Roofmart.net

The timeline behind roofmart.net

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 Roofmart (Canada) Limited v. James Howell / Roof Mart Claim Number: FA2606002229401 PARTIES Complainant is Roofmart (Canada) Limited ("Complainant"), represented by Philip J. Foret of Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young LLP, Pennsylvania, USA. Respondent is James Howell / Roof Mart ("Respondent"), Canada. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <roofmart.net>, registered with Squarespace Domains II 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. Jeffrey J. Neuman as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 25, 2026; Forum received payment on June 25, 2026. On June 26, 2026, Squarespace Domains II LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <roofmart.net> domain name is registered with Squarespace Domains II LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Squarespace Domains II LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Squarespace Domains II 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 July 1, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 21, 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@roofmart.net. Also on July 1, 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 July 22, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Jeffrey J. Neuman 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 Complainant is a Canadian distributor of roofing, siding, and exterior-building products. Complainant asserts rights in the ROOFMART mark based on longstanding use and Canadian trademark registrations, including Canadian Registration No. TMA199154 for the ROOFMART word mark. Complainant also operates its business website at <roofmart.ca>. Complainant contends that the <roofmart.net> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its ROOFMART mark because the domain name incorporates the mark in its entirety and adds only the ".net" generic top-level domain. Complainant argues that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant, has not been authorized to use the ROOFMART mark, owns no known relevant trademark rights, and is not using the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Complainant relies on evidence that attempts to access the disputed domain name on May 28, 2026, produced an HTTP 403 access-denied page. Complainant further contends that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Complainant argues that Respondent's adoption of the ROOFMART mark permits an inference of actual knowledge of Complainant's rights and that Respondent's failure to make active use of the disputed domain name constitutes passive holding in bad faith. Complainant also characterizes the ROOFMART mark as "well-recognized among builders," relying on the Boldissar Affidavit and exhibits concerning Complainant's history and website. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. The WHOIS record identifies the registrant as James Howell and the registrant organization as "Roof Mart." The disputed domain name was registered on April 30, 2026. FINDINGS 1. Complainant has rights in the ROOFMART mark through Canadian Registration No. TMA199154, registered May 17, 1974. 2. The <roofmart.net> domain name is identical to Complainant's ROOFMART mark, apart from the ".net" generic top-level domain. 3. Complainant made a prima facie showing under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), which Respondent did not rebut. Because the third element is dispositive, the Panel declines to decide whether Complainant ultimately established the second element. 4. The disputed domain name produced an HTTP 403 access-denied page on May 28, 2026. The record contains no other indicia that Respondent registered or used the domain name in bad faith. 5. The evidence does not establish that the ROOFMART mark had such a degree of reputation or distinctiveness that Respondent's targeting may be inferred from registration of the disputed domain name alone. 6. Complainant has not established that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. 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 Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions ("WIPO Overview 3.1"), § 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 Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) requires Complainant to establish rights in a trademark and that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that mark. Complainant has demonstrated rights in the ROOFMART mark through Canadian Registration No. TMA199154, registered May 17, 1974, for wholesaling and retailing roofing and roofers' supplies and equipment. Registration of a mark with a national trademark authority is sufficient to establish rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See The Toronto-Dominion Bank v. mike pierre, FA 1874597 (Forum Jan. 13, 2020); Groupe Germain Inc. v. Santosh Singh, FA 1830639 (Forum Mar. 21, 2019). The disputed domain name incorporates the ROOFMART mark in its entirety. The addition of the ".net" generic top-level domain is disregarded for purposes of the first element. See SAS Institute Inc. v. ALU a/k/a J. Barein, FA 126631 (Forum Nov. 11, 2002); Rollerblade, Inc. v. Chris McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000). Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical to Complainant's ROOFMART mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Once Complainant makes that showing, the burden of production shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(c). The ultimate burden of proof remains with Complainant. See WIPO Overview 3.1, § 2.1. Complainant states that it has no relationship with Respondent and has not licensed, authorized, or otherwise permitted Respondent to use the ROOFMART mark. Complainant further asserts that Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Complainant also submitted evidence that an attempt to access the disputed domain name on May 28, 2026 produced an HTTP 403 access-denied page. The Panel finds that this evidence is sufficient to establish Complainant's prima facie case under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Respondent failed to submit a Response and therefore has not produced evidence rebutting Complainant's prima facie showing. The WHOIS record identifies the registrant as "James Howell" and lists the registrant organization as "Roof Mart." Although corresponding WHOIS information may be relevant to whether a respondent is commonly known by a disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), the organization field, standing alone, does not establish that Respondent is in fact commonly known by that name. A registrant cannot establish rights or legitimate interests merely by entering a self-selected organization name in registration data. The record contains no independent or corroborating evidence that Respondent operates a business known as "Roof Mart," adopted that name before notice of the dispute, or made demonstrable preparations before notice of the dispute to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Likewise, the domain name's non-use or limited accessibility does not supply evidence rebutting Complainant's prima facie showing. Respondent's failure to respond leaves Complainant's prima facie case unrebutted. The Panel nevertheless need not make an ultimate determination under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). A complainant must establish each of the three elements of Policy ¶ 4(a) to obtain transfer or cancellation of a disputed domain name. As discussed below, Complainant has not established that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). The Complaint therefore fails regardless of the Panel's disposition of the second element. Accordingly, the Panel declines to decide whether Complainant has ultimately established Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith Because Complainant must establish all three elements of Policy ¶ 4(a), the Complaint must be denied if Complainant fails to establish that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). The Panel therefore turns to the third element, which is dispositive of this proceeding. The Policy provides a non-exhaustive list of circumstances evidencing bad faith registration and use. These include registration primarily to sell the domain name to the complainant or a competitor for consideration exceeding documented out-of-pocket costs, Policy ¶ 4(b)(i); registration to prevent a mark owner from reflecting its mark in a corresponding domain name as part of a pattern of such conduct, Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii); registration primarily to disrupt the business of a competitor, Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii); and intentional use of a domain name to attract Internet users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark, Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). The record does not establish any of these circumstances. There is no evidence that Respondent offered the disputed domain name for sale, engaged in a pattern of abusive registrations, is a competitor of Complainant, used the domain name to promote competing goods or services, displayed advertising, sought commercial gain, impersonated Complainant, configured or used the domain name for deceptive email, or communicated with Complainant in a manner evidencing targeting. Complainant principally relies on the age of its mark, Respondent's registration of a domain name identical to that mark, and the HTTP 403 access-denied page. Those circumstances merit careful consideration. Complainant's word-mark registration predates the disputed domain name by more than fifty years, and both parties are located in Canada. The Panel is therefore prepared to accept that Respondent may have been aware of Complainant and its mark. Actual knowledge, however, must be considered together with evidence of Respondent's intent and use. Knowledge of another party's trademark does not by itself establish that a domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, particularly where the submitted registration data identifies Respondent's organization as "Roof Mart" and the record provides no evidence concerning Respondent's business or reason for adopting that name. Complainant also invokes the passive-holding doctrine. Passive holding may support a bad-faith finding when the totality of the circumstances makes any plausible good-faith use implausible. See Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, D2000-0003 (WIPO Feb. 18, 2000). The doctrine does not create a rule that every inactive or inaccessible domain name identical to a trademark is necessarily held in bad faith. In applying the doctrine, panels consider circumstances including the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant's mark, the respondent's failure to submit a response or provide evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use, the respondent's concealment of its identity or use of false contact information, and the implausibility of any good-faith use to which the domain name may be put. See WIPO Overview 3.1, § 3.3. The degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the mark is one circumstance considered as part of the totality; a complainant is not required to establish that its mark is "famous" as an independent prerequisite to a finding of bad faith based on passive holding. Here, the domain name had been registered for only approximately one month when Complainant captured the 403 pages. An HTTP 403 response establishes denied access, but it does not necessarily establish complete inactivity. Although Respondent failed to submit a Response, the remaining circumstances do not support the requested inference of bad faith. Complainant has established registered trademark rights and longstanding use of the ROOFMART mark. The record includes Canadian Registration No. TMA199154, evidence that Complainant has operated under the ROOFMART mark for decades, statements that Complainant is one of Canada's largest distributors of roofing and exterior-building products, and website materials describing its products, services, locations, and history. The Panel has considered that evidence. The issue is not whether Complainant has established that its mark is "famous," but what degree of distinctiveness or reputation the evidence establishes for purposes of the totality-of-the-circumstances analysis. The Panel distinguishes Complainant's proof of trademark rights from proof of the degree and geographic reach of the mark's marketplace recognition. The Canadian registration and evidence of longstanding use establish rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), but they do not, without more, establish the degree of reputation relevant to the passive-holding analysis under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). The Complaint characterizes the ROOFMART mark as "well-recognized among builders" and cites paragraphs 13 through 20 of the Boldissar Affidavit. Those paragraphs, however, principally describe Complainant's website and attach current website pages concerning Complainant's products, services, locations, and history. The affidavit also describes Complainant as one of Canada's largest distributors and states that Complainant has used the mark for more than 60 years. The Panel gives appropriate weight to those statements and the accompanying materials. The evidence submitted, however, provides limited information from which the Panel can assess the extent and geographic reach of the mark's marketplace recognition as of April 30, 2026. The record does not include more particularized or independent evidence—such as historical advertising materials, sales or market-share information, advertising expenditures, website-traffic data, industry or media recognition, or other evidence of public awareness—that would further substantiate the asserted scope of the mark's reputation. These categories of evidence are not mandatory, and their absence is not independently dispositive; rather, their absence affects the weight the Panel can give to the assertion that the mark was so strongly associated with Complainant that Respondent's intent may be inferred from registration alone. The Foret Affidavit addresses the disputed domain name, trademark searches, WHOIS information, and the HTTP 403 page; it does not provide independent evidence of the mark's reputation. Affidavits and declarations may be considered in UDRP proceedings, and may establish reputation when they provide sufficiently specific information concerning matters such as longstanding trading history, business locations, industry presence, advertising, customers, sales, or public recognition. Their weight depends on the specificity of the statements and the extent to which the record substantiates them. General characterizations of a mark as strong, well known, or possessing substantial goodwill may be afforded limited weight where the record does not provide sufficient information to assess the extent and geographic reach of marketplace recognition. Grandstand v. Dorinda Brews / The Spadion Corporation, D2017-1709 (WIPO Oct. 16, 2017) (finding an officer's affidavit and current website and advertising materials insufficient to establish the mark's reputation at the relevant time where the asserted sales, advertising, and goodwill were not adequately substantiated). Accordingly, the record establishes Complainant's registered rights and longstanding commercial use, but it does not establish that ROOFMART had such a degree of reputation or distinctiveness as of April 30, 2026 that Respondent's targeting of Complainant may be inferred from registration of the disputed domain name alone. The Panel treats this as one circumstance in the totality of the record, not as a requirement that Complainant prove fame. The record likewise contains no evidence that Respondent concealed its identity or provided false contact information; to the contrary, the WHOIS record identifies Respondent's organization as "Roof Mart." Nor does the record contain evidence of an offer to sell, a pattern of abusive conduct, prior targeting, deceptive communications, or other circumstances demonstrating that no plausible good-faith use exists. Complainant has submitted no evidence addressing whether the "Roof Mart" name reflects an actual business or planned bona fide use. On this record, the HTTP 403 page alone is insufficient to establish registration and use in bad faith. The Panel does not determine that Respondent acted in good faith or that Respondent would necessarily prevail in a trademark infringement action. The Panel finds only that the evidence submitted in this streamlined proceeding is insufficient to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that Respondent both registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith as required by Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). The UDRP is directed at clear cases of abusive domain-name registration and is not a substitute for adjudication of unresolved trademark or business-name disputes in a court of competent jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has failed to establish bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). DECISION Having not established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <roofmart.net> domain name REMAIN WITH Respondent. Jeffrey J. Neuman, Panelist Dated: August 7, 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.