The Complainants are Lennar Pacific Properties Management, Inc. and Lennar Corporation, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Slates Harwell LLP, United States.
The Respondent is Domain Admin, Whois Privacy Corp., Bahamas. 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 18, 2021. On June 18, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Names. On June 21, 2021, 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 additional email communication to the Complainant on June 21, 2021, providing the registrant and contact additional information disclosed by the Registrar. 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 Respondents of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on June 24, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 14, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent ’s default on July 16, 2021. The Center appointed Pablo A. Palazzi as the sole panelist in this matter on July 26, 2021. 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 is Lennar Pacific Properties Management, Inc., together with its affiliated company Lennar Corporation (collectively the “Complainant”). The Complainant have offered real estate management, brokerage, development, construction, and financial services under the LENNAR trademark since at least as early as 1973. The Complainant owns several trademarks registrations for the term LENNAR, among others: - LENNAR, United States Trademark Registration No. 3,108,401, registered June 27, 2006; and - LENNAR, United States Trademark Registration No. 3,477,143, registered July 29, 2008. In addition, the Complainant owns and operates a website utilizing the LENNAR trademark in connection with its registered services, located at the domain name The Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Names on May 26, 2021. The Complainant submitted evidence that the three Disputed Domain Names resolved to webpages with pay-per-click (“PPC”) links. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contentions can be summarized as follows: Identical or confusingly similar The Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Names are virtually identical and/or confusingly similar and also a typo-squatting version of the LENNAR trademark. Consequently, the Disputed Domain Names all consist of a common, obvious, or intentional misspelling of and is confusingly similar to the LENNAR trademark. Rights or legitimate interests The Complainant alleges that it has not located any evidence of the Respondent ’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Disputed Domain Names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. In addition, the Respondent has not been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Names and has acquired no trademark or service mark rights in the famous and strong LENNAR trademarks. Registration and use in bad faith The Complainant states that the Disputed Domain Names were registered and are being used in bad faith by the Respondent, including registration primarily for the purpose of disrupting the Complainants’ business. The Respondent’s use of the Disputed Domain Names resolves to webpages with PPC links, which are intended to attract Internet users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the LENNAR trademark. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant ’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1. Preliminary Matter: Consolidation of Respondent Section 4.11.2 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) states the following with respect to complaints consolidated against multiple respondents: “ [w]here a complaint is filed against multiple respondents, panels look at whether (i) the domain names or corresponding websites are subject to common control, and (ii) the consolidation would be fair and equitable to all parties. Procedural efficiency would also underpin panel consideration of such a consolidation scenario.” Paragraph 10(e) of the Rules grants a panel the power to consolidate multiple domain name disputes. At the same time, paragraph 3(c) of the Rules provides that a complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder. The Complainant submitted a request for the consolidation of proceedings against multiple respondents. In the present case, the Panel notes that the registrant of all the Disputed Domain Names, as confirmed by the Registrar, is the same entity (i.e. Whois Privacy Corp.), which seems to be an entity providing privacy services. No information is known about the underlying registrant behind such privacy services. In addition, the evidence shows that each of the Disputed Domain Names adopted a common structure: each of them consists of the Complainant ’s LENNAR trademark with different typos that make the Disputed Domain Name phonetically and visually similar to the Complainant ’s LENNAR trademark. The Panel also notes that the Disputed Domain Names share the same registrar, and were all registered on the same date. Moreover, the Disputed Domain Names resolved to identical click-through landing pages with the same format and content. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Names are subject to common control for the purposes of consolidation under the Policy. The Respondent did not deny these assertions; thus, the Panel permits the consolidation of the proceedings and will refer hereinafter to all registrants of the Disputed Domain Names as the “Respondent”. 6.2. Substantive Matters Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists the three elements which the Complainant must satisfy with respect to the Disputed Domain Names at issue in this case: (i) the Disputed Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Names; and (iii) the Disputed Domain Names have been registered and are being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Based on the evidence submitted, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Names The Disputed Domain Names only incorporate single-letter changes to the Complainant ’s LENNAR trademark with the effect that the Disputed Domain Names sound and/or look like the Complainant ’s LENNAR trademark. Thus, the Panel finds that this is a typical typo-squatting case, since the Disputed Domain Names reproduce the Complainant ’s LENNAR trademark with a minor alteration of the letters, which does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. See WIPO Overview 3.0 states in section 1.9: “A domain name which consists of a common, obvious, or intentional misspelling of a trademark is considered by panels to be confusingly similar to the relevant mark for purposes of the first element. […] Examples of such typos include (i) adjacent keyboard letters, (ii) substitution of similar-appearing characters (e.g., upper vs lower-case letters or numbers used to look like letters), (iii) the use of different letters that appear similar in different fonts, (iv) the use of non-Latin internationalized or accented characters, (v) the inversion of letters and numbers, or (vi) the addition or interspersion of other terms or numbers.” Therefore, the Panel concludes that the Complainant has satisfied the first requirement of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances, any of which is sufficient to demonstrate that the Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Names: (i) before any notice to the Respondent of the dispute, 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; or (ii) the Respondent (as an individual, business, or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if the Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service at issue. There is no evidence of the existence of any of those rights or legitimate interests. The Complainant has not authorized, licensed, or permitted the Respondent to register or use the Disputed Domain Names or to use the trademark in the Disputed Domain Names. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the Disputed Domain Names. The Respondent has failed to show that it has acquired any rights with respect to the Disputed Domain Names. Moreover, it had the opportunity to demonstrate its rights or legitimate interests, but it did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. As such, the Panel finds that the Complainant has made a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, unrebutted by the Respondent, and has satisfied the second requirement of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy provides that the Complainant must establish that the Respondent registered and subsequently used the Disputed Domain Names in bad faith. The Disputed Domain Names were registered in 2021, while the Complainant ’s LENNAR trademark registration was granted and is in use since 2006. The fact that the Disputed Domain Names are nearly identical to the Complainant’s LENNAR trademark, having a similar visual and phonetic appearance, and that they were all registered the same date, which postdates the Complainant’s registration of its trademark, leads the Panel to find that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s LENNAR trademark when registering the Disputed Domain Names. Thus, the Panel concludes the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Names in bad faith. Furthermore, it is important to highlight that the present case is a typo-squatting case being this a strong evidence of the Respondent ’s bad faith. In the case at hand, in view of the Respondent ’s registration of three Disputed Domain Names confusingly similar to the Complainant ’s LENNAR trademark, the Respondent’s concealing of its identity behind a privacy service, and the absence of any documented rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent in the Disputed Domain Names and its failure to respond to the Complaint, affirm the bad faith. For that reason, the Panel concludes that this conduct qualifies as bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy in that the Respondent ’s use of the Disputed Domain Names attempts to attract for commercial gain Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant ’s LENNAR trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent ’s website. Therefore, taking all the circumstances into account and for all the above reasons, the Panel concludes that the 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 Pablo A. Palazzi
Sole Panelist
Date: August 2, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy