Subzerowolfboston.com

The timeline behind subzerowolfboston.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. Jim K Claim Number: FA2602002205955 PARTIES Complainant is Sub-Zero, Inc. and Wolf Appliance, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Alexander J. Liederman of Foley & Lardner LLP, Wisconsin, USA. Respondent is Jim K ("Respondent"), California, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <subzerowolfboston.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, 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. Richard Hill as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 18, 2026; Forum received payment on February 18, 2026. On February 18, 2026, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <subzerowolfboston.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, 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 19, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 11, 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@subzerowolfboston.com. Also on February 19, 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 12, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Richard Hill 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: MULTIPLE COMPLAINANTS Paragraph 3(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") provides that "[a]ny 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." There are two Complainants in this matter: Sub-Zero, Inc. and Wolf Appliance, Inc.. Complainants argue that both companies are wholly-owned subsidiaries of Sub-Zero Group, Inc. Previous panels have interpreted Forum's Supplemental Rule 1(e) to allow multiple parties to proceed as one party where they can show a sufficient link to each other. For example, in Vancouver Org. Comm. for the 2010 Olympic and Paralymic Games & Int'l Olympic Comm. v. Malik, FA 666119 (Forum May 12, 2006), the panel stated: 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. In Tasty Baking, Co. & Tastykake Invs., Inc. v. Quality Hosting, FA 208854 (Forum Dec. 28, 2003), the panel treated the two complainants as a single entity where both parties held rights in trademarks contained within the disputed domain names. Likewise, in Am. Family Health Srvs. Group, LLC v. Logan, FA 220049 (Forum Feb. 6, 2004), the panel found a sufficient link between the complainants where there was a license between the parties regarding use of the TOUGHLOVE mark. The Panel finds that the evidence in the Complaint is sufficient to establish a sufficient nexus or link between the Complainants, and thus it will treat them as a single entity in this proceeding. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant states that it is an industry leader in the sale of high-end residential kitchen appliances, including refrigerators, freezers, wine storage systems, etc., that are marketed and sold throughout the United States and the world under the SUB-ZERO mark and logo, and under the WOLF mark. Complainant also provides replacement parts and installation, maintenance, and repair services for its refrigerators, freezers, and other products. Over the five-year period ending in 2025, U.S. sales of SUB-ZERO-branded products exceeded one billion U.S. dollars ($1,000,000,000) with over two hundred million ($200,000,000) in sales in 2025 alone. Over the same five-year period, worldwide sales of SUB-ZERO-branded products have exceeded one billion two hundred million U.S. dollars ($1,200,000,000). Complainant asserts rights in the SUB-ZERO and WOLF marks through their registration in the United States in, respectively, 1989 and 2003. Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its SUB-ZERO and WOLF marks because it contains the marks in their entirety (without the hyphen), merely adding the geographic term "Boston" and the ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD") ".com". According to Complainant, Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant's marks and is not commonly known by the domain name. Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to promote kitchen appliance repair services for SUB-ZERO and WOLF branded appliances in Boston, Massachusetts, and the surrounding areas, while using and displaying the SUB-ZERO and WOLF marks without authorization. The resolving website does not include a disclaimer or any notice of non-affiliation with Complainants and gives the impression of being an authorized, factory-trained and Complainant-approved service provider offering repair services and genuine repair parts for SUB-ZERO and WOLF brand kitchen appliances. Respondent's use of the disputed domain name is likely to mislead Internet visitors into believing, erroneously, that Respondent and the disputed domain name are actually Complainants, or are affiliated with, sponsored, approved, authorized, or certified by, or otherwise officially connected with Complainants and the SUB-ZERO and WOLF marks Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. The resolving website attempts to impersonate Complainant, offering repair services. Respondent had actual and constructive knowledge of Complainant's rights in its marks. Respondent has engaged in a pattern of bad faith registration and use of domain names. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant has rights in the marks SUB-ZERO and WOKF and uses them to market residential kitchen appliances and related repair services. Complainant's rights in its marks date back to, respectively, 1989 and 2003. The disputed domain name was registered in 2017. Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its marks. The resolving website impersonates Complainant, displaying Complainant's marks, and offering repair services. Respondent has engaged in a pattern of bad faith registration and use of domain names. The WHOIS information is false. 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 disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's SUB-ZERO and WOLF marks in their entirety, merely omitting a hyphen and adding the geographic term "Boston" together with the ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD"). Such changes do not distinguish a domain name from marks under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis. See Adobe Inc. v. Adrean Coroama, FA 1829809 (Forum Mar. 14, 2019) ("Complainant next argues that Respondent's , , , , and domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant's marks as they each contain either combine two of Complainant's marks, add a generic term to one of Complainant's marks, and add a gTLD. Similar changes in a registered mark have failed to sufficiently distinguish a domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)."); see also United States Postal Service v. She had khan, FA 1788585 (Forum June 19, 2018) ("Respondent combines the USPS and USPS TRACKING marks and adds the gTLD ".com" as well as the highly descriptive "service" term. Therefore, the Panel concludes that the Respondent's name is confusingly similar to the Complainants marks under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)."); see also Avaya Inc. v. Evelyn Dayda / Avaya Unlimited Sources LLC, FA 1611255 (Forum May 4, 2015) (finding that as "the 'usa' portion of the disputed domain name is a generic geographic term, the internet user will assume that the domain name deals with the activities of Complainant in the USA and that it will lead to a website dealing with that subject. The domain name is therefore confusingly similar to the AVAYA mark and the Panel so finds"); see also Mrs. World Pageants, Inc. v. Crown Promotions, FA 94321 (Forum Apr. 24, 2000) (finding that punctuation is not significant in determining the similarity of a domain name and mark). Therefore the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's marks under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), relevant information, such as WHOIS information, can be used as evidence to show a respondent is or is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Fred Wallace, FA 1626022 (Forum July 27, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <chevron-europe.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), as the WHOIS information named "Fred Wallace" as registrant of the disputed domain name). Here, the WHOIS information of record shows "Jim K" as the registrant of the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Complainant presents evidence showing that Respondent uses the disputed domain name to attempt to impersonate Complainant. This does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Edible Communities v. Thoreau, FA 1158554 (Forum Apr. 16, 2008) ("[R]espondent's use of the disputed domain name [<theedibleaustin.com>] to pass itself off as [c]omplainant shows that [r]espondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) as well as Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)."); see also Digg v. Digg , FA 1220833 (Forum Oct. 9, 2008) (finding no legitimate interest in respondent's use of the domain name <digg-inc.com> because "[r]espondent is attempting to pass itself off as [c]omplainant" and such "actions do not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)."); see also LF, LLC v. Kas Is / cas issen, FA 1958712 (Forum Sep. 9, 2021) ("Complainant has made out a prima facie case" where "Respondent's websites pretend to be a blog offering information on how to access Complainant's employee portal website, but the real purpose of the websites is to divert traffic from Complainant's legitimate <myloweslife.com> site through passing off."). Thus the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). And the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant's contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant's marks. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent's failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain name. Indeed, as already noted, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to attempt to impersonate Complainant. This evinces bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See American International Group, Inc. v. Walter Busby d/b/a AIG Mergers and Acquisitions, FA 156251 (Forum May 30, 2003) (the resolving website gave every appearance of being associated or affiliated with Complainant's business); see also Mortgage Research Center LLC v. Russell Miranda, FA 993017 (Forum July 9, 2007) (Respondent is implying an affiliation with Complainant, and consumers seeking Complainant's products and services may become confused when encountering Respondent's website). Thus the Panel finds bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). Furthermore, Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant's marks: the resolving website displays Complainant's marks and refers to Complainant. While constructive notice is insufficient to demonstrate bad faith, actual knowledge of a complainant's rights in a mark prior to registration may be evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Custom Modular Direct LLC v. Custom Modular Homes Inc., FA 1140580 (Forum Apr. 8, 2008) ("There is no place for constructive notice under the Policy."); see also Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014) ("The Panel notes that although the UDRP does not recognize 'constructive notice' as sufficient grounds for finding Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith, the Panel here finds actual knowledge through the name used for the domain and the use made of it."); see also Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name). The Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in Complainant's marks prior to Respondent's registration of the disputed domain name and that this constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). In addition, Complainant provides evidence showing that Respondent has been found to have registered and used domain names in bad faith in prior UDRP proceedings. This is sufficient to establish a pattern of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See Webster Financial Corporation and Webster Bank, National Association v. Above.com Domain Privacy, FA 1464477 (Forum Nov. 30, 2012) (finding where the record reflected that the respondent had been a respondent in other UDRP proceedings in which it was ordered to transfer disputed domain names to various complainants established a pattern of bad faith registration and use of domain names and stood as evidence of bad faith in the registration and use of domain names under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii)); see also DIRECTV, LLC v. michal restl c/o Dynadot, FA 1788826 (Forum July 5, 2018) ("The record contains evidence of Respondent's previous eleven UDRP actions, all of which resulted in the transfer of the domain names, thus establishing bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii)."); see also Philip Morris USA Inc. v. RapidClic / VAUCLIN Olivier, FA1520008 (Forum Nov. 7, 2013) (respondent's registration of multiple infringing domain names established a pattern of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii)). Thus the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). Finally, the WHOIS information is: Registrant Name: Jim K Registrant Address1: 3185 Registrant City: pa Registrant State/Province: California Registrant Postal Code: 94306 Registrant Country: United States Registrant Phone: +1.3238399434 According to paragraph 4.8 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0"), a Panel may conduct limited factual research regarding disputed domain names: Noting in particular the general powers of a panel articulated inter alia in paragraphs 10 and 12 of the UDRP Rules, it has been accepted that a panel may undertake limited factual research into matters of public record if it would consider such information useful to assessing the case merits and reaching a decision. This may include visiting the website linked to the disputed domain name in order to obtain more information about the respondent or its use of the domain name, consulting historical resources such as the Internet Archive (www.archive.org) in order to obtain an indication of how a domain name may have been used in the relevant past, reviewing dictionaries or encyclopedias (e.g., Wikipedia), or accessing trademark registration databases. From publicly available databases, the Panel has found that "94306" is the postal code for "Palo Alto, California". However, the WHOIS does not provide a street name. Thus the Panel finds that that WHOIS information is false. This can indicate bad faith registration and use. See Enterprise Holdings, Inc. v. John Doe, FA 1339545 (Forum Sept. 29, 2010) ("The Panel also takes into account that the entity that Responded to the Complaint would not be the registrant of the disputed domain names for the instant proceedings. Therefore, that circumstance is also taken by the Panel as indication of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) by providing false or misleading WHOIS information to the registrar."); see also Video Direct Distribs. Inc. v. Video Direct, Inc., FA 94724 (Forum June 5, 2000) (finding that the respondent acted in bad faith by providing incorrect information to the registrar regarding the owner of the registered name). Accordingly, the Panel finds bad faith registration and use on this ground also. 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 <subzerowolfboston.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Richard Hill, Panelist Dated: March 12, 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.