Guerreraconstruction.com

The timeline behind guerreraconstruction.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 Guerrera Construction Company, Inc. v. Mike Werth Case No. D2026-1695 1. The Parties The Complainant is Guerrera Construction Company, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Hinckley, Allen & Snyder, LLP, United States. The Respondent is Mike Werth, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <guerreraconstruction.com> is registered with TLDS L.L.C. d/b/a SRSPlus (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 21, 2026. On April 22, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 23, 2026, 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 May 1, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 21, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 28, 2026. The Center appointed W. Scott Blackmer as the sole panelist in this matter on June 1, 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. page 2 4. Factual Background The Complainant is a construction company founded in 1979 and organized as a corporation under the laws of the State of Connecticut, United States, with a principal place of business in Oxford, Connecticut. The Panel notes that the State’s online database of entities shows that the Complainant was formed as a corporation on December 14, 1982. 1 The Complainant specializes in “heavy highway construction and site work”, principally in the State of Connecticut, and sells aggregate materials from its facility in Oxford, Connecticut. The Complainant has not asserted rights in a registered trademark and does not expressly claim a common law mark. However, the Panel reads the Complaint as claiming unregistered, common law rights, as it refers to GUERRERA as a “Mark” in connection with “commercial construction services”, naming a number of specific (undated) construction projects and claiming continuous use of the “Mark” since 1979. The Complaint also refers to the company’s “trade name” as “Guerrera Construction” and observes that this appears on the Complainant’s website and in its associated email address, as well as on its signage, trucks, directories, advertising, and contracts. (The Panel notes that the State’s online database shows that the Complainant has no registered trade name, and a trade name alone does not provide standing for a UDRP complaint in any event.) Given the facts cited in the Complaint, the Panel construes the Complaint as asserting that GUERRERA CONSTRUCTION has achieved acquired distinctiveness as a common law mark at least in the Connecticut market for commercial construction services. The disputed domain name was registered on April 29, 2008, and is registered to the Respondent Mike Werth, listing no organization, a postal address in the State of Connecticut, United States, and a contact email address at “[xxx]@sntllc.net”, a domain name that itself resolves to a parked page with pay per click (“PPC”) links, also containing a message “This Page Is Under Construction ? Coming Soon!”. The disputed domain name resolves to a website advertising the Complainant’s services. The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name has long been used for the Complainant’s website and emails. The Complainant states that it retained the Respondent as its “IT consultant” to perform information technology and web-related services for the Complainant, but asserts the respondent registered the disputed domain name without the Complainant’s authorization. (The Panel notes that the earliest available screenshots of this website found on the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine date from August 31, 2019.) The Complaint states that the Respondent worked for the Complainant through his company Shamrock Network Technologies LLC, of which he was the sole member; hence the registration contact email address using the domain name <sntllic.net>. Unfortunately, the Respondent died on December 24, 2025 (a copy of his death certificate is attached to the Complaint). 2 The Complainant has been unsuccessful in attempting to identify his legal successors. The Complaint attaches correspondence addressed to the Respondent’s brother after the Respondent’s death, recounting that the Respondent “had all the information” about the Complainant’s Microsoft and domain name accounts, and that the Complainant was able to retrieve “the information” from Microsoft but not control of the disputed domain name. No reply to such correspondence seems to have been received. 1 Noting the general powers of a panel articulated in paragraphs 10 and 12 of the Rules, it is commonly accepted that a panel may undertake limited factual research into matters of public record, as the Panel has done in these proceedings. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 4.8. 2 The fact that the Respondent is deceased does not automatically invalidate the Complaint or this proceeding. UDRP alternative dispute resolution proceedings have characteristics of an in rem proceeding, where the only remedy concerns possession of the thing at issue – the disputed domain name, which the Registrar can be directed to lock temporarily, maintain in the name of the Respondent, or transfer to the Complainant. The Rules (paragraph 10) instruct the Panel to ensure that all Parties are treated with equality and fairness, and the Panel’s decision is to be based on the three Policy elements, regardless of whether the Respondent is living or the disputed domain name has passed as an asset to the Respondent’s legal successors (possibly not yet determined). The Center gives notice of the proceedings according to the registration details, and in this case the Complainant also communicated with the Respondent’s closest living family member. Thus, the Panel concludes that it is equitable and in the interest of all Parties to continue with the UDRP proceeding at this time. page 3 The Complainant then filed this UDRP Complaint, which had the effect of locking the expiring registration of the disputed domain name. 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 the disputed domain name is “confusingly similar” to its GUERRERA mark that it has used continuously since 1979, and that the Respondent had no independent connection with that mark or other claim to it. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent “surreptitiously” registered the disputed domain name in his own name while serving as the Complainant’s consultant, rather than registering it in the Complainant’s name “as company policy required”. The Complainant argues that this “secret” registration in the Respondent’s own name, coupled with the failure of the Respondent’s family to cooperate in transferring the disputed domain name after his death, constitutes bad faith under the Policy, paragraph 4(b)(iii) (deliberate intent to disrupt the Complainant’s business). B. Respondent No Response has been submitted in reply to the 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 the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. The Panel finds sufficient evidence on this record, as recounted above, that the Complainant has established unregistered service mark rights for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.3. The record indicates that the GUERRERA CONSTRUCTION mark has been used by the company since it was formed in 1982 and has featured prominently on the Complainant’s website since at least 2019. The mark appears in photos of facilities and vehicle signage published on the Complainant’s website since then. The entirety of the mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is identical 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 page 4 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. There is no indication in the record that the Respondent himself was known by a corresponding name or acted other than as a consultant and contractor on behalf of the Complainant in registering the disputed domain name and assisting the Complainant in using it for the Complainant’s website. No successor to the deceased Respondent has come forward to rebut the Complainant’s prima facie showing or offer 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. 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 was clearly fully aware of the Complainant when registering the disputed domain name; it is undisputed that the Respondent worked for the Complainant as an “IT consultant” when registering the disputed domain name and also evidently in assisting the Complainant in operating the associated website and email accounts, which the Complainant continues to use. The difficulty is that the Complainant must establish that the Respondent acted in bad faith, both in the initial registration as well as in subsequent use of the disputed domain name. The Complainant has not furnished any evidence concerning the terms of the Respondent’s engagement, much less of the mentioned “company policy” that the Respondent was supposed to have violated. The Policy example of bad faith cited by the Complainant, paragraph 4(b)(iii), refers to disrupting the business of a competitor, which does not seem apposite in these circumstances. If this IT consulting relationship persisted for some 18 years, it seems more likely that the parties simply overlooked or failed to resolve an important detail that should have been addressed earlier: the name under which the disputed domain name should be registered. Website developers may register a domain name quickly in their own name, for example, in anticipation of a later transfer to the company when the site is accepted, or when payment is made in full or some other conditions are met. In some cases, the party in question has a stake in the company. Thus, such cases are fact- dependent, and must be accompanied by supporting evidence, and do not always result in a finding of bad faith. The Complainant continues to bear the burden of proof, and in this case the Complainant has not offered evidence to support the inference of the Respondent’s intent, 18 years ago. The evidence in the case file as presented does not indicate that the Respondent’s aim in registering the disputed domain name was to profit from or exploit the Complainant’s trademark. The Panel finds the third element of the Policy has not been established. 3 3 The Panel notes that the Complainant may yet be able to recover the disputed domain name as the current registration expires (including by putting in a backorder) and other potential registrants are arguably on notice of its recent use by a company asserting trademark rights. page 5 7. Decision For the foregoing reasons, the Complaint is denied. /W. Scott Blackmer/ W. Scott Blackmer Sole Panelist Date: June 12, 2026

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