Subzero.care

The timeline behind subzero.care

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. Dmitriy Kolchin Claim Number: FA2602002204491 PARTIES Complainant is Sub-Zero, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Bianca L. Ascolese of Foley & Lardner LLP, Wisconsin, USA. Respondent is Dmitriy Kolchin ("Respondent"), California, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <subzero.care>, registered with Wild West Domains, 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 February 9, 2026; Forum received payment on February 9, 2026. On February 10, 2026, Wild West Domains, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <subzero.care> domain name is registered with Wild West Domains, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Wild West Domains, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Wild West Domains, 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 February 13, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 5, 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@subzero.care. Also on February 13, 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 6, 2026, 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. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant 1. Respondent's <subzero.care> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's SUB-ZERO mark. 2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <subzero.care> domain name. 3. Respondent registered and uses the <subzero.care> domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent did not file a Response. FINDINGS Complainant provides appliances and related services, and holds a registration for the SUB-ZERO mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (Reg. No. 1,543,399, showing first use in 1945). Respondent registered the <subzero.care> domain name on September 23, 2016, and uses it primarily to compete with 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 Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the SUB-ZERO mark through registration with the USPTO. See Liberty Global Logistics, LLC v. damilola emmanuel / tovary services limited, FA 1738536 (Forum Aug. 4, 2017) (stating, "Registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently establishes the required rights in the mark for purposes of the Policy."). Respondent's <subzero.care> domain name uses Complainant's SUB-ZERO mark without the hyphen and simply adds a top-level domain. These changes do not distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Dell Inc. v. Protection of Private Person / Privacy Protection, FA 1681432 (Forum Aug. 1, 2016) ("A TLD (whether a gTLD, sTLD or ccTLD) is disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax requires TLDs. Likewise, the absence of spaces must be disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax prohibits them."); see also Ant Small and Micro Financial Services Group Co., Ltd. v. Ant Fin, FA 1759326 (Forum Jan. 2, 2018) ("Respondent's <antfinancial-investorrelations.com> Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's ANT FINANCIAL mark. It incorporates the mark entirely. It adds a hyphen, the descriptive terms "investor relations," and the ".com" gTLD, but these additions are insufficient to distinguish the Domain name from complainant's mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)."). The Panel therefore finds that Respondent's <subzero.care> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's SUB-ZERO 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 <subzero.care> 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 SUB-ZERO mark. The WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrants as "Dmitriy Kolchin". 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 is not using the <subzero.care> domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use by using it to compete with Complainant. Under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii), using a disputed domain name to offer competing goods or services is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Invesco Ltd. v. Premanshu Rana, FA 1733167 (Forum July 10, 2017) ("Use of a domain name to divert Internet users to a competing website is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use."). Complainant provides screenshots of the website at the disputed domain name where Respondent offers services in competition with Complainant. 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 The Panel finds that Respondent uses the <subzero.care> domain name to divert users to its website, disrupting Complainant's business for its own commercial gain, demonstrating bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Sub-Zero, Inc. v. armando perez / grupo servi-tec, FA 1702432 (Forum Dec. 12, 2016) (finding that the Panel "holds that respondent is in bad faith as it sees that it is competing with complainant on the resolving website of a confusingly similar domain name"); see also H-D U.S.A., LLC v. Linchunming / linchunming, FA 1589214 (Forum Dec. 22, 2014) ("Respondent uses the domain name to promote counterfeit goods like those offered by Complainant. Doing so disrupts Complainant's business and demonstrates Respondent's bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)."). The Panel also finds that Respondent registered the <subzero.care> domain name with knowledge of Complainant's rights in the SUB-ZERO mark, based on Respondent's use of the domain name to directly compete with Complainant and on Complainant's use of the SUB-ZERO mark since 1945, and finds further bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had "actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name"); see also iFinex Inc. v. xu shuaiwei, FA 1760249 (Forum Jan. 1, 2018) ("Respondent's prior knowledge is evident from the notoriety of Complainant's BITFINEX trademark as well as from Respondent's use of its trademark laden domain name to direct internet traffic to a website which is a direct competitor of Complainant."). Complainant demonstrates that Respondent has also been the subject of prior adverse UDRP cases, several targeting Complainant. This demonstrates Respondent's pattern of bad faith and the Panel thus finds further bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See Provide Com., Inc. v. Jardimar Holdings Corp / Charingola, FA 1502077 (FA2602002204491 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 <subzero.care> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist Dated: March 6, 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.