Lafitnessculture.com

The timeline behind lafitnessculture.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 Fitness International, LLC v. Maris Gravitis Claim Number: FA2508002174164 PARTIES Complainant is Fitness International, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by C. Wook Pak of Cislo & Thomas LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Maris Gravitis ("Respondent"), Great Britain. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <lafitnessculture.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC. 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. Richard Hill as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on August 28, 2025; Forum received payment on August 28, 2025. On August 28, 2025, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <lafitnessculture.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, LLC 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 September 2, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 22, 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@lafitnessculture.com. Also on September 2, 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 September 23, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Richard Hill 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 states that it has been providing a superior fitness experience since 1989 and is currently using its mark and operating nationwide in over twenty (20) states. Its facilities contain state-of-the-art equipment and cardio areas, and there are group fitness classes offered throughout the day, including specialty classes such as yoga, cycling, mat pilates, kickbox cardio, aqua aerobics, and more, along with personal training services, and racquetball and basketball courts. Complainant's LA FITNESS clubs are premier health clubs that receive consistent and laudable recognition and accolades from consumers as the best fitness centers and health clubs in several geographic areas. Furthermore, Complainant advertises in the United States and Canada via its Internet website <www.lafitness.com>. This website also provides information about its fitness centers and health clubs, its group fitness and personal training opportunities, member tools, and social media links including a podcast and a blog on fitness, nutrition, and motivation. Complainant asserts rights in the mark LA FITNESS through its registration in the United States in 2000. According to Complainant, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its LA FITNESS mark as it incorporates the mark in its entirety, while merely adding the generic/descriptive term "culture", and the ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD"). Complainant alleges that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name nor has Respondent been authorized by Complainant to use its mark. Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use. Instead, the resolving website purports to promote services that compete with those of Complainant. The "contact us" page may be used in furtherance of phishing. Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. The resolving website purports to offer services that compete with those of Complainant. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in its mark. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant has rights in the mark LA FITNESS dating back to at least 2000 and uses it to provide fitness centers and related services. The disputed domain name was registered in 2024. Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark. The resolving website purports to offer services that compete with those of Complainant. 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 disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's LA FITNESS mark in its entirety, merely adding the generic/descriptive term "culture", and the ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLDs"). Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), adding a gTLD and/or generic/descriptive terms a is generally insufficient in differentiating a disputed domain name from the mark it incorporates. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognisable 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."); see also Vanguard Group Inc. v. Proven Fin. Solutions, FA 572937 (Forum Nov. 18, 2005) (holding that the addition of both the word "advisors" and the gTLD ".com" did not sufficiently alter the disputed domain name to negate a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Complainant to use its mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), relevant WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Fred Wallace, FA 1626022 (Forum July 27, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <chevron-europe.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), as the WHOIS information named "Fred Wallace" as registrant of the disputed domain name). Here, the WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as "Maris Gravitis". Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). The resolving website purports to offer services that compete with the services offered by Complainant. Panels have held that using another's mark to resolve to a website that offers products or services in competition with a Complainant's business is not using the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Coachella Music Festival, LLC v. josh greenly / All Access Tickets, FA 1629217 (Forum Aug. 10, 2015) (finding that the respondent had failed to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name as required under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii), where the respondent was using the disputed domain name to host a web page that featured links to services that competed with those of the complainant); see also See General Motors LLC v. MIKE LEE, FA 1659965 (Forum Mar. 10, 2016) (finding that "use of a domain to sell products and/or services that compete directly with a complainant's business does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)"). Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). And the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant's contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant's mark. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent's failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain name. Indeed, as already noted, the resolving website purports to offer competing services. This constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Asbury Auto Group Inc v Tex. Int'l Prop Assocs FA 958542 (Forum May 29, 2007) (finding that the respondent's use of the disputed domain name to compete with the complainant's business would likely lead to confusion amongst Internet users as to the sponsorship or affiliation of a competing business and was therefore evidence of bad faith and use); see also See Xylem Inc. and Xylem IP Holdings LLC v. YinSi BaoHu YiKaiQi, FA 1612750 (Forum May 13, 2015) ("The Panel agrees that Respondent's use of the website to display products similar to Complainant's, imputes intent to attract Internet users for commercial gain, and finds bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)."). Accordingly, the Panel finds bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). 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 <lafitnessculture.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Richard Hill, Panelist Dated: September 23, 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.