Allan-myers.com

The timeline behind allan-myers.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 Allan Myers, Inc. v. Kath Crest, allanmy Construction Case No. D2026-1049 1. The Parties The Complainant is Allan Myers, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Cozen O’Connor, United States. The Respondent is Kath Crest, allanmy Construction, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <allan-myers.com> is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 11, 2026. On March 11, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 12, 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, Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on March 13, 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 March 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 March 18, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 7, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Parties of the Respondent’s default on April 8, 2026 page 2 The Center appointed Ingrīda Kariņa-Bērziņa as the sole panelist in this matter on April 14, 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 commercial construction services company registered in Delaware, United States with its primary place of business in Pennsylvania, United States. It is the proprietor of several trademarks, including United States Trademark Registration No. 4828189 for ALLAN MYERS (word mark), registered on October 6, 2015, for services in class 37. The Complainant operates its primary business website at the domain name <allanmyers.com>. The disputed domain name was registered on February 11, 2026. At the time of the Complaint and of this Decision, it did not resolve to an active website. The Complainant states that the Respondent used the disputed domain name to generate emails impersonating the Complaint’s employee. 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. Notably, the Complainant contends that it was established in 1939 and offers the following services: construction consultation, construction management, construction planning, services related to the construction of water and wastewater plants, laying and construction of pipelines, road and highway construction and paving services, and bridge construction services. The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s mark in its entirety, separated by a hyphen. The Respondent has no rights in the Complainant’s mark. The address provided by the Respondent in the disputed domain name registration is identical to the Complainant’s business address. The disputed domain name has been used to send emails impersonating the Complainant’s employee to solicit the Complainant, and likely also its customers, for payments and personal information. The Complainant requests transfer of the disputed domain name. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4(a) of the UDRP requires the Complainant to make out all three of the following: (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 Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. page 3 Under paragraph 15(a) of the Rules, “[a] Panel shall decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable”. 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 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 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 Complainant’s ALLAN MYERS mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that the hyphen in the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the Complainant’s mark and 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. 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 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. The Panel notes the composition of the disputed domain name, which comprises the Complainant’s ALLAN MEYERS mark separated by a hyphen. The Panel finds that the nature of the disputed domain name therefore carries a high risk of implied affiliation to the Complainant that cannot constitute fair use. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.5.1. The Respondent has not put forward any rights or legitimate interests. There is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor that there are any circumstances or activities that would establish the Respondent’s rights therein. Considering the fact that the Respondent has used the Complainant’s business address when registering the disputed domain name, the Panel finds that the Respondent’s use of the organization name “allanmy Construction” does not confer any rights or legitimate interests on the Respondent, but rather shows the Respondent’s intention to pass off as the Complainant. Rather, the evidence indicates that the disputed domain name does not resolve to an active page 4 website. Such use cannot establish rights or legitimate interests under the circumstances of this case. See WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.5.2. 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 that the disputed domain name was registered over 10 years after the Complainant registered its ALLEN MYERS mark and several decades after the establishment of the Complainant’s business. The composition of the disputed domain name reflects the Complainant’s mark in its entirety, implying an affiliation with the Complainant. The Complainant provides evidence that its mark has gained a reputation through extensive use. On this record, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.1.4. 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. Panels have found that the non-use of a domain name (including a blank page) 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 and reputation of the Complainant’s trademark, and the composition of the disputed domain name, and finds that in the circumstances of this case the passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the Policy. Additionally, the Respondent has not disputed the Complainant’s contention that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to generate fraudulent emails impersonating the Complainant’s employee. The Complainant has not provided evidence in support of this contention. However, based on all the other materials and evidence in the case file, and in light of the fact that the disputed domain name is almost identical to the Complainant’s domain name <allanmyers.com>, and the finding that the Respondent has no rights in the disputed domain name that is being passively held, the Panel considers that there is sufficient evidence to support a finding that the disputed domain name was used in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.4. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith under the Policy. The Panel finds that the 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 <allan-myers.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Ingrīda Kariņa-Bērziņa/ Ingrīda Kariņa-Bērziņa Sole Panelist Date: May 5, 2026

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