Licensing IP International S.ŕ.r.l. v. Serg Suhenko

Claim Number: FA2110001969297



Complainant is Licensing IP International S.ŕ.r.l. (“Complainant”), represented by ROBIC, LLP, Canada.  Respondent is Serg Suhenko (“Respondent”), Russian Federation.



The domain name at issue is <>, (‘the Domain Name’) registered with NameCheap, Inc..



The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.


Dawn Osborne as Panelist.



Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on October 16, 2021; the Forum received payment on October 16, 2021.


On October 18, 2021, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <> Domain Name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, 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 October 26, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 15, 2021 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  Also on October 26, 2021, 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, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.


On November 20, 2021, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Dawn Osborne as Panelist.


Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the 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, the Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.



Complainant requests that the Domain Name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.



A.   Complainant

The Complainant is the owner of the trade mark BRAZZERS, registered, inter alia in Canada since 2008 for adult entertainment services.


The Domain Name registered in 2019 is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s BRAZZERS trade mark omitting the letter ‘s’ and adding the gTLD “.club” which do not prevent said confusing similarity.


The Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, is not commonly known by it and is not authorized by the Complainant.


The Domain Name is being used for competing adult entertainment services. The Respondent owns another adult entertainment site which refers to material of the Complainant showing that the Respondent is aware of the Complainant, its mark, rights and services. The Respondent makes money on its site from advertising.


All ads displayed on the website to which the Domain Name resolves are linked to “”, an advertising-supported malware or adware that displays advertisement on users’ devices. is being displayed by websites that redirect the users to a site via adware that automatically opens a page without permission. The goal of this virus is to have the users of infected devices see as many ads as possible.


This is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. It is bad faith registration and use disrupting the Complainant’s business and diverting Internet users for commercial gain. The Respondent has previously been the subject of an adverse decision under the UDRP for registering a domain name containing another of the Complainant’s trademarks.


B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.



The Complainant is the owner of the trade mark BRAZZERS, registered, inter alia in Canada since 2008 for adult entertainment services.


The Domain Name registered in 2019 has been used for competing adult entertainment services with commercial advertising containing malware. The Respondent has been the subject of another adverse UDRP decision involving another trade mark of the Complainant.



Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted 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 Domain Name consists of a sign confusingly similar to the Complainant’s BRAZZERS mark (registered, inter alia in Canada since 2008 for adult entertainment services) merely omitting a letter ‘s’ and adding the gTLD “.club”.


The Panel agrees that misspellings such as omission of a letter does not distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant's trade mark pursuant to the Policy. See Hallelujah Acres Inc. v. Manila Indus., Inc., FA 805029 (Forum Nov. 15, 2006).


The gTLD “.club” does not serve to distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant’s mark. See Red Hat Inc. v. Haecke, FA 726010 (Forum July 24, 2006) (concluding that the domain name is identical to the complainant's red hat mark because the mere addition of the TLD was insufficient to differentiate the disputed domain name from the mark).


Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar for the purposes of the Policy with a mark in which the Complainant has rights.


As such the Panel holds that Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied.


Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant has not authorized the use of its mark. The Respondent has not answered this Complaint and there is no evidence or reason to suggest the Respondent is, in fact, commonly known by the Domain Name.  See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA1408001574905 (Forum Sept. 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark). The use of the Domain Name is commercial and so is not legitimate noncommercial fair use.


The web site attached to the Domain Name uses the Complainant's BRAZZERS mark in its masthead to offer competing services.  It does not make it clear that there is no commercial connection between the site attached to the Domain Name and the Complainant and the web site appears official. The Panel finds this use is confusing. As such it cannot amount to the bona fide offering of goods and services. See Am. Intl Group Inc. v. Benjamin, FA 944242 (Forum May 11, 2007) (finding that the Respondent's use of a confusingly similar domain name to compete with the Complainant's business did not constitute a bona fide use of goods and services.).


The commercial advertising on the Respondent’s site appears to be associated with malware/adware. See additionally Ceridian Corp. v. Versata Software, Inc., FA 1259927 (Forum June 23, 2009) (finding that a respondent’s use of a disputed domain name to direct Internet users to a website which attempts to download computer viruses “failed to create any semblance of a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)”). 


Further the Domain Name appears to be a typosquatting registration. Typosquatting is also an indication of a lack of rights or a legitimate interests. See Chegg Inc. v. yang qijin, FA1503001610050 (Forum Apr. 23, 2015) (“Users might mistakenly reach Respondent’s resolving website by misspelling Complainant’s mark. Taking advantage of Internet users’ typographical errors, known as typosquatting, demonstrates a respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).”).


As such the Panelist finds that the Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.


Registration and Use in Bad Faith

In the opinion of the panelist the use made of the Domain Name in relation to the Respondent’s site is confusing and disruptive in that visitors to the site might reasonably believe it is connected to or approved by the Complainant as it offers adult entertainment services using the Complainant’s mark in its masthead giving the impression that the site attached to the Domain Name is official.  The Respondent is connected with another adult entertainment site referring to the Complainant’s videos showing that the Respondent has actual knowledge of the Complainant and its business, services and rights.


Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to his website by creating likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trade mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the web site or services on it likely to disrupt the business of the Complainant. See Disney Enters., Inc. v. Noel, FA 198805 (Forum Nov. 11, 2003) (“Respondent registered a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant's mark to divert Internet users to a competitor's website. It is a reasonable inference that Respondent's purpose of registration and use was to either disrupt or create confusion for Complainant's business in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) [and] (iv).”). The Respondent is also using malware/adware for commercial gain.  see also Google, Inc. v. Petrovich, FA 1339345 (Forum Sept. 23, 2010) (finding that disputed domain names which distribute malware to Internet users’ computers demonstrate Respondent’s bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)). 


The Domain Name seeks to take advantage of the situation where Internet users may make a typographical error. Typosquatting itself is evidence of relevant bad faith registration and use. See Diners Club int'l Ltd. v. Domain Admin ****** It's all in the name ******, FA 156839 (Forum June 23, 2003) (registering a domain name in the hope that Internet users will mistype .. and be taken to the Respondent’s site is registration and use in bad faith). Typosquatting also indicates the Respondent had knowledge of the Complainant and its rights. See InfoSpace, Inc. v. Greiner, FA 227653 (Forum Mar. 8, 2004) (“Respondent’s domain name is a simple and popular variation .. commonly used by typosquatters …Such a domain name evidences actual knowledge of the underlying mark prior to the registration of the domain name, and as Respondent failed to submit any evidence to counter this inferrence [sic], Respondent’s actions evidence bad faith registration of the disputed domain name.”).


The Panel also notes that the Respondent has also been the subject of an adverse decision under the UDRP involving another trade mark of the Complainant appearing to show a pattern of activity.


As such, the Panelist believes that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith and has satisfied the third limb of the Policy under paragraphs 4(b)(ii), (iii) and (iv).



Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.


Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.



Dawn Osborne, Panelist

Dated:  November 22, 2021



Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page