Westmore · UDRP DecisionDewberryh.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <dewberryh.com>. It found the domain confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered DEWBERRY mark because it incorporated the mark in full with only the added letter “h”. The Respondent had no demonstrated rights or legitimate interests, and the inactive use did not constitute a bona fide, legitimate noncommercial, or fair use. The Panel found bad-faith registration and use based on an intent to trade on the Complainant’s name and reputation and the principle that passive holding can constitute bad faith in the circumstances.
The timeline behind dewberryh.com
Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.
The case illustrates application of the UDRP to a mark-plus-single-letter domain that remained inactive. The first element was straightforward because DEWBERRY remained fully recognizable. For the second and third elements, the absence of any Respondent explanation, the lack of legitimate use, the risk of implied affiliation, and the passive-holding doctrine were central.
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 Dewberry Engineers Inc. v. Emily Golden Case No. D2021-2873 1. The Parties The Complainant is Dewberry Engineers Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by McCandlish Lillard, P.C., United States. The Respondent is Emily Golden, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <dewberryh.com> (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with NameSilo, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 31, 2021. On September 1, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On the same day, 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 September 7, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 27, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 29, 2021. The Center appointed Lynda M. Braun as the sole panelist in this matter on October 7, 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 nationwide engineering firm with more than 50 locations in the United States that provides a myriad of services to its customers, including engineering, architecture, real estate, and emergency management services. The Complainant is the owner of the domain name <dewberry.com>, which resolves to the Complainant’s official website at “www.dewberry.com”. The Complainant is also the owner of the following registered trademarks: DEWBERRY, United States Trademark Registration No. 2,991,043, registered on September 6, 2005, in International Classes 35, 37,40, 42, and 45; and DEWBERRY (and design), United States Trademark Registration No. 2,991,044 registered on September 6, 2005, in International Classes 35, 37,40, 42, and 45. The foregoing trademarks will hereinafter be referred to as the “DEWBERRY Mark”. The Disputed Domain Name was registered on June 16, 2021 and resolves to an inactive landing page that states: “This site can’t be reached. dewberryh.com’s server IP address could not be found.” 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The following are the Complainant’s contentions: - the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s DEWBERRY trademark; - the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name; - the Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith; and - the Complainant seeks the transfer of the Disputed Domain Name from the Respondent to the Complainant in accordance with paragraph 4(i) of the Policy. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings In order for the Complainant to prevail and have the Disputed Domain Name transferred to the Complainant, the Complainant must prove the following (Policy, paragraph 4(a)): (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 This element consists of two parts: first, does the Complainant have rights in a relevant trademark and, second, is the Disputed Domain Name identical or confusingly similar to that trademark. The Panel concludes that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the DEWBERRY Mark. It is uncontroverted that the Complainant has established rights in the DEWBERRY Mark based on its continuous use since 2005. The general consensus is that “registration of a mark is prima facie evidence of validity, which creates a rebuttable presumption that the mark is inherently distinctive”. See CWI, Inc. v. Domain Administrator c/o Dynadot, WIPO Case No. D2015-1734 . The Respondent has not rebutted this presumption, and therefore the Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the DEWBERRY Mark. The Disputed Domain Name consists of the DEWBERRY Mark in its entirety followed by the letter “h”, and then followed by the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”. It is well established that a domain name that wholly incorporates a trademark may be deemed confusingly similar to that trademark for purposes of the Policy despite the addition of other terms or letters. See ALH Group Pty Ltd v. Naveen Mathur, WIPO Case No. D2015-2004 (finding the disputed domain name confusingly similar to the trademark despite the addition of the letter “s”). As stated in section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“ WIPO Overview 3.0 ”), “where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element”. Finally, the addition of a gTLD such as “.com” in a domain name is technically required. Thus, it is well established that such element may typically be disregarded when assessing whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark. See Proactiva Medio Ambiente, S.A. v. Proactiva, WIPO Case No. D2012-0182 and WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 1.11. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been met by the Complainant. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Under the Policy, a complainant has to make out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Once such a prima facie case is made, the respondent carries the burden of production of evidence that demonstrates rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. If the respondent fails to do so, the complainant may be deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. See WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 2.1. There is no evidence in the record suggesting that the Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. The Complainant has not authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use the Complainant’s DEWBERRY Mark. The Complainant does not have any business relationship with the Respondent, nor is the Respondent making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name. Based on the passive use made of the Disputed Domain Name to resolve to a landing page with no content, the Panel finds that the Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services nor making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name. There is also no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name or by any name similar to it, nor any evidence that the Respondent was making demonstrable preparations to use the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. See Policy, paragraph 4 (c). Moreover, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name carries a risk of implied affiliation. See WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 2.5.1. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the second element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been met by the Complainant. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel finds that based on the record, the Complainant has demonstrated the existence of the Respondent’s bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(b) of the Policy. First, based on the circumstances here, the Panel concludes that the Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith in an attempt to attract Internet users to the Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s DEWBERRY Mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the Disputed Domain Name’s resolving webpage. The Respondent’s registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name indicate that such registration and use has been done for the specific purpose of trading on the name and reputation of the Complainant and its DEWBERRY Mark. See Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and Madonna.com, WIPO Case No. D2000-0847 (“[t]he only plausible explanation for Respondent’s actions appears to be an intentional effort to trade upon the fame of Complainant’s name and trademark. Second, inactive or passive holding of the Disputed Domain Name by the Respondent may amount to bad faith use. See Advance Magazine Publishers Inc. and Les Publications Condé Nast S.A. v. ChinaVogue.com, WIPO Case No. D2005-0615 ; Société pour l’Oeuvre et la Mémoire d’Antoine de Saint Exupéry – Succession Saint Exupéry – D’Agay v. Perlegos Properties, WIPO Case No. D2005-1085 . It has long been held in UDRP decisions that the passive holding of a domain name that incorporates a well-known or distinctive trademark without a legitimate purpose does not prevent a finding that the Disputed Domain Name is being used in bad faith under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. See Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003 ; Jupiters Limited v. Aaron Hall, WIPO Case No. D2000-0574 . Accordingly, the Panel finds that the third element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been met by the Complainant. 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 <dewberryh.com> be transferred to the Complainant. Lynda M. Braun Sole Panelist Date: October 21, 2021
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around dewberryh.com
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.