Subzerowolfprofessionalrepair.com

The timeline behind subzerowolfprofessionalrepair.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 Sub-Zero, Inc. and Wolf Appliance, Inc. v. Rinat Bermileev Claim Number: FA2601002201553 PARTIES Complainant is Sub-Zero, Inc. and Wolf Appliance, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Bianca L. Ascolese of Foley & Lardner LLP, Wisconsin, USA. Respondent is Rinat Bermileev ("Respondent"), represented by David Ludwig of DUNLAP BENNETT & LUDWIG, Virginia, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <subzerowolfprofessionalrepair.com>, registered with NameCheap, 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. Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 23, 2026; Forum received payment on January 23, 2026. On January 26, 2026, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <subzerowolfprofessionalrepair.com> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, 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 January 30, 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@subzerowolfprofessionalrepair.com. Also on January 30, 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. A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on February 23, 2026. On February 24, 2026, pursuant to the Parties' requests to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. as Panelist. On February 25, 2026, Complainant submitted an unsolicited additional submission. 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. 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: Sub-Zero, Inc. and Wolf Appliance, Inc.. The relevant rules governing multiple complainants are UDRP Rule 3(a) and Forum's Supplemental Rule 1(e). UDRP Rule 3(a) states, "Any person or entity may initiate an administrative proceeding by submitting a complaint." Forum's Supplemental Rule 1(e) defines "The Party Initiating a Complaint Concerning a Domain Name Registration" as a "single person or entity claiming to have rights in the domain name, or multiple persons or entities who have a sufficient nexus who can each claim to have rights to all domain names listed in the Complaint." The Panel notes that it has been accepted that it is permissible for two complainants to submit a single complaint if they can demonstrate a link between the two entities, such as a relationship involving a license, a partnership, or an affiliation that would establish the reason for the parties bringing the complaint as one entity. Complainants argue that Sub-Zero, Inc. and Wolf Appliance, Inc. have a sufficient nexus because they are related companies that are both wholly owned by the same parent entity, SUB-ZERO Group, Inc. They both have claims to the disputed domain name because their respective trademarks are featured within them. Allowing them to proceed jointly under these circumstances is consistent with prior Forum decisions. As the Panel accepts that the evidence in the Complaint is sufficient to establish a sufficient nexus or link between Complainants, it treats them all as a single entity in this proceeding. Complainants will be collectively referred to as "Complainant." PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant (i) Complainant is a global leader in high-end residential kitchen appliances and related repair services, having exclusively used SUB-ZERO mark since 1945. Continuously and exclusively since at least as early as 2001, Wolf Appliance, Inc. has used WOLF as a trademark, alone or in combination with other word and/or design elements, in connection with various high-end residential kitchen appliances and related repair, installation, and maintenance services. Further, continuously and exclusively since at least as early as 2019, Sub-Zero Group has used COVE as a trademark, alone or in combination with other design elements, in connection with high-end residential dishwashers. Complainant holds numerous trademark registrations, inter alia, for the mark SUB-ZERO with the USPTO (Reg. No. 1,543,399, registered June 13, 1989) in the name of SUB-ZERO, INC.; for the mark WOLF (Reg. No. 2,698,313, registered March 18, 2003) in the name of WOLF APPLIANCE, INC.; and for the mark COVE (Reg. No. 5,782,012, registered June 18, 2019) in the name of SUB-ZERO GROUP, INC. Since 2003, Complainant has operated its official website providing authorized information on SUB-ZERO products and services. Due to extensive promotion and top-tier quality, SUB-ZERO marks have achieved significant sales and recognition. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark as it incorporates the identical SUB-ZERO house mark with the removal of the hyphen between SUB and ZERO, and the identical WOLF house mark. The only additional differences between the disputed domain name and the SUB-ZERO and WOLF marks are the addition of the highly descriptive, if not generic, terms "professional" and "repair," and the generic top-level domain extension ".com." (ii) Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the name, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use SUB-ZERO mark. Respondent's use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services because it intentionally misleads consumers into believing the website is affiliated with Complainant. The website located at the disputed domain name prominently displays, without authorization, the SUB-ZERO, WOLF, and COVE marks, including the official SUB-ZERO, WOLF, and COVE logo marks, in combination with the trade names "SUB-ZERO WOLF PROFESSIONAL REPAIR" and "SUBZERO WOLF PROFESSIONAL REPAIR." Respondent uses the disputed domain name to offer competing repair and maintenance services for SUB-ZERO, WOLF, and COVE brand residential kitchen appliances. The website located at the disputed domain name prominently and falsely claims that Respondent's "certified technicians are equipped to handle all your appliance needs with precision and care," and that its technicians "are certified to service and repair your SUBZERO, WOLF, and COVE appliances." The absence of a disclaimer falsely suggests that Respondent is the trademark owner or is officially sponsored by Complainant. Such blatant misappropriation to offer competing services for profit disqualifies any claim to legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). (iii) Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Evidence shows that Respondent "intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users," to its website "by creating a likelihood of confusion with the SUB-ZERO, WOLF, and COVE marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement," of said website under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). Respondent's attempt to pass itself off as Complainant and offer competing services disrupts Complainant's business and indicates bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). Additionally, Respondent is a repeat bad faith filer of domains incorporating SUB-ZERO and WOLF marks. Respondent had actual knowledge or at least constructive notice of Complainant's exclusive rights in the SUB-ZERO, WOLF, and COVE marks prior to registering the disputed domain name due to the long-standing USPTO registrations that predated the disputed domain name's registration. B. Respondent (i) Respondent focuses its arguments on legitimate nominative fair use rather than distinguishing the disputed domain name from Complainant's marks, though it does not concede confusing similarity for future proceedings. (ii) Respondent asserts that its use of the disputed domain name constitutes a classic example of nominative fair use as a third-party repair company actually servicing Complainant's products. Respondent denies employing "bait-and-switch" tactics, noting it has added prominent disclaimers and removed language that could create a false impression of a relationship with Complainant. Furthermore, Respondent is not attempting to "corner the market" in SUB-ZERO domain names. (iii) Respondent actually offers repair services for Complainant's machines using genuine OEM parts. Serving other appliances does not violate the policy of OKI DATA test, as the goal is to avoid deceptive diversion. It is illogical to suggest that a user seeking a SUB-ZERO refrigerator repair would be diverted to buy or repair a competing product. (iv) Any previous misleading statements were inadvertent errors by third-party copywriters or have been removed. Respondent is in the process of retooling its website to address the issues Complainants have raised, including adding a conspicuous disclaimer. The disclaimer in the center of the website now states: SUB-ZERO WOLF Professional Repair is an independent appliance repair service. We are NOT affiliated with, authorized by, or endorsed by SUB-ZERO Group, Inc., WOLF Appliance, Inc., or COVE Appliance. All brand names, logos, and trademarks are property of their respective owners. For official manufacturer service, visit subzero-wolf.com. (v) Respondent does hold several certifications and references to being "certified" were intended to reference these certifications. In fact, none of these certification or training statements suggest that Respondent uses technicians certified by Complainants, just that they are certified and competent to fix Respondent's appliances. (vi) Complainants used the SUB-ZERO, WOLF, and COVE logos in direct proximity to the statements "we repair all [SUB-ZERO, WOLF, and COVE respectively] models." Consumers were unlikely to read these statements as indicating that Respondent is SUB-ZERO, WOLF, and COVE, who clearly would work with all of their own models. These were not, as Complainants contend, intentional attempts to pass Respondent off as associated with Complainants. (vii) Respondent did not register the domain in bad faith. As an independent repair service, Respondent is not a cybersquatter but a legitimate competitor. Bad faith is frequently not found where a respondent uses a mark in a nominatively fair manner. Previous decisions cited by Complainant are inapposite, as they often involved respondents who failed to file a response. (viii) There is ample evidence of good faith in this matter. Respondent's webpage includes a disclaimer that explicitly links to Complainant's webpage as the official page of Complainant. Respondent has fully removed all statements Complainant has raised in order to address them and lessen any likelihood that consumers would be confused as to the source or origin of Respondent's repair services. C. Complainant's Additional Submission Although on February 25, 2026, Complainant submitted an unsolicited additional submission, the Panel has not considered it. FINDINGS 1. The disputed domain name was registered on February 16, 2024. 2. Complainant has established rights, inter alia, for the mark SUB-ZERO with the USPTO (Reg. No. 1,543,399, registered June 13, 1989) in the name of SUB-ZERO, INC.; for the mark WOLF (Reg. No. 2,698,313, registered March 18, 2003) in the name of WOLF APPLIANCE, INC.; and for the mark COVE (Reg. No. 5,782,012, registered June 18, 2019) in the name of SUB-ZERO GROUP, INC. 3. As of January 22, 2026, the website located at the disputed domain name featuring: (i) offers kitchen appliance repair services for SUB-ZERO, WOLF, and COVE brand appliances. (ii) prominently displays, without authorization, SUB-ZERO, WOLF, and COVE marks including its trade name "SUB-ZERO WOLF PROFESSIONAL REPAIR." (iii) does not contain a disclaimer that discloses Respondent's lack of relationship with Complainant. 4. As of February 23, 2026, Respondent amended the contents of the website located at the disputed domain name thereby featuring: (i) added a disclaimer in the center of the website now states: SUB-ZERO WOLF Professional Repair is an independent appliance repair service. We are NOT affiliated with, authorized by, or endorsed by SUB-ZERO Group, Inc., WOLF Appliance, Inc., or COVE Appliance. All brand names, logos, and trademarks are property of their respective owners. For official manufacturer service, visit subzero-wolf.com. (ii) removed statements Complainants have raised in order to address them and lessen any likelihood that consumers would be confused as to the source or origin of Respondent's repair services. (iii) displays a notice: "Site will be available soon. Thank you for your patience!" 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. Identical and/or Confusingly Similar Complainant asserts rights inter alia, for the mark SUB-ZERO with the USPTO (Reg. No. 1,543,399, registered June 13, 1989) in the name of SUB-ZERO, INC.; for the mark WOLF (Reg. No. 2,698,313, registered March 18, 2003) in the name of WOLF APPLIANCE, INC.; and for the mark COVE (Reg. No. 5,782,012, registered June 18, 2019) in the name of SUB-ZERO GROUP, INC. Registration of a mark with the USPTO constitutes prima facie evidence of valid rights in a mark. In view of the evidence of registration of the SUB-ZERO, WOLF, and COVE marks submitted by Complainant, the Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in the marks under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Complainant contends that the disputed domain name <subzerowolfprofessionalrepair.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant's SUB-ZERO and WOLF marks because it incorporates Complainant's marks, with the removal of the hyphen between SUB and ZERO, adding the highly descriptive if not generic terms "professional" and "repair," and the generic top-level domain extension ".com." The Panel agrees and finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's SUB-ZERO and WOLF marks 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 Section 2.1, WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.1 ("Where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element."). Complainant claims that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, as Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant's SUB-ZERO mark and WOLF marks is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Where a Response is lacking, WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). The unmasked WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as "Rinat Bermileev." Moreover, there is no evidence in the record suggesting that Respondent is authorized to use the marks. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Complainant contends that Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. According to Complainant, Respondent misleads consumers by promoting competing repair and maintenance services for SUB-ZERO, WOLF, and COVE brand residential kitchen appliances. Furthermore, Complainant argues that the absence of a disclaimer falsely suggests that Respondent is the trademark owner or is otherwise sponsored by or affiliated with Complainant. This use of the confusingly similar domain name to offer competing services for profit constitutes a blatant misappropriation of SUB-ZERO, WOLF, and COVE marks. Complainant asserts that Respondent is intentionally attempting to create a likelihood of confusion as to the source or endorsement of the website, thereby disqualifying any claim to legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). The Panel accepts Complainant's contentions by virtue of the screenshot of the disputed domain name's resolving website captured as of January 22, 2026, shortly prior to the filing of the Complaint. Given the considerations above, the Panel finds that Complainant has established a prima facie case. As the burden of proof now shifts to Respondent, the Panel must determine if Respondent has rebutted the prima facie case and demonstrated a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. Respondent contends that it has rights and legitimate interests under OKI DATA test because it actually offers repair services for SUB-ZERO, WOLF, and COVE products. Respondent has added a conspicuous disclaimer in the center of the website now states: SUB-ZERO WOLF Professional Repair is an independent appliance repair service. We are NOT affiliated with, authorized by, or endorsed by SUB-ZERO Group, Inc., WOLF Appliance, Inc., or COVE Appliance. All brand names, logos, and trademarks are property of their respective owners. For official manufacturer service, visit subzero-wolf.com. Respondent asserts that any previously misleading statements were inadvertent errors. Notably, Respondent modified the website to align with bona fide nominative fair use. Respondent denies attempting to "corner the market," noting that registering only two domain names does not amount to serial bad faith filing. The Panel notes that adding a disclaimer and the removal of references of likelihood of confusion as to the relationship or authorization or affiliation with Complainant were made only after receiving the Complaint, i.e., as shown in the screenshot of the disputed domain name's resolving website captured on February 23, 2026. Under the UDRP, the mainstream position (the "consensus view") is that whether a respondent has a legitimate interest or acted in bad faith is determined based on the facts as they existed at the time of the filing of the Complaint. see WIPO Overview 3.1, Section 2.11 ("Although the historical use of a domain name may be relevant to assessing the parties' claims, panels tend to assess claimed respondent rights or legitimate interests at the time of the filing of the complaint, but would also consider any evidence of past use, including its veracity and surrounding context."). If Respondent attempts to "fix" the issues, such as by adding a disclaimer or removing infringing content, after receiving notice of the Complaint, such actions are generally viewed as "belated," and do not insulate Respondent from a finding of bad faith or lack of legitimate interests. Rights are evaluated based on the usage prior to notice of the dispute. Belated changes are often considered self-serving and tactical rather than bona fide. The OKI DATA test (Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2001-0090) sets strict requirements for authorized or unauthorized resellers to establish legitimate interests. One of the core requirements is that Respondent must actually use the site for the sale of the trademarked goods and must provide a clear and prominent disclaimer. As Respondent added disclaimers and removed references to factory training only after the Complaint was filed, it fails the OKI DATA test because (i) the use was not bona fide at the time the dispute arose; (ii) the lack of a disclaimer at the time of filing proves that the initial use was intended to capitalize on Complainant's mark; and (iii) modifications made under the pressure of litigation are easily reversible. A respondent could simply remove a disclaimer or restore infringing links immediately after a Complaint is denied. Respondent further asserts that any previous misleading statements were inadvertent errors by third-party copywriters or have been removed. However, the Panel does not accept Respondent's argument on the grounds that Respondent bears the ultimate responsibility to verify and control the content created by third-party copywriters. The Panel concludes that Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Since the Panel finds that Respondent has failed to rebut the prima facie case against it, it concludes that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant contends that the evidence in this case clearly shows that Respondent "intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users," to its website located at the disputed domain name "by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's SUB-ZERO, WOLF and COVE marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement," of said website under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). Respondent's use of the confusingly similar disputed domain name to operate a webpage in an attempt to pass itself off as Complainant, as affiliated with Complainant, or as officially sponsored or authorized by or connected with Complainant, and to offer directly competing services for commercial gain is likely to cause customer confusion, disrupt Complainant's businesses, and indicates Respondent's bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). In rebutting Complainant's contentions, Respondent argues that Respondent is using the marks in a disputed domain in a nominatively fair manner. Panels have held that the actions of a respondent in using a disputed domain in connection with legitimate third-party services are not the actions of a bad faith cybersquatter. There is ample evidence to indicate that Respondent did not register the disputed domain in bad faith. As discussed above, Respondent is involved in the legitimate business of offering repair services for Complainant's products. And Respondent removed any statements that consumers would be confused as to the source or origin of Respondent's repair services. However, as previously noted, Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. For the reasons as specifically discussed under the heading "Rights or Legitimate Interests" above, the Panel finds that Respondent misleads consumers by promoting competing repair services for SUB-ZERO, WOLF, COVE appliances. Although Respondent added a disclaimer and removed any statements that consumers would be confused as to the source or origin of Respondent's repair services only after the Complaint was filed, whether a respondent has a legitimate interest or acted in bad faith is determined based on the facts as they existed at the time of the filing of the Complaint. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent's use of the confusingly similar disputed domain name to operate a webpage in an attempt to pass itself off as Complainant, as affiliated with Complainant, or as officially sponsored or authorized by or connected with Complainant, and to offer directly competing services for commercial gain is likely to cause customer confusion, disrupt Complainant's businesses, and indicates Respondent's bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name under Policy ¶¶ 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 <subzerowolfprofessionalrepair.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. __________________________________________________________________ Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist Dated: February 27, 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.