WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Lennar Pacific Properties Management, Inc., Lennar Corporation v. crisllene alva/ name okolo, On god entertainment

Case No. D2021-3103

1. The Parties

Complainants are Lennar Pacific Properties Management, Inc. (“LPPM”), Lennar Corporation (“Lennar”), United States of America (“United States”), represented by Slates Harwell LLP, United States.

Respondents are crisllene alva, United States / name okolo, On god entertainment, United States.

2. The Domain Names and Registrar

The disputed domain names <lannartitle.com>, <lennaar.com>, and <llennar.com> are registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 20, 2021. On September 21, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On September 21, 2021, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain names which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainants on September 22, 2021, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainants to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainants filed an amendment to the Complaint on September 27, 2021.¹

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified Respondents of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on October 6, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 26, 2021. Respondents did not submit any Response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Parties of Respondents’ default on October 27, 2021.

The Center appointed Ingrīda Kariņa-Bērziņa as the sole panelist in this matter on November 11, 2021. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.

4. Factual Background

Complainants operate in the field of real estate services and home construction and sales in the United States. Complainant LPPM is the proprietor of United States Trademark Registration No. 3108401 for LENNAR (word mark), registered on June 27, 2006 for services in classes 35, 36 and 37; United States Trademark Registration No. 3477143 for LENNAR (word mark), registered on July 29, 2008 for services in classes 36 and 37. On July 16, 2020, Complainant filed an application with serial no. 90056188 to register the mark LENNAR TITLE in the United States for services in classes 36 and 45, claiming a date of first use of September 21, 2020.

Complainant Lennar owns and operates business websites using the LENNAR mark, including “www.lennar.com” and “www.lennartitle.com.”

The disputed domain names were registered on August 25, 2021. At the time of this Decision, they did not resolve to active websites. The record contains evidence that they previously resolved to websites featuring pay-per-click links. The record contains a copy of an e-mail sent to Complainant’s customer in which the sender impersonates Complainant’s employee. The email was sent from an address incorporating the disputed domain name <lannartitle.com>, copying a recipient at an address incorporating the disputed domain name <llennar.com>.

The record contains copies of Complainants’ cease-and-desist letters to Respondents dated September 2, 2021, concerning the disputed domain names <llennar.com> and <lannartitle.com>. The record does not reflect Respondents’ response.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

Procedural Issues

Complainants request consolidation of multiple Complainants. Complainants state that both Complainants have the same grievance against Respondent. Complainant LPPM is the owner of federal trademark registrations or applications for the LENNAR and LENNAR TITLE marks. Complainant Lennar is a related company and authorized licensee of these marks and also owns and operates the website “www.lennar.com” related to services offered under the LENNAR marks. Both Complainants have a common legal interest in a relevant right or rights that are affected by the disputed domain names, and both Complainants are the target of common conduct by Respondents which has clearly affected their individual legal interests.

Complainants request consolidation of multiple Respondents. Complainants state that the disputed domain names are under common management and control. Complainant states that the disputed domains contain highly similar typosquatting or other variants of the LENNAR mark and domain names. All the disputed domain names were registered with the same Registrar on the same date. Two of the disputed domains have been used by Respondent in a fraudulent scheme involving Complainants’ customers.

Substantive Contentions

Complainants’ substantive contentions may be summarized as follows:

Under the first element, Complainants state that they have offered real estate management, brokerage, development, construction, title and financial services under the LENNAR mark since at least 1973. Complainants have been one of the leading homebuilders in the United States since 1954. They build and sell homes in 21 states in the United States. The disputed domain names are virtually identical to Complainant’s marks.

Under the second element, Complainants state that there is no evidence of Respondents’ use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain names or a name corresponding to the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Respondents are not known by the disputed domain names and have no rights in the LENNAR mark.

Under the third element, Complainants state that the disputed domain names resolve to webpages with pay-per-click links, which are intended to attract Internet users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the LENNAR mark. Respondents have used the disputed domain names <lannartitle.com> and <llennar.com> to generate fraudulent emails in which Respondents impersonate Complainants’ employees in an attempt to extract payment for home purchases from Complainants’ customers.

Complainants request transfer of the disputed domain names to Complainant Lennart Corporation.

B. Respondent

Respondents did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

6.1 Procedural Issues

Pursuant to paragraph 10 of the Rules:

(a) the Panel shall conduct the administrative proceeding in such manner as it considers appropriate in accordance with the Policy and these Rules.

(b) In all cases, the Panel shall ensure that the Parties are treated with equality and that each Party is given a fair opportunity to present its case.

[…]

(e) A Panel shall decide a request by a Party to consolidate multiple domain name disputes in accordance with the Policy and these Rules.

Consolidation of Multiple Complainants

The principles to assess a request to consolidate multiple complainants are set forth in the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.11.1.

Noting the circumstances of the case, the Panel finds that Complainants have a specific common grievance against Respondents, and that it would be equitable and procedurally efficient to permit the consolidation. The Panel finds that Complainants have a common legal interest, as Complainant LPPM is the proprietor of the LENNAR trademark and Complainant Lennar is the licensee using this mark. Moreover, considering the composition of the disputed domain names, the Panel finds that Complainants are the target of common conduct by Respondent which has affected their individual legal interests in a similar fashion. See, for instance, Fulham Football Club (1987) Limited, Tottenham Hostpur Public Limited, West Ham United Football Club PLC, Manchester United Limited, The Liverpool Football Club And Athletic Grounds Limited v. Domains by Proxy, Inc./ Official Tickets Ltd, WIPO Case No. D2009-0331.

Accordingly, the Panel accepts Complainants’ request to consolidate the present proceedings pursuant to the Rules, paragraph 10(e). Complainants are hereinafter referred to as “Complainant.”

Consolidation of Multiple Respondents

The principles to assess a request to consolidate multiple respondents are set forth in the WIPO Overview of WIPO Overview 3.0, section 4.11.2.

Noting the circumstances of the case, the Panel considers disputed domain names to be under common control. The disputed domain names were registered using the same Registrar on the same date. The disputed domain names reflect Complainant’s marks and similar naming patterns, namely, minor spelling variations of Complainant’s LENNAR mark. The disputed domain names have been used in similar ways. Respondents do not challenge Complainant’s assertions to this effect. Accordingly, the Panel accepts Complainant’s request to consolidate the present proceedings pursuant to the Rules, paragraph 10(e). Respondents are hereinafter referred to as “Respondent”.

6.2 Substantive Issues

Paragraph 4(a) of the UDRP requires Complainant to make out all three of the following:

(i) the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and

(ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; and

(iii) Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith.

Under paragraph 15(a) of the Rules, “[a] Panel shall 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.”

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

Complainant has provided evidence establishing that it has trademark rights in the LENNAR mark through registrations in the United States. Complainant thereby satisfies the threshold requirement of having trademark rights for purposes of standing to file a UDRP case. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1.

In comparing Complainant’s marks with the disputed domain names, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. Each disputed domain name contains a misspelling of Complainant’s LENNAR mark. It is the consensus view of UDRP panels that a domain name that consists of a misspelling of Complainant’s mark is considered confusingly similar to that mark. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.9. Further, the disputed domain name <lannartitle.com> incorporates the dictionary term “title.” It is the consensus view of UDRP panels that where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark the domain name will normally be considered confusingly similar to that mark. Moreover, where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8.

It is the well-established view of UDRP panels that the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.1, and cases cited thereunder).

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has established the first element under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, a respondent may establish rights to or legitimate interests in a domain name by demonstrating any of the following:

(i) before any notice to it of the dispute, respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or

(ii) respondent has been commonly known by the domain name, even if it has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or

(iii) respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.

The Panel finds that there is no evidence that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain names or is using the LENNAR mark with the permission of Complainant. The nature of the disputed domain names cannot constitute fair use since they effectively impersonate (or seek the impersonation) or suggests sponsorship or endorsement by the trademark owner. See, for example, Iflscience Limited v. Domains By Proxy LLC / Dr Chauncey Siemens, WIPO Case No. D2016-0909; B&B Hotels v. WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc. / Soro Wonna, WIPO Case No. D2020-2837. See also WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1.

The Panel therefore finds that the evidence submitted by Complainant establishes a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.

Pursuant to WIPO Overview 3.0., section 2.1, and cases thereunder, where Complainant makes out a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to Respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.

Respondent, in failing to file a response, has not submitted any evidence or arguments demonstrating such rights or legitimate interests, nor has it rebutted any of Complainant’s contentions. The circumstances of the case prevent the inference of rights nor legitimate interests on the part of Respondent. There is no evidence that Respondent is known by the disputed domain names. The record reflects that the disputed domain names resolve to pages comprising pay-per-click links, and that the disputed domain names <llenar.com> and <lannartitle.com> were used to generate e-mail impersonating Complainant. Such use cannot establish rights or legitimate interests. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.9, and cases cited thereunder.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has established the second element under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Pursuant to paragraph 4(b) of the Policy, the Panel finds that Complainant has demonstrated Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain names. Complainant’s rights in its LENNAR mark predate the registration of the disputed domain names by nearly 50 years. Complainant’s mark is clearly visible in the disputed domain names, which comprise deliberate misspellings of Complainant’s marks, thereby clearly implies a link with Complainant’s business.

Turning to use of the disputed domain name, the Panel finds that Complainant has demonstrated Respondent’s bad faith. All three disputed domain names redirect to websites featuring pay-per-click links. The Panel notes that, with respect to the disputed domain names <llennar.com> and <lannartitle.com>, the links clearly relate to Complainant’s business and include such keywords as “Lennar Homes” and “Buying and Renting a House.” Such conduct is probative of bad faith. See, e.g., Harpo, Inc. and Oprah’s Farm, LLC v. Robert McDaniel, WIPO Case No. D2013-0585; The Knot, Inc. v. In Knot We Trust Ltd, WIPO Case No. D2006-0350; and Get Away Today.com., Inc. v. Warren Gilbert, WIPO Case No. DCO2010-0021.
Further, Respondent has used the disputed domain names <llennar.com> and <lannartitle> to generate fraudulent emails to Complainant’s customer for the clear purpose of intercepting payment intended for Complainant. Such conduct clearly demonstrates bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain names. See WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.4. See also Arla Foods Amba v. Michael Guthrie, M. Guthrie Building Solutions, WIPO Case No. D2016-2213.

The Panel therefore finds that Complainant has established the third element under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.

7. Decision

For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain names <lannartitle.com, <lennaar.com>, and <llennar.com> be transferred to Complainant.

Ingrīda Kariņa-Bērziņa
Sole Panelist
Date: November 24, 2021

¹ The Panel notes that the Complaint was originally filed against a privacy service, Withheld for Privacy ehf, and that the Complainant filed an Amendment to add the registrant information disclosed by the Registrar.