DECISION

 

Sub-Zero, Inc. v. Ivan Lopez / Marlon Barrios / fritzroy palmer

Claim Number: FA2502002139015

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Sub-Zero, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Bianca L. Ascolese of Foley & Lardner LLP, Wisconsin, USA. Respondent is Ivan Lopez / Marlon Barrios / fritzroy palmer ("Respondents"), represented by Southern Law Group, Florida, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES 

The domain names at issue are <subzeroplus.com>, <subzerorepairco.com>, and <subzeroauthorizedrepairservice.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.

 

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.

 

Luca Barbero, as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 6, 2025; Forum received payment on February 6, 2025.

 

On February 6, 2025, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <subzeroplus.com>, <subzerorepairco.com>, and <subzeroauthorizedrepairservice.com> domain names are registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondents are the current registrant of the disputed domain names. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondents are bound by the GoDaddy.com, LLC registration agreement and have thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").

 

On February 11, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 7, 2025 by which Respondents could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondents' registrations as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@subzeroplus.com, postmaster@subzerorepairco.com, and postmaster@subzeroauthorizedrepairservice.com. Also on February 11, 2025, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondents of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondents via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondents' registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.

 

A timely Response was received and determined to be complete, on March 4, 2025, by the Respondent for the <subzeroplus.com> domain name.

 

On March 5, 2025, pursuant to the Parties' requests to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Luca Barbero 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the disputed domain names be transferred from Respondents to Complainant.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE RESPONDENTS

The amended Complaint was filed in relation to nominally different domain name registrants. Complainant alleges that the disputed domain names are owned by the same individual or entity, either outright or through multiple aliases. The Complainant requests the consolidation of the Complaint against the multiple disputed domain name registrants pursuant to paragraph 10(e) of the Rules.

 

Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules provides that a "complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder." Despite being presented with WHOIS records that name different registrants, prior Panels have held that consolidation of a case against multiple domain names is appropriate where there are other similarities that indicate a likelihood of common ownership. See, e.g., American Airlines, Inc. v. Ramadhir Singh, WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc. / Reema Gupta, Ballu Balwant, Domain Admin, Privacy Protect, LLC (PrivacyProtect.org) / Lucy Lionel, Lucy99, Red Keep, D2021-0294 (WIPO Mar. 11, 2021) (where consolidation was upheld based on "the similar content and layout of the websites that were linked to the disputed domain names; the fact that all the disputed domain names target a specific sector and the same trademark within this sector; the similar patterns in the disputed domain names; and the identical reaction of the Respondents to the Complaint, not replying to the Complainant's contentions.")

 

Complainant contends that, despite their respective WHOIS records listing different registrants, the disputed domain names are controlled by the same holder because: i) they share the same or similar format, namely, they incorporate SUBZERO, which is essentially identical to Complainant's SUB-ZERO house mark and/or the SUB-ZERO CARE PLUS mark, merely omitting a hyphen between SUB and ZERO, with the addition of the generic terms "plus", "repair co" and "authorized repair services" and the generic top-level domain extension ("gTLD") ".com"; ii) they resolve to websites with very similar content; iii) they are all registered with the same registrar, GoDaddy.com, LLC and use the same WHOIS privacy protection service; iv) they are all registered by individuals based in Florida; and v) they all resolve to websites promoting repair services allegedly offered in South Florida.

 

The Panel has carefully reviewed the submitted evidence and declines to consolidate the three disputed domain names.

 

While the WHOIS records for the disputed domain names list different registrant names, the Panel notes that these also list different postal addresses, phone numbers, and email addresses, with the only point of commonality being that the three domain names list addresses located in Florida. As such, there are no sufficient commonalities in the respective WHOIS records.

 

Moreover, in his Response, the Respondent Ivan Lopez stated that he only owns the <subzeroplus.com> domain name and that he is in no way connected to the other two Respondents and the respective disputed domain names.

 

As such, the Panel must evaluate circumstantial elements such as naming conventions and the manner in which the disputed domain names are used, in this case, the content of the websites to which the disputed domain names resolve.

 

Each of the three disputed domain names reproduce Complainant's SUB-ZERO trademark with the mere deletion of the hyphen between the two words in the mark and are registered in the same gTLD ".com". However, whilst SUBZERO is reproduced as prefix in all three domain names, the added terms, i.e. "plus", "repair co" and "authorized repair service", are different. Moreover, the disputed domain names were registered on different dates: <subzeroplus.com> on January 26, 2017; <subzerorepairco.com> on June 30, 2018 and <subzeroauthorizedrepairservice.com> on November 14, 2022. 

 

As to the websites to which the disputed domain names resolve, the Panel notes that while there are some similarities, there are also many differences. Indeed, whilst the websites to which the <subzerorepairco.com> and <subzeroauthorizedrepairservice.com> domain names display the same SUB-ZERO logo at the top, the website at the <subzeroplus.com> domain name displays a different logo consisting of the denominative element SUBZEROPLUS. The websites have different layouts and texts and display different telephone numbers. All three websites promote repair services of SUB-ZERO appliances, but the services are not provided in the same geographic locations, as the services promoted on the website "www.subzeroplus.com" are purportedly provided to customers based in Dade County, Broward County and Palm Beach County, whilst services promoted on the website "www.subzeroauthorizedrepairservice.com" serve Florida, Atlanta and Orange County California and the ones promoted on "www.subzerorepairco.com" cover Miami-Dade, Broward, Palm Beach, Martin, Collier, St. Lucie and Monroe Counties.

 

Therefore, the Panel finds that, based on the evidence on record, there are not sufficient elements to grant consolidation in this case.

 

In light of the above, the Panel has decided to proceed with the remainder of the present case against the <subzeroplus.com> domain name and dismiss, without prejudice, the case against the <subzerorepairco.com> and <subzeroauthorizedrepairservice.com> domain names, leaving Complainant the option of filing new complaints against those domain names.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: CONSENT TO TRANSFER

The Response submitted by Respondent Ivan Lopez for the <subzeroplus.com> domain name stated:

 

"The Respondent LOPEZ has informed Complainant's counsel that he consents to the remedy requested by the Complainant and agrees to transfer the disputed domain name SUBZEROPLUS.COM to the Complainant or in the alternative cancel the disputed domain name, whichever the Complainant prefers".

 

The Panel takes the Response to amount to Respondent's consent to the transfer to Complainant of the <subzeroplus.com> domain name. Accordingly, the Panel considers it appropriate to order the transfer without embarking on the traditional Policy analysis. See Disney Enters., Inc. v. Morales, FA 475191 (Forum June 24, 2005) ("[U]nder such circumstances, where Respondent has agreed to comply with Complainant's request, the Panel felt it to be expedient and judicial to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order the transfer of the domain names.").

 

DECISION

Respondent Ivan Lopez having consented to the transfer of the <subzeroplus.com> domain name to Complainant, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.  

 

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

 

Further, the Complaint against <subzerorepairco.com> and <subzeroauthorizedrepairservice.com> is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

 

 

 

Luca Barbero, Panelist

Dated: March 19, 2025