My-lennar-home.com

The timeline behind my-lennar-home.com

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 Lennar Pacific Properties Management, LLC, Lennar Corporation v. My- lennar-home Case No. D2026-0777 1. The Parties Complainants are Lennar Pacific Properties Management, LLC, and Lennar Corporation, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Slates Harwell Campbell, LLP, United States. Respondent is My-lennar-home, United States of America. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <my-lennar-home.com> is registered with Amazon Registrar, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 24, 2026. On February 24, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 24, 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 (On behalf of my-lennar-home.com Owner Identity Protection Service) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainants on February 25, 2026, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainants to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainants filed an amendment to the Complaint on February 25, 2026. 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 March 2, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 22, 2026. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on March 30, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Timothy D. Casey as the sole panelist in this matter on April 9, 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 Complainants operate a company that provides real estate management, brokerage, development, construction, mortgage, and financial services in the United States and has been building homes since 1954. Complainants own and operate a corresponding website associated with the domain name <lennar.com>. which was registered in 1996. Complainants have (hereinafter the “Complainant”) used the LENNAR trademark since 1973 and has registrations for the trademark (the “LENNAR Marks”) in the United States as follows: Mark Jurisdiction Class(es) Registration No. Registration Date LENNAR United States 35, 36 and 37 3,108,401 June 27, 2006 LENNAR United States 36 and 37 3,477,143 July 29, 2008 The disputed domain name was registered on December 18, 2025. At the time of filing the Complaint, the disputed domain name purported to offer services similar to those offered by the Complainant in the regular course of its business. At the time of this Decision, the disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name. Notably, Complainant contends that it has rights in the LENNAR Marks as noted herein. Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is virtually identical and/or confusingly similar typo squatting to the LENNAR Marks because the disputed domain name incorporates the entirety of the LENNAR Marks, with the only difference being the addition of the descriptive terms “my-” before and “-home” after the LENNAR Marks. Complainant contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because (i) there is no evidence that Respondent has made any use or demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, (ii) there is no evidence Respondent has ever been known by the disputed domain name or acquired any rights in the LENNAR Marks, and (iii) Respondent is not making any legitimate noncommercial or fair use offering of goods or services and may be using the disputed domain name for illegal activities for fraud and commercial gain and/or to tarnish the LENNAR Marks. Complainant contends that Respondent registered the disputed domain name and has been using the disputed domain name in bad faith as evidenced by Respondent’s use and/or non-use of the disputed domain name combined with the distinctiveness and reputation of the LENNAR Marks and Respondent’s failure to respond to a cease and desist letter from Complainant or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good faith use of the disputed domain name. Complainant further contends that Respondent’s concealing of its identity or use of false contact information supports a finding of bad faith. Complainant also contends that the disputed domain name purports to offer services like those offered by Complainant and redirects to Complainant’s website, which creates a false impression of legitimacy. Complainant contends that Respondent’s typo squatting is evidence of bad faith. page 3 B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between 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. Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. The entirety of the mark is reproduced and recognizable within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. Although the addition of other terms here, “my-” and “-home”, may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such terms does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.8. 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 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 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 Complainant has established a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent has not rebutted 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. The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. page 4 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. 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. In the present case, the Panel notes that Respondent has clearly attempted to associate the disputed domain name with Complainant’s LENNAR Marks and its website. The Panel finds 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 trademark. Panels have found that the non-use of a domain name would not by itself prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. To the contrary, in looking at the totality of circumstances in each case, panels have found that the registration and non-use of a domain name can still constitute bad faith for purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.3. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel notes the distinctiveness or reputation of Complainant’s trademark, and the composition of the disputed domain name, and finds that in the circumstances of this case the current passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the Policy. The Panel finds that Complainant has established the third element of the Policy. 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 <my-lennar-home.com> be transferred to Complainant. /Timothy D. Casey/ Timothy D. Casey Sole Panelist Date: April 22, 2026

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