Mar-vell.com

The timeline behind mar-vell.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 Marvell Asia Pte, Ltd. v. David Czinczenheim Claim Number: FA2512002192536 PARTIES Complainant is Marvell Asia Pte, Ltd. ("Complainant"), represented by Lisa Greenwald-Swire of Fish & Richardson P.C., Minnesota, USA. Respondent is David Czinczenheim ("Respondent"), France. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <mar-vell.com>, registered with Domain Stopover 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. Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on December 3, 2025; Forum received payment on December 3, 2025. On December 4, 2025, Domain Stopover LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <mar-vell.com> domain name is registered with Domain Stopover LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Domain Stopover LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Domain Stopover 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 December 9, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 29, 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@mar-vell.com. Also on December 9, 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 formal response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On December 30, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin 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: CONSENT TO TRANSFER Despite Respondent's offer to transfer the disputed domain name, the Panel elects to consider Complainant's entire case, in part due to Respondent's pattern of registering infringing domain names, which is addressed below. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant 1. Respondent's <mar-vell.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's MARVELL mark. 2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <mar-vell.com> domain name. 3. Respondent registered and uses the <mar-vell.com> domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent did not file a Response. FINDINGS Complainant offers data communications products and holds a registration for the MARVELL mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (Reg. No. 2,474,135). Respondent registered the <mar-vell.com> domain name on June 25, 2025, and offers it for sale. 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 Complainant has rights in the MARVELL mark based on registration with the USPTO. See Brooks Sports, Inc. v. Joyce Cheadle, FA 1819065 (Forum Dec. 28, 2018) (finding that Complainant's registration of the BROOKS mark with the USPTO sufficiently conferred its rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). Respondent's <mar-vell.com> domain name uses the MARVELL mark and simply adds a hyphen and a top-level domain. These changes do not sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See ADP, LLC. v. Ella Magal, FA 17738958 (Forum Aug. 2, 2017) ("Respondent's <workforce-now.com> domain name appropriates the dominant portion of Complainant's ADP WORKFORCE NOW mark and adds a hyphen and the gTLD ".com." These changes do not sufficiently distinguish the disputed domain name from the ADP WORKFORCE NOW mark."). The Panel therefore finds that Respondent's <mar-vell.com> domain name confusingly similar to Complainant's MARVELL mark. The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Once Complainant makes a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), 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."). Complainant contends that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <mar-vell.com> domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name and Complainant has not authorized or licensed to Respondent any rights in the MARVELL mark. The WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrants as "David Czinczenheim". Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and thus has no rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Suzen Khan / Nancy Jain / Andrew Stanzy, FA 1741129 (Forum Aug. 16, 2017) (finding that respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names when the identifying information provided by WHOIS was unrelated to the domain names or respondent's use of the same); see also 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)"). Complainant argues that Respondent does not use the <mar-vell.com> domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use as Respondent uses the domain name to offer it for sale. Using a disputed domain name incorporating a registered trademark to simply offer it for sale does not evince a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Citigroup Inc. v. 陈帮财, FA 1716398 (Forum Mar. 27, 2017) (finding that Respondent's offer to sell the domain name provides evidence that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).) Complainant demonstrates that the disputed domain name resolves to an offer to sell it for $3,495. The Panel finds that this is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, and thus Respondent has no rights under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant argues that Respondent registered and uses the <mar-vell.com> domain name in bad faith by offering it for sale for $3,495, an amount in excess of out-of-pocket costs. The Panel agrees and finds bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i). See Vanguard Trademark Holdings USA LLC v. Wang Liqun, FA 1625332 (Forum July 17, 2015) (finding that Respondent's general offer to sell a disputed domain name for an excess of out-of-pocket costs is evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i)). Complainant provides evidence that Respondent has lost 20 previous UDRP cases, and thus the also Panel finds a pattern of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See Provide Com., Inc. v. Jardimar Holdings Corp / Charingola, FA 1502077 (Forum June 27, 2013) ("[T]he existence of previous UDRP decisions where Respondent was found to have registered a domain name in bad faith reveals Respondent's pattern of cybersquatting behavior. The Panel construes Respondent's pattern of such behavior as evidence that Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith as well."). The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied 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 <mar-vell.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist Dated: December 30, 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.