Mastercraft-wake.com

The timeline behind mastercraft-wake.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 MasterCraft Boat Company, LLC v. Natasha Luzkova Claim Number: FA2601002201279 PARTIES Complainant is MasterCraft Boat Company, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Jordan T. Newport of Egerton, McAfee, Armistead, & Davis, P.C., Tennessee, USA. Respondent is Natasha Luzkova ("Respondent"), Russia. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <mastercraft-wake.com> ('the Domain Name'), registered with Internet Domain Service BS Corp. 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. Dawn Osborne as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 22, 2026; Forum received payment on January 22, 2026. On January 28, 2026, Internet Domain Service BS Corp confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <mastercraft-wake.com> Domain Name is registered with Internet Domain Service BS Corp and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Internet Domain Service BS Corp has verified that Respondent is bound by the Internet Domain Service BS Corp 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 2, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 23, 2026 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@mastercraft-wake.com. Also on February 2, 2026, 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 February 24, 2026 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Dawn Osborne 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 The Complainant is the owner of the mark MASTERCRAFT registered, inter alia, in the USA for water sport boats and related goods and services since 1994. The Domain Name registered in 2024 is confusingly similar to the Complainant's mark adding only the generic term 'wake' which is both a type of boat and a type of water sport, a hyphen and the gTLD .com which do not prevent such confusing similarity. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, is not commonly known by it and is not authorised by the Complainant. The Domain Name is being used to impersonate the Complainant and points to a site purporting to be an official site of the Complainant using the Complainant's trade mark in its logo form as a masthead and material taken from the Complainant's web site which cannot be legitimate. This is registration and use in bad faith diverting and confusing Internet users in full knowledge of the Complainant and its rights and disrupting the Complainant's business. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS The Complainant is the owner of the mark MASTERCRAFT registered, inter alia, in the USA for water sport boats and related goods and services since 1994. The Domain Name registered in 2024 is being used to impersonate the Complainant and points to a site purporting to be an official site of the Complainant using the Complainant's trade mark in its logo form as a masthead and material taken from the Complainant's web site. 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 Domain Name consists of the Complainant's MASTERCRAFT mark (which is registered in USA for watersport boats and related goods and services since 1994), a hyphen, the generic term 'wake' and the gTLD .com. Adding a hyphen does not prevent confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant's mark. See Health Devices Corp. v Aspen STC, FA 158254 (Forum July 1, 2003) ("the addition of punctuation marks such as hyphens is irrelevant in the determination of confusing similarity pursuant to Policy 4(a)(i)."). Previous panels have found confusing similarity when a respondent merely adds a generic term to a Complainant's mark. See PG&E Corp. v Anderson, D2000-1264 (WIPO Nov. 22, 2000) (finding that respondent does not by adding common descriptive or generic terms create new or different marks nor does it alter the underlying mark held by the Complainant). The Panel agrees that the addition of the generic term 'wake' to the Complainant's mark does not distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant's trade mark pursuant to the Policy. The gTLD .com does not serve to distinguish a domain name from a complainant's mark. See Red Hat Inc v Haecke, FA 726010 (Forum July 24, 2006) (concluding that the redhat.org domain name is identical to the complainant's red hat mark because the mere addition of the gTLD was insufficient to differentiate the disputed domain name from the mark). Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's registered mark. As such the Panel holds that Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant has not authorised the use of its mark. There is no evidence or reason to suggest the Respondent is, in fact, commonly known by the Domain Name. See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA 1574905 (Forum Sept. 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark). The use of the Domain Name is commercial and so is not legitimate non-commercial fair use. The web site attached to the Domain Name uses the Complainant's mark in its logo form as a masthead and material copied from the Complainant's site to impersonate the Complainant and purport to offer the Complainant's goods. The Panel finds this use is deceptive and confusing. As such it did not amount to the bona fide offering of goods and services. See iFinex Inc. v Yuri Heifetz/Genie-Solution, FA 1789385 (Forum July 9, 2018) (holding that the respondent's mimicking the complainant's web site in order to cause existing or potential customers of the Complainant's to believe they are dealing with the complainant is prima facie evidence of the respondent's lack of rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name). See also Bittrex, Inc. v. Caroline Alves Maia, FA 1796113 (Forum Aug. 6, 2018) (finding the respondent's attempt to pass itself of as the complainant was not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) when the respondent used the disputed domain name to present users with a website that was "virtually identical, with the same color scheme, the same layout and the same substantive content"). The purpose of the site appears to be phishing which cannot be a bona fide offering of goods and services or a legitimate non-commercial fair use. (See DaVita Inc. v Cynthia Rochelo, FA 1738034 (Forum July 20, 2017) finding that "Passing off in furtherance of a phishing scheme is not considered a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate non-commercial or fair use"). The Respondent has not answered the Complaint or rebutted the prima facie case evidenced by the Complainant as set out herein. As such the Panelist finds that the Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy. Registration and Use in Bad Faith In the opinion of the Panel the use made of the Domain Name in relation to the Respondent's site is confusing and disruptive in that visitors to the site might reasonably believe it is connected to or approved by the Complainant as it purports to offer the Complainant's goods and/or services using material copied from the Complainant's site and using the Complainant's mark in its logo form as a masthead to impersonate the Complainant. The use of the Complainant's logo and material copied from the Complainant's site shows that the Respondent had actual knowledge of the Complainant and its business, products and rights. Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to her website by creating a likelihood of confusion, inter alia, with the Complainant's trade mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the web site likely to disrupt the business of the Complainant. See Allianz of AM. Corp v Bond, FA 680624 (Forum June 2, 2006) (finding bad faith registration and use where the respondent was diverting Internet users searching for the complainant to its own website). Further phishing is evidence of bad faith registration and use within the Policy 4(a)(iii). See Klabzuba Oil & Gas, Inc v LAKHPAT SINGH BHANDARI, FA 1625750 (Forum July 17, 2015). As such, the Panelist believes that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith and has satisfied the third limb of the Policy under Paragraphs 4(b)(iii) and (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 <mastercraft-wake.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Dawn Osborne, Panelist Dated: February 24, 2026 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.