporate the LENNAR mark in its entirety, with the addition of the descriptive or geographic words “river” and “grass”. The addition of these terms does not avoid confusing similarity (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.8). Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainants’ trademark. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainants contend that Respondent is not affiliated with or connected to Complainants in any way. At no time have Complainants licensed or otherwise endorsed, sponsored or authorized Respondent to use Complainants’ LENNAR mark or to register the disputed domain names. The record is devoid of any facts that establish any rights or legitimate interests of Respondent in the disputed domain names. There is no evidence that Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain names or that it has any rights that might predate Complainants’ adoption and use of the LENNAR marks, domain name Respondent has not made, and is not making, a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names. Respondent has not used the disputed domain names in connection with the bona fide offering of goods or services. The disputed domain names resolve to webpages with pay-per-click links such as “Home Warranty”, “Lennar Homes”, and “New Construction Homes”, which refer to or relate to Complainants’ services. The Panel finds that Complainants have satisfied the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The record indicates that Respondent most likely had actual knowledge of Complainants’ rights in the LENNAR mark prior to registering the disputed domain names and that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names to attract Internet users to Respondent’s websites for commercial gain through pay-per-click revenue by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainants’ LENNAR mark. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith. 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 disputed domain names, Lynda J. Zadra-Symes
Sole Panelist
Date: August 17, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy