Westmore · UDRP DecisionSeasonalcomfort.online
The Panel ordered transfer of <seasonalcomfort.online>. It found the domain identical to the Complainant’s registered and unregistered SEASONAL COMFORT mark, found no rights or legitimate interests because the unrebutted evidence indicated impersonation of the Complainant, and found bad-faith registration and use under Policy paragraph 4(b)(iv) based on an intentional attempt to attract users for commercial gain through confusion.
The timeline behind seasonalcomfort.online
Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.
Westmore reconstructs the full history behind seasonalcomfort.online — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
The case illustrates how longstanding unregistered rights can be decisive where a disputed domain predates issuance of the complainant’s federal trademark registration. It also shows that an exact-match domain used for closely overlapping services, coupled with website content indicating impersonation, can support findings under both the rights-or-legitimate-interests and bad-faith elements.
Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Seasonal Comfort Co., Inc. v. Aleksandr A. Klyuev Case No. D2021-1122 1. The Parties The Complainant is Seasonal Comfort Co., Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Neugeboren O’Dowd PC, United States. The Respondent is Aleksandr A. Klyuev, Russian Federation. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <seasonalcomfort.online> is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 13, 2021. On April 13, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 14, 2021, 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 for the disputed domain name. 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 April 15, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 5, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 6, 2021. The Center appointed Steven A. Maier as the sole panelist in this matter on May 12, 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 a corporation registered in Texas, United States. It is a provider of home appliance installation and repair services. The Complainant is the owner of United States trademark number 6237641 for the standard character mark SEASONAL COMFORT for “installation, maintenance and repair of appliances” in International Class 37, registered on January 5, 2021, with a filing date of June 4, 2020. The disputed domain name was registered on September 18, 2020. The Complainant has exhibited evidence that the disputed domain name has resolved to a website headed “Seasonal Comfort” which offers repairs to Sub-Zero branded appliances and other home appliance services. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant states that it has offered appliance installation and repair services under the SEASONAL COMFORT trademark since 1948 and that it is the exclusive certified service company for Sub-Zero and certain other branded appliances in the Houston, Texas area. It has operated a website at “www.seasonalcomfort.com” since 1998. The Complainant submits that as a result of its longstanding business activities under the SEASONAL COMFORT mark, that mark has become uniquely associated with the Complainant and its services. The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its SEASONAL COMFORT trademark. The Complainant submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. It states that the Respondent has no relevant trademark rights and using the disputed domain name only for the purpose of impersonating the Complainant and creating a false impression of a connection between the Complainant and the Respondent’s website. The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. It states that the Respondent’s supposed website has “scraped” content from other home appliance websites and has added a Texas telephone number to create a false impression that its website is operated by the Complainant, even though the website content refers to “busy New Yorkers”. The Complainant states that the Respondent’s website has caused actual confusion to at least two customers who contacted the Complainant when service technicians they had booked with the Respondent, believing it to be the Complainant, had failed to attend at the appointed time. The Complainant submits that the Respondent in this case is connected with the respondent in Seasonal Comfort Company, Inc. v. Irina Inkina, WIPO Case No. D2020-2567 , which was decided in the Complainant’s favour on January 8, 2021. The Complaint provides evidence that the content of the respondent’s website in that earlier case was the same as that in the present proceeding. The Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings In order to succeed in the Complaint, the Complainant is required to show that all three of the elements set out under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are present. Those elements are that: (i) the disputed domain name is 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 name; and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has established that it has registered trademark rights in the mark SEASONAL COMFORT and the Panel finds also that it has unregistered trademark rights in that mark by virtue of its longstanding use of the mark in business. The disputed domain name comprises the Complainant’s trademark together with the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.online” which is to be disregarded for the purposes of comparison under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is identical to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests In the view of the Panel, the Complainant’s submissions set out above give rise to a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and, in particular, that the Respondent registered and has used the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of impersonating the Complainant. However, the Respondent has not filed a Response in this proceeding and has not submitted any explanation for its registration and use of the disputed domain name, or evidence of rights or legitimate interests on its part in the disputed domain name, whether in the circumstances contemplated by paragraph 4(c) of the Policy or otherwise. There being no other evidence before the Panel of any such rights or legitimate interests, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel finds the Complainant’s trademark SEASONAL COMFORT, used by the Complainant since 1948, to be distinctive in nature and can conceive of no reason why the Respondent would have selected the disputed domain name, and used it in connection with services similar to those of the Complainant, otherwise than to impersonate the Complainant in a dishonest attempt to divert the Complainant’s business to its own website. The Panel notes in particular the implausible nature of the Respondent’s website, being the same as that in the previous case to which the Complainant has referred, and the reference to Sub-Zero appliances of which the Complainant is the exclusive certified repairer in the relevant region. The Panel also notes that the Complainant has operated a website at the domain name <seasonalcomfort.com> since 1998. The Panel finds in particular that, by using the disputed domain name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website or of a product or service on its website (paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy). The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used 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, <seasonalcomfort.online>, be transferred to the Complainant. Steven A. Maier Sole Panelist Date: May 18, 2021
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around seasonalcomfort.online
The decision is only the record. Westmore connects it to the cases, authorities, panelists, parties and domain evidence surrounding it.
A short, grounded explanation drawn only from this decision's record — not legal advice or a prediction.
Grounded in the Westmore record for this decision. Research/informational only — not legal advice or a prediction of any outcome.
The decision is only the beginning.
You've seen what happened. Now discover the deeper intelligence behind the case, the panelist, the parties and the authorities that matter.
Go beyond the public record: see how this case has been cited, find comparable decisions, analyze the panelist and apply the relevant authorities to your Matter.
Westmore Professional · $395/month
Research with UDRP IntelligenceWestmore AI drafts an attorney-review-ready UDRP response from your facts, grounded in the exact panel and closest precedent.
$895 one-time per matter · no subscription required. Self-help drafting aid — not legal advice.
Build your responseWestmore UDRP records draw on WIPO-indexed decisions and are provided for research and informational purposes only. Not legal advice, a clearance opinion, or a prediction of any outcome.