Subzerobocaraton.com

The timeline behind subzerobocaraton.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. v. Ray Juhren / M&R Appliance Service Claim Number: FA2602002203861 PARTIES Complainant is Sub-Zero, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Alexander J. Liederman of Foley & Lardner LLP, Wisconsin, USA. Respondent is Ray Juhren / M&R Appliance Service ("Respondent"), Florida, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <subzerobocaraton.com> ('the Domain Name'), registered with Tucows Domains Inc. 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 February 5, 2026; Forum received payment on February 5, 2026. On February 6, 2026, Tucows Domains Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <subzerobocaraton.com> Domain Name is registered with Tucows Domains Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Tucows Domains Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Tucows Domains 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 February 10, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 2, 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@subzerobocaraton.com. Also on February 10, 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 March 3, 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's contentions can be summarised as follows: The Complainant is the owner of the trade mark SUB-ZERO registered, inter alia, in the USA for refrigerators and refrigerator repair services since 1989 with first use recorded as 1945. The Domain Name registered in 2011 is confusingly similar to the Complainant's mark incorporating that mark without its hyphen, and adding the generic geographical term 'Boca Raton' and the gTLD .com none of which distinguishes the Domain Name from the Complainant's mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name and has no permission from the Complainant to use the Complainant's marks. The Domain Name is being used for a site offering competing services to those of the Complainant using the Complainant's trade mark prominently in its masthead. The site does not make it clear that the service are not associated with the Complainant and states that it is a "certified Sub Zero service and repair company" and uses the Complainant's SUB-ZERO and WOLF trade marks in their logo form. This is not a bona fide offering of goods and services or a noncommercial legitimate fair use. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. The Respondent registered the Domain Name to direct it to a site with the Complainant's mark incorporated in its masthead, confusing wording, no disclaimer and use of the Complainant's SUB-ZERO and WOLF logo marks to confuse Internet users into believing the web site and the Domain Name are licensed by or otherwise associated with the Complainant. The Domain Name has been registered and used in bad faith to confuse Internet users and disrupt the Complainant's business. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS The Complainant is the owner of the trade mark SUB-ZERO registered, inter alia, in the USA for refrigerators and refrigeration repair services since 1989 with first use recorded as 1945. The Domain Name registered in 2011 is being used for a site offering competing services to those of the Complainant using the Complainant's trade mark prominently in its masthead. The site does not make it clear that the service are not associated with the Complainant and states that it is a "certified Sub Zero service and repair company" and uses the Complainant's SUB-ZERO and WOLF trade marks in their logo form. 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 consist of the Complainant's SUB-ZERO mark (registered in the USA for refrigerators and related repair and maintenance services since 1989 with first use recorded as 1945), without its hyphen with the addition of the generic geographical term 'Boca Raton' and the gTLD .com. The addition of a generic term does not prevent confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant's trade mark pursuant to the Policy. See Empowered Medical Solutions, Inc. d/b/a QRS-Direct and QRS Magnovit AG v. NULL NULL / QUANTRON RESONANCE SYSTEMS / JIM ANDERSON / HTR / unknown HTR / HTR, FA 1784937 (Forum June 8, 2018) ("Adding or removing descriptive terms or a gTLD is insufficient to differentiate a disputed domain name from a complainant's mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)."). Additionally, the omission of a hyphen in a protected mark is irrelevant when determining the confusing similarity of a disputed domain name. See MTD Products Inc v ICS Inc, FA 1721505 (Forum Apr. 18, 2017) (holding that "[t]he removal of the hyphen [from complainant's TROY-BILT mark in the disputed domain name] is, like most all embedded punctuation, insignificant"). The gTLD .com does not serve to distinguish the Domain Name from the 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 SUB-ZERO 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 marks. There is no evidence or reason apart from the web site attached to the Domain Name to suggest the Respondent is 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 is commercial so it cannot be legitimate noncommercial fair use. The Domain Name inherently carries a risk of implied affiliation with the Complainant. The web site attached to the Domain Name purports to offer competing services to the Complainant using the Complainant's mark minus the hyphen in its masthead, confusing wording, no disclaimer and the Complainant's SUB-ZERO and WOLF marks in their logo form. It does not make it clear that there is no connection with the Complainant. The Panel finds this use is confusing. (See Am. Intl Group Inc v Benjamin, FA 944242 (Forum May 11, 2007) finding that the Respondent's use of a confusingly similar domain name to advertise services which competed with the Complainant's business did not constitute a bona fide use of goods and services). The Respondent has not answered this Complaint or rebutted the prima facie case evidenced by the Complainant 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 uses the Complainant's mark in its masthead, confusing wording, no disclaimer and the Complainant's SUB-ZERO and WOLF marks in their logo forms to offer competing services. The Panel is entitled to draw adverse inferences from the lack of response from the Respondent. The references to the Complainant and the use of the Complainant's logos on the web site shows that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and its rights, business and services and products. Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trade mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the web site and services offered on it under Policy 4 (b)(iv) likely to disrupt the business of the Complainant under Policy 4 (b)(iii). 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). 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 Paragraph 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 <subzerobocaraton.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Dawn Osborne, Panelist Dated: March 3, 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.