Shoresvacationrentals.com

The timeline behind shoresvacationrentals.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 Shores Vacation Rentals, Inc. v. Sumit Bansal Claim Number: FA2602002207787 PARTIES Complainant is Shores Vacation Rentals, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Chelsea P. Everson of Varnum LLP, Michigan, USA. Respondent is Sumit Bansal ("Respondent"), India. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <shoresvacationrentals.com>, registered with TLDS L.L.C. d/b/a SRSPlus. PANEL The undersigned certify that they have each acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. David H. Bernstein and Carol M. Stoner as Panelists and Claire R. Kowarsky as Chair. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 27, 2026; Forum received payment on February 27, 2026. On March 2, 2026, TLDS L.L.C. d/b/a SRSPlus confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <shoresvacationrentals.com> domain name is registered with TLDS L.L.C. d/b/a SRSPlus and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. TLDS L.L.C. d/b/a SRSPlus has verified that Respondent is bound by the TLDS L.L.C. d/b/a SRSPlus 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 3, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a 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@shoresvacationrentals.com. Also on March 3, 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 March 3, 2026. On March 10, 2026, pursuant to the Parties' requests to have the dispute decided by a three-member Panel, Forum appointed David H. Bernstein and Carol Stoner as Panelists and Claire R. Kowarsky as Chair. 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. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant, Shores Vacation Rentals, Inc., is a Michigan-based provider of vacation rental services. Complainant states that it has used the mark SHORES VACATION RENTALS in commerce since at least 1993 in connection with these services and has thereby acquired common law trademark rights in the mark. Complainant asserts that it historically operated its business online through the disputed domain name <shoresvacationrentals.com>, which it owned and used from at least 2005 until December 2025. According to Complainant, the disputed domain name resolved to Complainant's website through which it promoted its services and provided booking and reservation functionality. Complainant submits archived screenshots showing the disputed domain name resolving to its website during this period. Complainant states that it inadvertently allowed the domain name registration to lapse due to an administrative oversight. After the lapse, Respondent acquired the disputed domain name. Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its SHORES VACATION RENTALS mark because the domain name consists entirely of the mark with the addition of the ".com" generic top-level domain. Complainant claims that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. According to Complainant, Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, is not affiliated with Complainant, and has never been authorized to use Complainant's mark. In addition, Complainant asserts that Respondent has not made any (let alone demonstrable) preparations to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. As support, Complainant notes that the website to which the disputed domain name resolved after Respondent's acquisition of the disputed domain name reproduced Complainant's mark and other identifying information, including Complainant's phone number, address and email address. Instead of making a bona fide offering of goods or services, Complainant contends that Respondent substantially replicated content from Complainant's historical website to create the false impression that it is affiliated with or operated by Complainant. Finally, Complainant alleges that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Complainant submits evidence that, on or about February 3, 2026, the disputed domain name resolved to a landing page offering the disputed domain name for sale. Although this landing page no longer appears, Complainant contends that it is evidence that Respondent registered the disputed domain name in order to profit from Complainant's mark and to induce Complainant to repurchase the disputed domain name. Complainant also asserts that Respondent's use of the disputed domain name after the posting of the landing page offering the disputed domain name for sale further establishes Respondent's bad faith. Specifically, as of February 18, 2026, the website to which the disputed domain name resolved displayed Complainant's mark and copied certain elements of Complainant's website, which is proof that Respondent intended to attract Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, or affiliation of the website. According to Complainant, such conduct constitutes bad-faith registration and use under the Policy because Respondent is presumably receiving click through fees or fraudulently collecting fees of its own through diversionary tactics on unwitting consumers. Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred to Complainant. B. Respondent Respondent, Sumit Bansal, rejects Complainant's allegations and requests that the Complaint be denied. Respondent states that he acquired the disputed domain name <shoresvacationrentals.com> after Complainant allowed it to lapse, through an open market process in the ordinary course of business, and Respondent paid a substantial sum for it. Respondent explains that he works in the search engine optimization ("SEO") industry and regularly purchases expired domain names through public auctions for use in digital marketing projects, including content publishing and link-building initiatives. Respondent asserts that acquiring expired domain names with established histories and backlink profiles is a common and legitimate practice within the SEO industry. Respondent claims that his interest in the disputed domain name is based on its SEO attributes—such as its age, domain authority, and backlink profile—rather than any association with Complainant. With respect to Complainant's rights under the first element of the Policy, Respondent argues that Complainant's alleged rights in the mark SHORES VACATION RENTALS are weak because the phrase is inherently descriptive, consisting of descriptive and generic terms, namely "shores," "vacation," and "rentals", and because Complainant does not own a registered trademark for the term. Respondent further contends that, even if Complainant possesses some degree of common law rights, such rights are limited geographically to Complainant's area of trade. Respondent states that he operates from India and has no connection to the vacation rental industry in the United States. Respondent contends that he has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent maintains that purchasing an expired domain name through a public auction constitutes a lawful and legitimate acquisition. According to Respondent, he has not used the disputed domain name to offer vacation rental services or otherwise compete with Complainant. Respondent asserts that any content appearing on the website to which the disputed domain name resolved during a transitional period was not intended to impersonate or mislead consumers and that his intended use is to develop the disputed domain name for SEO-related content unrelated to Complainant's business. Respondent further claims that he has invested financial resources in acquiring the disputed domain name and developing its backlink profile, and that this constitutes demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Respondent denies that the disputed domain name was registered or used in bad faith. Respondent states that he did not register the disputed domain name with the intention of selling it to Complainant or to any competitor. Respondent contends that any "for sale" functionality that appeared at the website to which the disputed domain name resolved reflected a default landing page generated by the registrar or auction platform rather than an affirmative offer by Respondent to sell the disputed domain name. Respondent also asserts that he had no knowledge of Complainant or its business at the time he acquired the disputed domain name. According to Respondent, because he was unaware of Complainant's alleged mark, he could not have registered the disputed domain name with the intent to target Complainant. Respondent further argues that the acquisition of an expired domain name through a legitimate auction does not constitute bad faith where there is no evidence of targeting the Complainant. Respondent maintains that Complainant's loss of the disputed domain name resulted from its admitted failure to renew the registration and that Respondent should not be penalized for purchasing the disputed domain name after it entered the open market. Finally, Respondent requests a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking ("RDNH"). Respondent contends that Complainant filed the Complaint to recover, without compensation to Respondent, a domain name that Respondent lawfully purchased at auction and has subsequently developed through building SEO value. Respondent asserts that Complainant became aware of Respondent's investments and filed the Complaint to capitalize on the enhanced value that Respondent created. Respondent argues that Complainant knew or should have known that its claim was weak because it relies on unregistered rights in a descriptive term and because Respondent acquired the disputed domain name through legitimate means. Respondent therefore asks the Panel to find that the Complaint constitutes an abuse of the UDRP process. FINDINGS Complainant has operated a vacation rental business in South Haven, Michigan for many years using the name SHORES VACATION RENTALS. Although the name is descriptive, the Panel finds that Complainant has established sufficient common law trademark rights in that name within its local market based on longstanding use and some evidence of local consumer recognition. The disputed domain name <shoresvacationrentals.com> is identical to that mark for purposes of the Policy. Although Respondent claims that he acquired the disputed domain name after it expired for purposes related to Respondent's SEO activities, Respondent has not submitted any evidence of his SEO activities for this domain name or any other. Furthermore, after Respondent's acquisition, the disputed domain name resolved to an updated website that included Complainant's mark and related promotional language for vacation rentals in the very market where Complainant operates. Respondent has not provided a persuasive explanation for this use or otherwise demonstrated rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Based on the totality of the circumstances, the Panel finds that Respondent more likely than not registered and used the disputed domain name with knowledge of Complainant's mark and with the intent to capitalize on the goodwill associated with Complainant's business. 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 by a preponderance of the evidence 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 The first element of the Policy sets a relatively low threshold for the purpose of establishing standing. A complainant need only demonstrate that it has rights in a trademark or service mark as of the time of the complaint, and that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that mark. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions ("WIPO Overview 3.1") § 1.7. The disputed domain name is <shoresvacationrentals.com>. It is identical to the phrase SHORES VACATION RENTALS, apart from the addition of the generic top-level domain (".com"), which is generally disregarded as irrelevant for purposes of the first element. See Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (holding that the addition of a gTLD is irrelevant in determining confusing similarity). The principal issue under the first element is therefore whether Complainant has established trademark rights in the asserted mark SHORES VACATION RENTALS. Complainant does not rely on a registered trademark. Instead, Complainant asserts common law rights arising from its use of the mark in connection with vacation rental services since at least 1993 which use was sufficient to establish secondary meaning. Panels have recognized that unregistered descriptive marks may qualify for protection under the Policy where the complainant demonstrates that the mark has acquired secondary meaning through use. See Zee TV USA, Inc. v. Siddiqi, FA 721969 (Forum July 18, 2006) ("Complainant is not required to hold a valid trademark registration...in order to demonstrate rights in the mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)"). However, a complainant relying on unregistered rights must show that the mark has become a distinctive identifier associated with the complainant's goods or services. See WIPO Overview 3.1 §1.3. Here, the asserted mark is descriptive, consisting of the common words "shores," "vacation," and "rentals." As such, Complainant must show that the phrase has acquired secondary meaning in the marketplace such that consumers, at least in the geographic region where the mark is used, understand that Shores Vacation Rentals refers to a particular company that provides these services rather than any one of a number of companies that provides vacation rentals at the shore. The evidentiary record presented by Complainant is relatively sparse, yet credible. Complainant has not submitted evidence regarding sales figures, advertising expenditures, unsolicited media attention, or survey evidence of consumer perception, some or all of which is typically used to show that the mark has acquired secondary meaning. On the other hand, the record does contain evidence of longstanding use. Complainant asserts that it has used the mark continuously since at least 1993 in connection with its vacation rental services in South Haven, Michigan. The record also includes examples of online references and consumer comments referring to Complainant as "Shores" or "Shores Vacation Rentals," which shows that at least some consumers understand the name to refer to a particular company rather than a class of rental companies. Although the showing is modest, the Panel notes that Respondent does not contend that the phrase "Shores Vacation Rentals" is generic; rather he characterizes it as descriptive. Respondent has not undermined the Complainant's evidence with factual evidence undermining the claim of secondary meaning, such as evidence showing that other vacation rental companies in the relevant market commonly use the same phrase to describe their services. Moreover, Respondent concedes that Complainant may have some localized common law rights, but Respondent argues that such rights are geographically limited. That argument reflects a misunderstanding of the relevant law. Importantly, the first element of the Policy requires only that Complainant demonstrate trademark rights somewhere, not that the rights extend globally or even beyond a localized area. See WIPO Overview 3.1 § 1.1.2. Additionally, the Panel may consider Respondent's own conduct in connection with the disputed domain name as part of the overall assessment of whether the asserted mark functions as a source identifier. See WIPO Overview 3.1 § 1.3 (noting that panels may consider respondent's targeting of complainant's mark to infer that mark has achieved significance as a source identifier). Indeed, panels have previously found that a respondent's own use of a complainant's asserted mark on a website associated with the disputed domain name may support an inference that the respondent recognized the mark as identifying the complainant. See Regal Funds Management Pty Limited v. WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc. / Kizito Kizzy D2021-0252 (WIPO, April 20, 2021) ("In this particular case, the content of the website associated with the disputed domain name is also relevant to the first element assessment. It is clear to the Panel that the website at the disputed domain name contains text and other material lifted from the Complainant's official website, such that it appears prima facie that the Respondent has sought to target the Complainant's trademark via the disputed domain name"). Here, the record indicates that, shortly after Respondent acquired the disputed domain name, it resolved to a website targeting Complainant's customers and geographical market. The screenshot from January 28, 2026 appears to show a version of the site that was essentially an exact replica of Complainant's prior website. The Panel acknowledges that this initial appearance could potentially reflect an administrative or transitional circumstance following the change in domain ownership (though the Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence disproving Complainant's evidence that he had control of the content appearing on the resulting website). Even if the Panel disregards the content of that website as of that date, it is clear that the Respondent did thereafter take control of the website, and that he posted content that specifically referred to Complainant and its business. Specifically, the screenshot dated February 18, 2026 (which was after an earlier version of the website that posted that the disputed domain name was available for sale) explicitly targeted vacation rental services customers in South Haven, Michigan, the very market in which Complainant operates. By posting website content that targeted this market, as opposed to waterfront, or "shore" vacation rentals generally, it appears that Respondent was seeking to take advantage of the secondary meaning that Complainant had developed in the narrow market. The Panel acknowledges that the nature of UDRP proceedings is that panels must make findings of fact based on limited written records. The parties have no opportunity for discovery, and the Panel cannot make credibility determinations based on testimony. The Panel's task, in the UDRP, is to consider all of the evidence provided by the parties and determine, under the preponderance of the evidence standard, which facts have been established. See WIPO Overview 3.1, § 4.2 Given both the procedural limitations of UDRP proceedings and the relevant standard of proof, the Panel may need to make some difficult calls, and may have to determine which facts are more likely true than not, even if there remains some ambiguity or uncertainty. Id., Blood Cancer United, Inc. f/k/a The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, Inc. v. Tina York, Charming74, WIPO Case No. D2025-4730 ("panel faced with complex or disputed facts should adjudicate the dispute 'as best it can, drawing reasonable inferences when appropriate and using a preponderance of the evidence standard to make fact findings'") (citation omitted). If the parties disagree with those findings, they are free to pursue the dispute in a forum that provides for more robust procedures. See, generally, paragraph 4(k) of the Policy; see also 15. U.S.C. Section 1125. Taking all of these circumstances together—the decades of use asserted by Complainant, the evidence (albeit limited) of consumer recognition, and Respondent's use of the disputed domain name in connection with Complainant's business in Complainant's local market—the Panel concludes, based on the above cited preponderance of the evidence standard, that Complainant has satisfied the minimum threshold to establish that the phrase SHORES VACATION RENTALS has acquired secondary meaning as a source identifier, at least within the narrow geographic market in which it operates. This is sufficient for the purpose of satisfying the first element of the Policy. Respondent's arguments that the mark is weak do not undermine the finding that the phrase has some common law trademark rights; the strength or weakness of the mark is not relevant to that analysis, even though it may be relevant in the analysis of the second and third elements. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical to a mark in which Complainant has rights. The Panel therefore finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant has established a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. Complainant has indicated that it has not authorized Respondent to use its trademark or the disputed domain name, that Respondent is not commonly known by the trademark, and that Respondent does not appear to have used the disputed domain name to offer or promote vacation rentals or companies that offer or promote such rentals. In response, Respondent claims rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name on the basis that Respondent acquired it through a legitimate public auction after the prior registration lapsed and that Respondent intended to use it for, and is using it for, SEO-related purposes. Respondent does not persuasively rebut Complainant's prima facie case. Respondent has not provided evidence of other domain names used for similar SEO purposes, nor has Respondent explained how this particular domain name would be used in connection with a bona fide offering of SEO-related goods or services. On the other side of the scale, the Panel notes that the evidence shows that the disputed domain name had long been associated with Complainant's business and website. Although the parties failed to address this point directly, from the evidence in the record, the Panel infers that, to the extent Respondent identified the disputed domain name as having value and therefore a good option for SEO purposes, that value appears to be tied to the traffic and goodwill generated through Complainant's longstanding use rather than to the dictionary meaning of the disputed domain name on its own. Although investing in expired domain names may in some circumstances constitute a legitimate business practice, the record here suggests that Respondent selected the disputed domain name because of the value associated with Complainant's longstanding use of it rather than the dictionary meaning of this long domain name on its own. This finding is supported by the February 18, 2026 screenshot which shows that, while the disputed domain name was under Respondent's control, the disputed domain name resolved to a website that deliberately sought to trade off Complainant's rights by promoting vacation rentals in South Haven, Michigan. Such use cannot be considered bona fide or legitimate. Further, Respondent's assertions that he was using or making demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name for a legitimate SEO-related purpose are unsupported by any evidence. The Panel therefore finds, on the preponderance of the evidence that the parties submitted, that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith Respondent's principal defense is that the disputed domain name was acquired through a legitimate expired-domain auction. However, the acquisition of an expired domain name does not by itself preclude a finding of bad faith where the surrounding circumstances indicate targeting of a complainant's mark. The record indicates that the disputed domain name had been used by Complainant for many years. After the disputed domain name was acquired by Respondent, the website associated with the disputed domain name initially displayed content that identically resembled Complainant's prior website. Although Respondent has not directly addressed why that occurred, he has suggested it was an inadvertent occurrence during a transitional period, and the Panel is willing to accept that suggestion given that the content was identical to the content of Complainant's website in the period prior to the domain name expiration. But the subsequent changes to the website to which the disputed domain name resolved present a persuasive case for bad faith. Specifically, after Respondent had obtained control of the disputed domain name, and after an initial webpage that offered the disputed domain name for sale, on February 18, 2026, the website was modified to display new content that nevertheless displayed vacation rentals in South Haven, Michigan, the very market in which Complainant operates. Respondent does not explain why the disputed domain name resolved to a modified website displaying content emulating Complainant's business, but rather denies it, asserting: "Respondent has not used the Disputed Domain Name to create any confusion with Complainant's marks, to disrupt Complainant's business, or to divert Complainant's customers. Respondent has not operated any vacation rental service, has not solicited Complainant's customers, and has not attempted to pass off any services as those of Complainant." Respondent's denial on this point is disingenuous in light of the screenshot evidence to the contrary in the record, which undermines the plausibility of Respondent's explanation. Panels have consistently found bad faith where a respondent uses a domain name to host content that mimics a complainant's website or otherwise suggests affiliation. See Bear Archery, Inc. v. Mason Green / CEO, FA2202458 (Forum Feb. 25, 2026) ("Given the identical nature of the goods offered for sale on Respondent's Website, combined with the extensive copying of Complainant's website content, it is apparent to this Panel that Respondent willfully seeks to trade on the goodwill of Complainant's well-known BEAR ARCHERY Marks. For these reasons, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith.") Such conduct is indicative of an attempt to attract Internet users by creating confusion regarding source or affiliation, which constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). Here, although the evidence offered by both parties is relatively thin, the totality of the circumstances supports an inference, under the preponderance of the evidence standard, that Respondent was aware that the disputed domain name had been associated with a longstanding business and nonetheless allowed the disputed domain name to resolve to a website with content closely resembling Complainant's website. In these circumstances, Respondent's acquisition and use of the disputed domain name are inconsistent with the representation required under Paragraph 2 of the Policy that a registrant will not knowingly infringe the rights of others; rather, they are consistent with a finding that Respondent acquired and used the disputed domain name in bad faith to take advantage of the trademark value that Complainant imbued in the disputed domain name during its many years of use. The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKING Respondent requests a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking. In light of the ruling in Complainant's favor, there is no basis for such a finding. Moreover, although Complainant's evidence regarding secondary meaning was limited, it was nonetheless sufficient to establish rights in the SHORES VACATION RENTALS name under the Policy, by a preponderance of the evidence. Complainant previously operated its business through the disputed domain name for many years and has presented evidence that Respondent acquired and used the domain name in bad faith. Accordingly, the Panel does not find that the Complaint was brought in bad faith. Under these circumstances, the Panel declines to find Reverse Domain Name Hijacking. 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 <shoresvacationrentals.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Claire R. Kowarsky, Chair David H. Bernstein and Carol M. Stoner, Panelists Dated: March 20, 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.