ULIONA LIMITED v. Joseph Gardner / Green Geeks LLC

Claim Number: FA2312002076426



Complainant is ULIONA LIMITED ("Complainant"), represented by Nadezhda Minakova, Virginia, USA. Respondent is Joseph Gardner / Green Geeks LLC ("Respondent"), represented by Cameron Halling of Halling Meza LLP, California, USA.



The domain name at issue is <> ("Domain Name"), registered with eNom, LLC.



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.


Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelist.



Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on December 25, 2023; Forum received payment on December 25, 2023.


On December 28, 2023, eNom, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <> domain name is registered with eNom, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. eNom, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the eNom, 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 December 29, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 18, 2024 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 December 29, 2023, 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 January 9, 2024.


On January 10, 2024, pursuant to both Parties' requests to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Nicholas J.T. Smith 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.



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



The Response does not address the substantive contentions made in the Complaint. Rather it argues that the Domain Name is not owned by the Respondent, rather it is owned by a former customer of the Respondent, who has since terminated their hosting account and somehow, as a result of a bug, Respondent's details have replaced the customer's details.  The Response seeks that the details of the Respondent be removed from the proceedings.


The Response provides no documentary evidence in support of any of these contentions, including that a) the Respondent entered into arrangements with third parties in respect of the Domain Name b) that those arrangements have been terminated and c) that there was a bug that has since been resolved that caused the Respondent to be improperly listed as the owner of the Domain Name. In the absence of any evidence showing otherwise, and given the confirmation provided by the Registrar that the <> domain name is registered with eNom, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the Domain Name, the Panel declines to redact any details of the Respondent from this decision.



A. Complainant

Complainant, ULIONA LIMITED is a software company, that from its website at offers an online downloader tool that allows users to download videos and other media from YouTube and other Internet sites. Complainant has rights in the SAVEFROM mark based upon the registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (e.g., Reg. No. 4,931,103, registered April 5, 2016). Respondent's <> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's SAVEFROM mark because it incorporates mark in its entirety, adding only the generic term "web" and the ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD").


Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <> domain name. Respondent is not licensed to use Complainant's SAVEFROM mark and is not commonly known by the mark. Additionally, Respondent does not use the Domain Name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent uses the Domain Name to pass off as Complainant in order to offer competing services.


Respondent registered and uses the <> domain name in bad faith. Respondent uses the Domain Name in order to promote a competing business. Further, Respondent registered the Domain Name with knowledge of Complainant's rights in the SAVEFROM mark.


B. Respondent

The Respondent's contentions are summarized above under the section "Preliminary Issue: Redaction of Respondents' Names".



Complainant, having failed to establish that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the domain name <>, has not established all required elements of its claim, and thus its complaint must be denied.



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.


Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Complainant has rights in the SAVEFROM mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its registration of the mark with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 4,931,103, registered April 5, 2016). Registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to establish rights in that mark. See Liberty Global Logistics, LLC v. damilola emmanuel / tovary services limited, FA 1738536 (Forum Aug. 4, 2017) ("Registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently establishes the required rights in the mark for purposes of the Policy.").


The Panel finds that the <> Domain Name is confusingly similar to the SAVEFROM mark as it fully incorporates the SAVEFROM mark and adds the generic term "web" and the ".com" gTLD.  The addition of a generic term to a wholly incorporated trade mark does not distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark. See Dell Inc. v. pushpender chauhan, FA 1784548 (Forum June 11, 2018) ("Respondent merely adds the term 'supports' and a '.org' gTLD to the DELL mark. Thus, the Panel finds Respondent's disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's DELL mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)."); see also Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (concluding that the affixation of a gTLD to a domain name is irrelevant to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis).


The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).


Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant alleges that Respondent holds no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. In order for Complainant to succeed under this element, it must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the Domain Name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006) and AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Forum Sept. 25, 2006) ("Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names.").


The Panel holds that Complainant has not made out such a prima facie case. Rather, there are factual and legal issues that are unresolved by the evidence presented and the Panel is of the opinion that this case is not one that is well suited for resolution under the Policy. See, e.g., AirMax Construçoes Aeronáuticas LTDA v. Richard Rofe /, FA 1763605 (Forum Feb. 9, 2018) (finding serious issues of fact and law that "can be resolved only by the use of forensic powers which a Panel under the UDRP does not have, such as deposition evidence by cross examination, discovery.").


The Domain Name consists of three generic words being "save", "from" and "web" with an entirely descriptive meaning (referring to saving something from the World Wide Web (or Internet)).  Complainant, in its Complaint, submits that the Respondent is trying to fraudulently assume the reputation built up by the Complainant in its SAVEFROM mark by using the Domain Name to offer competing services. Complainant asserts reputation in the SAVEFROM mark but provides no evidence of any reputation in the SAVEFROM mark or any use beyond its use on the Complainant's Website.


The Domain Name has been registered since 2018 and resolves to a website ("Respondent's Website") that like Complainant offers an online video download service. It does so under the name 'Save from web' which appears to be descriptive of the services offered by the Respondent, namely a service that enables users of the Respondent's Website to save material from the web. The Respondent's Website does not either explicitly or (to the best of the Panel's knowledge) implicitly make any reference to Complainant or otherwise suggest an affiliation (beyond the shared use of the SAVEFROM element which the Panel will address further below).  


The record does not indicate that Respondent has sought to register any other domain names incorporating the SAVEFROM mark or engage in any other conduct that suggests the use of the Domain Name is anything other than for a bona fide offering of services. Given the lack of evidence provided about the reputation of the SAVEFROM mark in the field the Complainant and Respondent trade in, the Panel is not prepared to conclude that that Respondent's registration of a domain name containing the words save", "from" and "web"  was motivated by awareness of Complainant (which would generally amount to bad faith registration), as opposed to registration of the Domain Name for its inherent meaning. The Panel notes that in the event that further information arises that suggests the motives of the Respondent in registering or using the Domain Name related to the Respondent's awareness of the Complainant's SAVEFROM mark as opposed to the descriptive meaning of the words comprising the Domain Name there may be grounds to consider a refiled complaint, subject to the applicable criteria. 


The Panel acknowledges that Respondent's conduct may infringe Complainant's registered SAVEFROM trademark or amount to passing off and the Panel wishes to make it clear that other remedies may be available to the Complainant in a different forum, and that nothing in this decision should be understood as providing a definitive finding on the respective mark rights of the parties, beyond the narrow question determined under this proceeding. However, the question of trademark infringement is beyond the scope of the present proceeding, which is summary in nature and hence the evidence that Respondent offers a service allowing users to save material from the web from the domain name <> is a sufficient basis to find that the Complainant has failed to demonstrate that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.


Panels have recognized that "[t]he Policy's purpose is to combat abusive domain name registrations and not to provide a prescriptive code for resolving more complex trade mark disputes"Luvilon Industries NV v. Top Serve Tennis Pty Ltd., DAU2005-0004 (WIPO Sept. 6, 2005). See also Courtney Love v. Brooke Barnett, FA 944826 (Forum May 14, 2007) ("the purpose of the Policy is not to resolve disputes between parties who might each have legitimate rights in a domain name.  The purpose of the Policy is to protect trademark owners from cybersquatters, that is, from people who abuse the domain name system in a very specific way, which specific way is outlined in Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy."). The Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy is designed to deal with clear cases of cybersquatting, see IAFT International LLC v. MANAGING DIRECTOR / EUTOPIAN HOLDINGS, FA 1577032 (Forum Oct. 9, 2014) ("The objectives of the Policy are limited -- designed to obviate the need for time-consuming and costly litigation in relatively clear cases of cyber-squatting -- and not intended to thwart every sort of questionable business practice imaginable.").


The Complainant has failed to demonstrate that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.


Registration and Use in Bad Faith

In light of the Panel's dispositive finding on the issue of rights or legitimate interests, the Panel declines to address the question of registration and use in bad faith.



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 <> domain name REMAIN WITH Respondent.




Nicholas J.T. Smith, Panelist

Dated: January 11, 2024





Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page