Trailersalesandleasing.live

The timeline behind trailersalesandleasing.live

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Trailer Park, Inc. v. Sally Crakehall, Quality Used Cars Case No. D2026-0098 1. The Parties The Complainant is Trailer Park, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Vedder Price P. C., United States. The Respondent is Sally Crakehall, Quality Used Cars, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <trailersalesandleasing.live> is registered with Hostinger Operations, UAB (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 9, 2026. On January 12, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 13, 2026, 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 (Redacted for Privacy) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on January 14, 2026, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on January 17, 2026. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 January 19, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for the Response was February 8, 2026. The Respondent sent an email communication to the Center on February 9, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed William F. Hamilton as the sole panelist in this matter on February 18, 2026. 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 prominent entertainment marketing and content production company operating across North America, Europe, and Asia-Pacific. It focuses on streaming, film, gaming, music, marketing, and sports, offering creative content, production resources, and strategic services to a broad array of clients, including those in the entertainment, sports, and gaming sectors. Established in 1994, the Complainant initially began as a motion picture advertising production firm before branching into other entertainment industry fields. The Complainant owns United States Registration No. 3,907,397 for the trademark TRAILER PARK (the “Mark”), which was registered on January 18, 2011. Since at least February 1994, Complainant has continuously used the Mark in commerce to identify itself and its services in the United States. The disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent on July 15, 2022. It resolved to a website purportedly offering trailer sales and leases. The Respondent’s website displayed images purporting to show trailer inventory and utilized an address associated with the Complainant’s business operations. The website also included forms requesting personal and financial information from Internet users. Access to the website subsequently triggered browser security warnings indicating potential malicious software or phishing activity. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name. The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Mark because it incorporates the Mark’s dominant portion “trailer” together with the additional expression “salesandleasing”. According to the Complainant, the inclusion of this descriptive expression does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. The Complainant further asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant states that it has not authorized the Respondent to use the Mark and that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name resolved to a website displaying false images and using an address associated with the Complainant’s business, and that the website was designed to solicit personal and financial information from Internet users. Finally, the Complainant maintains that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant argues that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name to intentionally attract, for commercial gain, Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Mark as to source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement. page 3 B. Respondent The Respondent did not submit a formal Response but sent an informal email communication to the Center dated February 9, 2026, which the Panel has reviewed. Said email indicated: “We have reviewed the complaint, and it appears that our business is not the one involved. The domain in question has been under the same ownership for an extended period, and there is no connection to the matter described.” 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists three elements that a complainant must satisfy to succeed. The Complainant must demonstrate that: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; (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 It is well established that the first element of the Policy functions primarily as a standing requirement. The threshold test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 1.7. The Complainant has demonstrated rights in the Mark for purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. The Panel finds the Mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name. The Panel’s finding is supported by the content of the website, which featured the Complainant’s address. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Mark for purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, sections 1.7 and 1.15. While the addition of the descriptive terms “sales”, “and”, and “leasing” may be relevant to the assessment under the second and third elements, such addition does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.8. The generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.live” is viewed as a standard registration requirement and is generally disregarded for purposes of the confusing similarity test under the first element. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.11.1. The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving that a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant page 4 evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.1. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. There is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name within the meaning of paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy. The record further indicates that the Respondent’s website impersonated the Complainant’s business location and solicited personal and financial information from Internet users. Panels have consistently held that use of a domain name for phishing, impersonation, or malware distribution cannot constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.13.1. The Panel notes the Respondent’s email indicating that its business is not related to the disputed domain name. However, since the said email contained no further information, it does not change the Panel’s findings. The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel notes that, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. In the present case, the Panel notes that the Respondent’s website featured false pictures of its locations, used an address of the Complainant, and utilized its website to download potential malware or otherwise obtain personal and confidential information from unsuspecting Internet users. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances may be relevant in assessing whether a respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.2.1. Given the longstanding and continuous use of the Mark since 1994 and its federal registration, the Panel finds that the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to impersonate the Complainant’s location and to solicit sensitive personal and financial information constitutes an intentional attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s Mark as to source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement. This conduct falls squarely within paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) under the Policy. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy. page 5 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 <trailersalesandleasing.live> be transferred to the Complainant. /William F. Hamilton/ William F. Hamilton Sole Panelist Date: March 4, 2026

Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.