Harborbreezeco.com

The timeline behind harborbreezeco.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.

DECISION LF, LLC v. Guo Xing Claim Number: FA2602002205985 PARTIES Complainant is LF, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Jeanette Eriksson of FairWinds (USA) Inc, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Guo Xing ("Respondent"), China. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <harborbreezeco.com>, registered with DNSPod, 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. Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 18, 2026; Forum received payment on February 18, 2026. On February 26, 2026, DNSPod, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <harborbreezeco.com> domain name is registered with DNSPod, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. DNSPod, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the DNSPod, 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 March 2, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Chinese and Engish Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 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@harborbreezeco.com. Also on March 2, 2026, the Chinese and English 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 in Chinese and English. On March 24, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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: LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDING Complainant registered HARBOR BREEZE in the United States for the benefit of Complainant's United States based, operating, and originating business. The mark contains English characters and the English words "Harbor," "Breeze," and "Co." What's more, Respondent's <harborbreezeco.com> domain name's website is in English. Notwithstanding that the relevant Registration Agreement may have been written in Chinese, pursuant to UDRP Rule 11(a) the Panel finds persuasive evidence to suggest the likely possibility that Respondent is to a material degree conversant and proficient in the English language. Since Respondent most likely has a working knowledge of the English language, Complainant would be unduly burdened if this proceeding were to continue in Chinese as there would be no cognizable benefit to Respondent, the dispute resolution provider, or the Panel, and yet Complainant would have to alone endure the time and expense of facilitating the translation of relevant documents into Chinese. Therefore, after considering the circumstances of the present case including the proper service of a Chinese and an English Written Notice of the Complaint upon Respondent and Respondent's failure to respond thereto, the Panel finds that the instant proceeding should be in English. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant contends in part as follows: Complainant is the owner of the HARBOR BREEZE trademark. Long prior to the creation of the at-issue domain name, Complainant commenced use of the mark in connection with the advertising, marketing and sale of, among other things, innovative ceiling fan options and accessories, as well as outdoor and landscape lighting at Lowe's retail home improvement supply stores. Complainant's HARBOR BREEZE mark is aggressively protected through registration and enforcement. Complainant owns several trademark registrations for the mark. The at-issue domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. The addition of generic or other words to a trademark, whether as part of a second or top-level domain, creates a confusingly similar domain name. The addition of the ".com" gTLD does nothing to alleviate confusion between the HARBOR BREEZE mark and the at-issue domain name. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in respect of the Disputed Domain Name. Section 4(c) of the Policy sets out certain circumstances which, if proven by the evidence presented, may demonstrate Respondent's rights or legitimate interests in the at-issue domain name. None of these circumstances apply to Respondent in the present dispute. Complainant need only make out a prima facie case that none of these circumstances apply to Respondent in the present dispute. With respect to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), the public WHOIS lists the owner of the at-issue domain name as Redacted For Privacy. Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name or the name "harbor breeze", Respondent does not operate a legitimate business or other organization under the mark or the at-issue domain name, and Respondent does not own any trademark or service mark rights in the mark. Respondent's actions are not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶4(c)(i). Complainant has not licensed, authorized, or permitted Respondent to register the domain name incorporating Complainant's HARBOR BREEZE trademark, or to use the HARBOR BREEZE trademark in any capacity. Respondent is using the domain name to imply affiliation with the Complainant and for hosting what is deceitfully made to appear as an informational site but is actually merely a vehicle for financial gain through sponsored ads and affiliate links to unauthorized or unrelated products – i.e. what has commonly come to be known as a spam blog or a "splog" which is a blog used to promote affiliated websites, to increase the search engine rankings of associated sites or to sell links/ads. Any claims that the <harborbreezeco.com> website is merely offering information is a sham pretext by Respondent. The real purpose of the at-issue domain name, is to divert traffic from Complainant's legitimate page through passing off, attract internet traffic and boost SEO by using the well-known HARBOR BREEZE trademark and then financially profit from affiliate links or simply to harvest users' personal information through the "Leave a Reply" fields that can later be either used for phishing, sold to a third-party, or other bad faith activity. Should Respondent claim that the links on its sites are merely incidental, it is important to keep in mind that this is not a "fan" site or other legitimate informational offering provided out of Respondent's passion for Complainant and its products. Rather, Respondent is using a confusingly similar domain name for its impersonation website to achieve its true objective of diverting traffic from Complainant's own site, financially benefitting from such traffic through hosting sponsored ads and affiliate links to unrelated Amazon.com product listings, as well as collecting names and email addresses. The at-issue domain name resolves to a webpage claiming to be the official HARBOR BREEZE website, containing numerous sponsored links and affiliate links to various competing products or unauthorized products, all of which are not, in any way, licensed or authorized by Complainant. Further, the website contains "Leave a reply"-forms which seeks to harvest the names and email addresses of users who input such information with the expectation of reaching Complainant, presumably with the sole purpose to harvest such information as part of a phishing attempt or perhaps for the sale of such personal information to a third party. Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name without intent for commercial gain, and so its actions do not fall within Policy ¶4(c)(iii). Respondent uses a domain name that is confusingly similar Complainant's mark and uses it to confuse the Complainant's customers into believing that the resulting website is owned by, or affiliated with Complainant, when this is not the case. Respondent has not been authorized in any way by Complainant, nor is the Disputed Domain Name or any of its associated sponsored listings to which it links. Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to confuse and misleadingly divert consumers, and to tarnish Complainant's registered Mark. Such use cannot be considered fair and it also does not fit into any accepted category of fair use such as news reporting, commentary, political speech, education, nominative use, etc. The at-issue domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Respondent intentionally uses Complainant's mark without consent from Complainant. Respondent was on actual notice of Complainant's rights in the HARBOR BREEZE Mark as a result of Complainant's use of the mark which predates the date on which Respondent acquired the at-issue domain name Furthermore, the at-issue domain name consists of the HARBOR BREEZE mark in its entirety, merely adding the term "co", and is clearly intended to give the impression that Respondent is Complainant's official website providing information and authorized products under the HARBOR BREEZE mark. Finally, Respondent's website incorporates numerous claims and wordings chosen specifically to pass itself off as the Complainant such as frequent use of Complainant's full trademark name. As such, the Respondent can only have created the at-issue domain name upon its knowledge of, and in violation of, Complainant's trademark rights. Respondent's creation of a website that impersonates Complainant and its HARBOR BREEZE mark alone constitutes bad faith as it disrupts Complainant's business and seeks to capitalize on confusion with the HARBOR BREEZE mark. The at-issue domain name in this present case has thus been registered and used in bad faith under the well-accepted theory of initial interest confusion. O2 Worldwide v. Nick Kett, D2020-0028 (WIPO Mar. 26, 2020). The public will initially be confused into believing that the domain name originates with or is associated with Complainant and expect that this will take them to Complainant's official website for its HARBOR BREEZE products. Complainant's representative also sent cease-and-desist notices to the Respondent via the registrar's contact registrant field in WHOIS as well as to the email listed on the <harborbreezeco.com> website. However, no response has been received, further illustrating Respondent's bad faith operations. Additionally, Respondent has been the subject in numerous UDRP proceedings in which the respective domain name has been ordered to get transferred to the trademark owner. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant has rights in the HARBOR BREEZE trademark. Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and had not been authorized to use Complainant's trademark in any capacity. Respondent registered the at-issue domain name after Complainant acquired rights in the HARBOR BREEZE trademark. The at-issue domain name addresses a website that attempts to pass itself off as Complainant's genuine website and is used as a spam blog. 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 at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights. Complainant shows that it has USPTO trademark registrations for its HARBOR BREEZE mark. Such is sufficient evidence to demonstrate Complainant's rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Thermo Electron Corp. v. Xu, FA 713851 (Forum July 12, 2006) (finding that the complainants had established rights in marks where the marks were registered with a national trademark authority). Respondent's <harborbreezeco.com> domain name consists of Complainant's HARBOR BREEZE trademark less its domain name impermissible apostrophe and space followed by the term "co," with all followed by the ".com" top-level domain name. The differences between Complainant's trademark and Respondent's domain name are insufficient to distinguish the trademark from the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent's <harborbreezeco.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's HARBOR BREEZE trademark. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognizable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element."); see also, Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Domain Administrator / Registry Services, LLC, FA2 2038314 (Forum July 26, 2023) ("The addition of a gTLD fails to sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)."). Rights or Legitimate Interests 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. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant's trademarks in any capacity and as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. See Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC v. Taha Shaikh / Tskdesigners, FA 1814475 (Forum Nov. 25, 2018) (finding no rights or legitimate interests in <spectrumfeature.com> because complainant never gave respondent permission to use the mark in any manner and Panels may use these assertions as evidence that no rights or legitimate interests exist in a disputed domain name"). The WHOIS information for the at-issue domain name leads to identifying "Guo Xing" as the domain name's registrant and the record before the Panel contains no evidence that tends to prove that the domain name's registrant is commonly known by the at-issue domain name. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by <harborbreezeco.com> for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name). Respondent's <harborbreezeco.com> domain name addresses or redirects to a fake blog commonly known as a spam blog. The spam blog is used to promote affiliated websites purportedly to improve search engine ranking and/or to sell links and/or advertising. The website contains monetized ads and affiliate links to products and services. Respondent's website falsely claims to be an official HARBOR BREEZE website. Respondent's <harborbreezeco.com> website also contains a "Leave a Reply" field that may be used to harvest personal information from website visitors who input such information with the false expectation of reaching Complainant. Thus, Respondent fails to use the domain name to promote a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Ripple Labs Inc. v. NGYEN NGOC PHUONG THAO, FA 1741737 (Forum Aug. 21, 2017) ("Respondent uses the [disputed] domain name to divert Internet users to Respondent's website… confusing them into believing that some sort of affiliation exists between it and Complainant… [which] is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)."); see also, Enterprise Holdings, Inc. v. I S / Internet Consulting Services Inc., FA 1785242 (Forum June 5, 2018) ("On its face, the use of a domain name that is confusingly similar to the mark of another in order to facilitate a phishing scheme cannot be described as either a bona fid offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶4(c)(iii)."). Given the foregoing, Respondent lacks rights and lacks legitimate interests in <harborbreezeco.com>. Registration and Use in Bad Faith As discussed below without being exhaustive, Respondent acted in bad faith. First, Respondent uses its confusingly similar domain name to direct internet traffic to Respondent's <harborbreezeco.com> website. There, Respondent displays Complainant's HARBOR BREEZE mark and impersonates Complainant. The website appears to be a spam blog or "splog." Such sites are used to attempt to increase the search engine ranking of associated sites by causing visitors to navigate through circular links and/or to profit from the sale of links or advertising. Respondent's use of <harborbreezeco.com> and its associated website are thus disruptive to Complainant's business and capitalize on the confusion Respondent creates between Complainant's trademark and Respondent's domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the at-issue domain name in bad faith pursuant Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Allianz of Am. Corp. v. Bond, FA 680624 (Forum June 2, 2006) (finding bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent was diverting Internet users searching for the complainant to its own website and likely profiting). Next, Respondent has suffered an extreme number of prior adverse UDRP decisions involving Complainant and other trademark holders. Respondent's excessive cybersquatting history reveals a pattern of domain name abuse and suggests Respondent's bad faith in the instant case under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See Tommy John, Inc. v. Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico, FA 1878688 (Forum Feb. 6, 2020) (finding bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii) where the respondent had been subject to numerous UDRP proceedings where panels ordered the transfer of disputed domain names containing the trademarks of the complainants). Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the HARBOR BREEZE mark before it registered <harborbreezeco.com> as a domain name. Respondent's prior knowledge is evident from the notoriety of Complainant and Complainant's HARBOR BREEZE trademark; from Respondent's attempt to pass off as Complainant in the instant dispute; and from Respondent loss of another domain name containing the HARBOR BREEZE mark in a prior UDRP proceeding where Complainant prevailed. Respondent's registration and use of the confusingly similar domain name with and knowledge of Complainant's trademark rights in HARBOR BREEZE further demonstrates Respondent's bad faith. See Lemon Inc. v. Sumer Singh, FA 2110519 (Forum Sept. 5, 2024 ("registration of a disputed domain name with actual knowledge of another's trademark rights is sufficient to establish bad faith, and can be shown by the notoriety of the mark and the use the Respondent makes of the disputed domain name"); see also, 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). 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 <harborbreezeco.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist Dated: March 25, 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.