Inautia-boats.com

The timeline behind inautia-boats.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 Boats Group, LLC and Servicios Náuticos En Internet, S.L. v. David James / David James Smith Claim Number: FA2506002159404 PARTIES Complainant is Boats Group, LLC and Servicios Náuticos En Internet, S.L. ("Complainant"), represented by Crystal Genteman of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, Georgia, USA. Respondent is David James / David James Smith ("Respondent"), United Kingdom. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <inautia-boats.com>, registered with Wix.com Ltd. PANEL The undersigned certifies that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Héctor Ariel Manoff as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 5, 2025; Forum received payment on June 6, 2025. On June 17, 2025, Wix.com Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <inautia-boats.com> domain name is registered with Wix.com Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Wix.com Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Wix.com Ltd. 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 June 23, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 14, 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@inautia-boats.com. Also, on June 23, 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 July 15, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Héctor Ariel Manoff 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. PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE COMPLAINANTS There are two Complainants in this matter: Boats Group, LLC and Servicios Náuticos En Internet, S.L. According to the arguments included by Complainant, Servicios Náuticos En Internet, S.L. is a subsidiary of Boats Group, LLC. In addition, since the Complainant's allegations are not disputed, the Panel finds that the allegations of related company are accurate. Previous panels have allowed multiple parties to proceed as one party where they can show a sufficient link to each other. See R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company and RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. v. tony Ross FA2504002149879 (Forum May 2, 2025). The Panel finds that the Complaint's grounds and the lack of responses on the contrary are sufficient to establish a link between the Complainants, and thus it will treat them as a single entity in this proceeding. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant 1- Complainant, Boats Group and Servicios Náuticos, (this last one is a subsidiary of the first company) is the owner of registrations for INAUTIA and iNautia design marks as from 2016 (U.K. Registration No. UK00914369888 and EU Registration No. 14369888). 2- Complainant owns the domain names <inautia.com> and website, as well as the domain names <inautia.fr>, <inautia.it>, <inautia.de>, and <inautia.nl>, which all redirect to the iNautia Website. 3- Complainant is a leader in online marketplaces, digital marketing services, and financial services in the boating industry for nearly three decades. 4- Complainant owns and operates leading websites in the field of boat sales and related information and services, 5- Respondent registered the disputed domain on December 12, 2024, name, well after Complainant's INAUTIA marks were registered (2016). 6- Respondent was using the disputed domain name on a website "iNautia Boats" with a confusingly similar logo to offer competing yacht brokerage services under the business name and website title "iNautia Boats". 7- The disputed domain name wholly incorporates Complainant's INAUTIA marks plus a term that describes the complainant's business. 8- Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. 9- The disputed domain name was registered on bad faith. 10- Respondent's use of the "iNautia Boats" design mark shows bad faith since it is confusingly similar to Complainant's iNautia Design Mark. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Boats Group, LLC and Servicios Náuticos En Internet, S.L. own trademark registration for INAUTIA and iNautia design mark as from at least 2016, the domain names <inautia.com>, <inautia.fr>, <inautia.it>, <inautia.de>, and <inautia.nl>, which are used in connection with marketplaces, digital marketing services, and financial services in the boating industry. Respondent registered the disputed domain name in 2024. Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith. DISCUSSION Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "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." Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred: (1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and (2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (3) 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 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 The Panel finds that the disputed domain name <inautia-boats.com> is nearly identical and confusingly similar to Complainant's INAUTIA marks, in which Complainant has rights. (Exhibit D). The disputed domain name <inautia-boats.com> incorporates Complainant's INAUTIA mark and adds the generic term "boats" along with the generic top-level domain ("gTLD") ".COM". The Panel finds that the term INAUTIA is a fanciful and arbitrary term in relation to marketplaces, digital marketing services, and financial services in the boating industry and it is clear that Respondent knew it belonged to Complainant. Respondent has just added a generic word which is related to the services identified by Complainant's trademark. The Panel finds that the domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark since the additional elements are not sufficiently distinctive. See Microsoft Corporation v. Thong Tran Thanh, FA 1653187 (Forum Jan. 21, 2016) (determining that confusing similarity exists where [a disputed domain name] contains Complainant's entire mark and differs only by the addition of a generic or descriptive phrase and top-level domain, the differences between the domain name and its contained trademark are insufficient to differentiate one from the other for the purposes of the Policy); see also, Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognizable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element"). The Panel also points out that Complainant owns the domain name <inautia.com> (Exhibit E). The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical and confusingly similar to INAUTIA mark, in which Complainant has rights, under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) ("Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests"). The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <inautia-boats.com> domain name because Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use the INAUTIA mark. See Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) ("lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant's mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)"). In addition, Respondent has neither filed a response nor submitted evidence to prove that Respondent has any trademark rights in the <inautia-boats.com> domain name. WHOIS information does not suggest that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name (Exhibit A). Respondent's name in the WHOIS record is listed as "David James" and "David James Smith". This Panel finds that Respondent has never been commonly known by the domain name. The evidence submitted by Complainant shows that Respondent's use of the <inautia-boats.com> domain is not a bona fide offering of goods. (Exhibit K). The disputed domain name seems to have been used to pass itself off as Complainant, to confuse consumers, by including a confusingly similar logo. This Panel agrees with Complainant that Respondent is not using the domain name in connection with a legitimate noncommercial use or fair use under Policy 4(c)(iii). Therefore, the Panel agrees that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names and does not have legitimate interest under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant has proved trademark rights (Exhibit D) and use before the disputed domain name's date of registration (Exhibit A). According to the evidence submitted by Complainant, trademarks INAUTIA were granted in 2016 and the domain name <inautia-boats.com> was created on December 22, 2024. The Panel finds that the registration of the domain name was done with Complainant's mark in mind since the domain name includes it along with a word related to the services identified by Complainant (boats). In addition, Complainant uses the <inautia-boats.com> domain name to promote its services. In the Panel's point of view the cited facts, which were neither responded nor refuted by Respondent, are sufficient evidence to support that the registration of the domain name was registered in bad faith. As regards to the use of the disputed domain name, this Panel also finds that it was done in bad faith. Complainant has submitted evidence to prove that the domain name was used to impersonate Complainant by using a confusingly similar logo (Exhibit K). The Panel concludes that Respondent has the intention of creating an association with Complainant and its services. This Panel concludes that Respondent has registered the domain name with the intent to attract and divert Internet users to the corresponding websites for its own benefit. See Carey Int'l, Inc. v. Kogan, FA 486191 (Forum July 29, 2005) ("[T]he Panel finds that Respondent is capitalizing on the confusing similarity of its domain names to benefit from the valuable goodwill that Complainant has established in its marks. Consequently, it is found that Respondent registered and used the domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)."); The Panel determines that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). DECISION Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <inautia-boats.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Héctor Ariel Manoff, Panelist Dated: July 18, 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.