DECISION

 

Huge Legal Technology Company, Inc. DBA Trust & Will v. Domain Administrator / Fundacion Privacy Services LTD

Claim Number: FA2501002136242

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Huge Legal Technology Company, Inc. DBA Trust & Will ("Complainant"), United States, represented by Jeanette Eriksson of FairWinds Partners LLC, United States. Respondent is Domain Administrator / Fundacion Privacy Services LTD ("Respondent"), Panama.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES 

The domain names at issue are <trustanswill.com>, <trustabdwill.com> and <trustsandwill.com>, registered with Media Elite Holdings Limited.

 

PANEL

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

 

David E. Sorkin as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 21, 2025; Forum received payment on January 21, 2025.

 

On January 21, 2025, Media Elite Holdings Limited confirmed by email to Forum that the <trustanswill.com>, <trustabdwill.com> and <trustsandwill.com> domain names are registered with Media Elite Holdings Limited and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Media Elite Holdings Limited has verified that Respondent is bound by the Media Elite Holdings Limited 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 January 22, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 11, 2025 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@trustanswill.com, postmaster@trustabdwill.com and postmaster@trustsandwill.com. Also on January 22, 2025, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email 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 February 12, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed David E. Sorkin 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant has used TRUST & WILL in connection with online estate planning services since at least as early 2018. Complainant asserts common law trademark rights in TRUST & WILL arising from extensive use, promotion, and public recognition. Complainant received widespread media coverage upon its launch in 2018 and when it created an electronic will in 2019, and states that it had attracted more than 100,000 users by the end of 2020. Complainant states further that it is the market leader for digital estate planning, and that a Google search for "trust & will" or "trust and will" displays references to Complainant.

 

The disputed domain names <trustanswill.com> and <trustabdwill.com> were registered in March 2021, and the disputed domain name <trustsandwill.com> was registered in July 2022. The names are all registered to Respondent. Complainant states that the domain names redirect to malware or pay-per-click sites, or to other unrelated or competing third-party websites. The domain names are listed for sale on a domain name marketplace website for approximately $1,900 each. Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain names and is not authorized to use Complainant's mark.

 

Complainant contends on the above grounds that each of the disputed domain names <trustanswill.com>, <trustabdwill.com> and <trustsandwill.com> is confusingly similar to its claimed TRUST & WILL mark; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names; and that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The Panel finds that Complainant has not demonstrated the requisite rights in a relevant trademark.

 

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, § 4.3 (3d ed. 2017), available at http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/; UDRP Perspectives on Recent Jurisprudence, §§ 0.2, 0.8 (updated Jan. 15, 2025), available at https://udrpperspectives.org/; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (dismissing complaint where complainant failed to "produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations").

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Complainant's claim is based upon its assertion of common law trademark rights in TRUST & WILL. Common law rights are sufficient to proceed under the Policy, but the complainant has the burden of demonstrating that the claimed mark serves as a distinctive identifier that consumers associate with its goods or services. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, supra, § 1.3; UDRP Perspectives on Recent Jurisprudence, supra, §§ 1.1, 1.2. This evidentiary burden is higher where the claimed mark appears to be merely descriptive. See WIPO Overview § 1.3; UDRP Perspectives §§ 1.4.

 

The Panel notes, based upon its own research, that Complainant owns two United States trademark registrations for TRUST & WILL in standard character and stylized form, both on the Supplemental Register of the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office. Complainant had initially applied (in 2023) to register the marks on the Principal Register; in each instance, registration was refused on the ground that the mark was merely descriptive of Complainant's services.

 

A registration on the Supplemental Register does not support a claim of the rights required by paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. See WIPO Overview § 1.2; e.g., Scene LLC, dba Ookla v. Domain Buyer / Innovation HQ, Inc., FA 1590403 (Forum Jan. 7, 2015) ("registration on the Supplemental Register shows that at the time of registration the mark was descriptive and had not acquired secondary meaning"); Parker Waichman Alonso LLP v. zany technology.com, FA 1255465 (Forum May 20, 2009) ("A registration on the Supplemental Register carries no presumption as to the validity of the mark"); Advance News Service Inc. v. Vertical Axis, Inc. / Religionnewsservice.com, D2008-1475 (WIPO Dec. 11, 2008) ("the fact of a Supplemental Registration is no evidence whatsoever" of the trademark rights required by the Policy).

 

The Supplemental Register registrations do not preclude Complainant from demonstrating the acquired distinctiveness required for common law rights. But the evidentiary burden on Complainant is quite high, and the Panel is of the view that Complainant has failed to meet that burden. Complainant has provided evidence of use and media coverage, but has not demonstrated that its claimed mark is recognized by the public solely or even primarily as an identifier for Complainant's services rather than in its descriptive sense. Indeed, even the hand-picked examples offered by Complainant include numerous instances of descriptive use of the terms that comprise the putative mark: a referral service promoting "Will and Trust Lawyers"; a competitor's advertisement offering "10% Off Wills & Trusts"; a statement on a third-party website that Complainant offers "will- and trust-based estate-planning solutions"; and even the tagline for Complainant's own website, "Estate Planning - Create an Online Will and Trust."

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has not demonstrated the requisite rights in a relevant trademark. As this conclusion is dispositive of the present dispute, the Panel declines to address the other elements set forth in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.

 

DECISION

Having considered the elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <trustanswill.com>, <trustabdwill.com> and <trustsandwill.com> domain names REMAIN WITH Respondent.

 

 

 

David E. Sorkin, Panelist

Dated: February 12, 2025