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 WhoisGuardProtected, WhoisGuard, Inc., Panama / Bayerl Alice, JamesKlean, United States. 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 disputed domain name. On June 4, 2020, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on June 7, 2020 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant 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 12, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 2, 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 The disputed domain name was registered on October 11, 2019 and resolve to a pay-per-click (“PPC”) website. On October 31, 2019, Complainants sent the Respondent a cease and desist letter regarding the registration and use of the disputed domain name. Respondent failed to acknowledge or respond to this cease and desist correspondence. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainants contend that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainants’ trademark, that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and that the disputed domain name was registered and is 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 name incorporates Complainants’ mark in its entirety except for the added letter “l” at the beginning. This appears to be a classic case of typosquatting, consisting of an intentional misspelling of Complainants’ mark (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.9). Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is 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 name. The record is devoid of any facts that establish any rights or legitimate interests of Respondent in the disputed domain name. There is no evidence that Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name or that it has any rights that might predate Complainants’ adoption and use of the LENNAR mark, domain name Respondent has not made, and is not making, a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. There is no evidence in the record that Respondent has used the disputed domain name in connection with the bona fide offering of goods or services. The disputed domain name is not associated with an active website, but resolves to a webpage with pay-per-click links such as “Home Warranty”, “Condo Rentals”, and “New Construction Homes”, which are services related to Complainants’ business. The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The nature of the pay-per-click links on the website at the disputed domain name, as well as the typo in the disputed domain name, indicates that Respondent was aware of Complainants’ mark at the time of registering and using the disputed domain name. The record also indicates that the disputed domain name is being used to attract Internet users to Respondent’s website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainants’ LENNAR mark. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name 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 name Lynda J. Zadra-Symes
Sole Panelist
Date: August 17, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy