Costapalmaslawsuits.com

The timeline behind costapalmaslawsuits.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.

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION Desarrolladora La Ribera, S. de R.L. de C.V. v. Muddasar Rasheed / Reputation Results Claim Number: FA2501002137464 PARTIES Complainant is Desarrolladora La Ribera, S. de R.L. de C.V. ("Complainant"), represented by David R. Schwartz of Raines Feldman Littrell LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Muddasar Rasheed / Reputation Results ("Respondent"), Pakistan. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <costapalmaslawsuits.com>, registered with OnlineNIC, Inc. PANEL The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Alan L. Limbury, as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 28, 2025. Forum received payment on January 28, 2025. On February 4, 2025, OnlineNIC, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <costapalmaslawsuits.com> domain name is registered with OnlineNIC, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. OnlineNIC, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the OnlineNIC, Inc. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy"). On February 11, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 3, 2025 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@costapalmaslawsuits.com. Also on February 11, 2025, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts. Having received no response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On March 4, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Alan L. Limbury as Panelist. Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant, Desarrolladora La Ribera, S. de R.L. de C.V, holds trademark registrations for the mark COSTA PALMAS across multiple international classes of goods and services in both the United States in Mexico. The mark has been utilized extensively in commerce in connection with several goods and services, including real estate development and construction, real estate listing and brokerage services and hospitality services. The COSTA PALMAS mark has garnered significant goodwill and recognition. Complainant registered its primary domain name <costapalmas.com> in February 2015. Respondent's <costapalmaslawsuits.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's COSTA PALMAS mark. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <costapalmaslawsuits.com> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name, nor is Respondent making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the domain name. There is no evidence that Respondent has used or intends to use the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The domain is confusingly similar to Complainant's COSTA PALMAS trademark, which Complainant has been using in Mexico since 2007 and in the United States since 2016. Respondent registered the domain name on October 4, 2023 and must be presumed to have known of the COSTA PALMAS trademark because of its, its affiliates, and/or its contractors' own dealings in real estate with Complainant. There is no evidence that Respondent is commonly known by the domain name <costapalmaslawsuits.com> or Costa Palmas and Respondent has not received a license, grant of rights, permission or allowance of any sort from Complainant to use the COSTA PALMAS trademark in a domain name or in any other capacity. To the extent, arguendo, in its response Respondent claims that the domain name is "fair use", "legitimate criticism", or simply an exercise of "First Amendment rights", Respondent's own actions belie that notion. Nowhere in the entirety of the domain name at issue, and the corresponding website associated with the domain name, does Respondent provide language indicating that the COSTA PALMAS marks are owned by Complainant, that Respondent does not claim rights in Complainant's COSTA PALMAS marks, that the site is for the criticism of Respondent [sic], or that the domain name is not affiliated with Complainant. To succeed with this defense, those factors must be made clear to the site user. See Robo Enters., Inc. v. Tobiason, FA 95857 (Forum Dec. 24, 2000), holding that the domain name must 'on its face make some indication that the site is not the site of the service mark holder but is instead a site for the criticism of the service mark holder.' As alleged herein, they are not. As such, Respondent cannot avail itself to a "fair use" defense to this dispute. Respondent registered the domain name primarily to disrupt the business of Complainant or to attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent's website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark. Evidence of bad faith is further supported by the content Respondent has posted on the website at "www.costapalmaslawsuits.com", which consists of copies of lawsuits that one aggrieved group of plaintiffs and or their affiliates, related parties, and subcontractors have filed. Respondent has set up the website utilizing the domain name for the sole purpose of making spurious allegations and causing harm to Complainant's business. Complainant has sold luxury homes under the COSTA PALMAS mark for nearly a decade. Buyers of such properties include prominent celebrities, athletes, entertainers and financiers. Respondent's site seeks to portray Complainant's business as some kind of rogue, lawless outfit, with the sole purpose of disparagement and to cause economic harm to Complainant. The site states that Complainant and its affiliated U.S. entity Irongate are operating a "Ponzi scheme", likens Complainant's CEO to "Bernie Madoff", and makes numerous other illegitimate accusations. Further, Respondent has created a "content farm" from this site, placing additional links therein to amplify the site's baseless claims and defamatory statements utilizing search engine optimization. The intended and actual result of this unlawful conduct is that when consumers search for Complainant's site, they would then be directed to Respondent's sites instead. It appears that the domain name has been registered by Respondent for nefarious purposes, namely, publicizing meritless lawsuits, for the express purposes of damaging the goodwill of Complainant's marks. Such registration appears to have been conducted in bad faith, was willfully done to harm the reputation of Complainant's marks, and is in violation of ICANN's policies, United States federal law, California state law, and numerous other applicable laws and regulations. By maintaining the domain name, Respondent seeks to damage Complainant and profit from Respondent's bad faith actions, hoping that Respondent's bad behavior will be rewarded by Complainant paying for Respondent to go away. Thankfully, the UDRP rules exist precisely to thwart such abusive behavior. Respondent's registration of the domain name was for the express commercial purpose of extracting a better deal from Complainant in litigation. Respondent's commercial purpose is to publicize the litigation to obtain a financial gain. The domain name was registered by Respondent in bad faith and is being utilized in bad faith. Per Policy ¶ 4(b), of the four circumstances that can be relied on to demonstrate bad faith, Respondent is clearly in violation of factor (iii), i.e., it was registered to disrupt the business of a competitor. Respondent's registration of the domain name was and continues to be for a bad faith purpose. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant has established all the elements entitling it to relief. DISCUSSION Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable." Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that the domain name should be cancelled or transferred: (i) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and (ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (iii)the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. In view of Respondent's failure to submit a Response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences as it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations set forth in a complaint. However, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) ('Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint'). Identical and/or Confusingly Similar Complainant has shown that it has rights in the COSTA PALMAS mark through numerous registrations in Mexico and with the USPTO (e.g., Mexico Reg. No. 1019379 registered on December 19, 2007 and USPTO Reg. No. 5,633,308, registered on December 18, 2018). 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 Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Overview 3.0 "), section 1.7. The Panel finds Respondent's <costapalmaslawsuits.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to Complainant's COSTA PALMAS mark, only differing by the addition of the word "lawsuits" which is insufficient to distinguish the domain name from Complainant's mark. The inconsequential ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD") may be ignored under this element. See, for example, Rollerblade, Inc. v. Chris McCrady, WIPO Case No. D2000-0429. Complainant has established this element. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy sets out three illustrative circumstances as examples which, if established by Respondent, shall demonstrate rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, i.e. (i) before any notice to Respondent of the dispute, the use by Respondent of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or (ii) Respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert customers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue. There is no evidence in support of sub-paragraphs 4(c)(i) or (ii). As to sub-paragraph 4(c)(iii), the <costapalmaslawsuits.com> domain name was registered on October 4, 2023, many years after the registrations of Complainant's mark. It resolves to a website headed "Costa Palmas Fraud – Consumer Beware COSTA PALMAS ALLEGED FRAUD LAWSUITS", followed by a list of lawsuits against Complainant alleging inter alia fraud, extortion and contract interference, and stating that Complainant's affiliated U.S. entity Irongate is operating a "Ponzi scheme". Complainant submits that Respondent cannot avail itself of a "fair use" defence, citing Robo Enterprises, Inc. v. Orvin Tobiason, FA0010000095857 (Forum Dec. 24, 2000), holding that the domain name must 'on its face make some indication that the site is not the site of the service mark holder but is instead a site for the criticism of the service mark holder.' The panelist in Robo Enterprises, Inc. v. Orvin Tobiason found 'A critical issue to be determined in cases of this kind is whether the domain name in question itself signifies critical purposes, as opposed to imitation of the service mark. See Wal Mart Stores, Inc. v. wallmartcanadasucks.com and Kenneth J. Harvey, D2000-1104 (WIPO Nov. 23, 2000).' The Panel is not satisfied that the <costapalmaslawsuits.com> domain name itself indicates that it is not the site of Complainant, nor that it signifies critical purposes, since the domain name could well be used by Complainant to comment on lawsuits in which it was a party. Although it is immediately apparent to Internet users visiting Respondent's website at the domain name that it is not operated by the owner of the mark, the domain name is likely to give rise to initial interest confusion amongst Internet users who mistakenly expect to reach a website operated by Complainant. These circumstances, together with Complainant's assertions, are sufficient to constitute a prima facie showing of absence of rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name on the part of Respondent. The evidentiary burden therefore shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the <costapalmaslawsuits.com> domain name. See JUUL Labs, Inc. v. Dryx Emerson / KMF Events LTD, FA1906001849706 (Forum July 17, 2019). Respondent has made no attempt to do so. The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name. Complainant has established this element. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy is expressed in the conjunctive: "the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith". Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out four illustrative circumstances, which, though not exclusive, shall be evidence of the registration and use of the domain name in bad faith for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, including: (i) you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor. The term "competitor" is not limited to competitors who compete for commercial gain. "The fact that the terms of paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy, unlike those of paragraph 4(b)(iv), do not require that a party be motivated by 'commercial gain' further supports the fact that the genre of competition referred to need not be commercial." See Estee Lauder Inc. v. estelauder.com, estelauder.net and Jeff Hanna, D2000-0869 (WIPO Sept. 25, 2000). "The natural meaning of the word 'competitor' is one who acts in opposition to another and the context does not imply or demand any restricted meaning such as a commercial or business competitor." See Mission KwaSizabantu v. Benjamin Rost, D2000-0279 (WIPO June 7, 2000). The circumstances set out above in relation to the second element satisfy the Panel that Respondent was fully aware of Complainant's COSTA PALMAS mark when Respondent registered the <costapalmaslawsuits.com> domain name and that Respondent did so primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor. This demonstrates registration and use in bad faith to attract users for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). Complainant has established this element. DECISION Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <costapalmaslawsuits.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Alan L. Limbury, Panelist Dated: March 6, 2025 Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page. Click Here to return to our Home Page

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