DECISION

 

Donald Jenkins v. Tim Doran / Black Thunder Offshore

Claim Number: FA2506002159557

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Donald Jenkins ("Complainant"), represented by B. Scott Eidson of Stinson LLP, Missouri, USA. Respondent is Tim Doran / Black Thunder Offshore ("Respondent"), Missouri, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <blackthunderoffshore.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.

 

Alan L. Limbury, as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

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

 

On June 6, 2025, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <blackthunderoffshore.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, 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 June 10, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 30, 2025 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 postmaster@blackthunderoffshore.com. Also on June 10, 2025, 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, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On July 1, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Alan L. Limbury 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 name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant, Donald Jenkins, is the designer and manufacturer of high performance-high speed powerboats through his company, Black Thunder Powerboats, and is the owner of the federally registered BLACK THUNDER mark under which his powerboats have been marketed since the early 1990s.

 

The <blackthunderoffshore.com> domain name is nearly identical and confusingly similar to Complainant's well-known BLACK THUNDER mark.

 

Respondent has no legitimate right or interest in the <blackthunderoffshore.com> domain name. Respondent registered the domain name long after Complainant first began using the BLACK THUNDER mark in commerce. Complainant has never licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use Complainant's BLACK THUNDER mark nor to register or use any domain name incorporating the mark in any way. Respondent has never been known by the domain name or any name corresponding to the domain name. 

 

Respondent uses the domain name for commercial gain and misleadingly to divert consumers by hosting a website designed to pass off Respondent's business as the successor to Complainant's business, thereby confusing consumers as to the source and quality of the powerboats offered by Respondent for sale as the same or substantially similar to those offered by Complainant.

 

The <blackthunderoffshore.com> domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Upon information and belief, Respondent registered and is using the domain name primarily to profit from and exploit Complainant's BLACK THUNDER mark by leading consumers to believe that his website is that of Complainant and Complainant's company—Black Thunder Powerboats. Respondent was undoubtedly aware of Complainant's established rights to the BLACK THUNDER mark at the time of registration. The domain name resolves to a website purporting to offer high-speed powerboats under the BLACK THUNDER mark. This indicates that the domain name is intentionally being used in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has established all the elements entitling him to relief.

 

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 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

Complainant has shown that he has rights in the mark BLACK THUNDER, namely USPTO Registration No. 1677514, registered on March 3, 1992 for use in connection with High Performance-High Speed Powerboats, in Class 12 (U.S. Cl. 19).

 

It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant's trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Overview 3.0 "), section 1.7.

 

The Panel finds Respondent's <blackthunderoffshore.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to Complainant's BLACK THUNDER mark, only differing by the addition of the word "offshore", which is insufficient to distinguish the domain name from Complainant's BLACK THUNDER mark and instead evokes Complainant's business. The inconsequential ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD") may be ignored under this element. See, for example, Rollerblade, Inc. v. Chris McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000).

 

Complainant has established this element.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides that any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate Respondent's rights or legitimate interests to the domain name for purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(ii):

 

(i)                      before any notice to Respondent of the dispute, the use by Respondent 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 (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if Respondent 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 customers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.

 

The <blackthunderoffshore.com> domain name was registered on January 6, 2011, many years after the registration of Complainant's BLACK THUNDER mark. It resolves to a website prominently displaying Complainant's BLACK THUNDER mark, recounting the foundation by Complainant of his business, claiming to continue Complainant's business under new management, and depicting images of BLACK THUNDER branded powerboats which appear to be offered for sale.

 

These circumstances, together with Complainant's assertions, are sufficient to constitute a prima facie showing of absence of rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name on the part of Respondent. The evidentiary burden therefore shifts to Respondent to show that he does have rights or legitimate interests in the <blackthunderoffshore.com> domain name. See JUUL Labs, Inc. v. Dryx Emerson / KMF Events LTD, FA1906001849706 (Forum July 17, 2019). Respondent has made no attempt to do so.

 

The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name.

 

Complainant has established this element.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy is expressed in the conjunctive: "the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith" and Paragraph 4(b) sets out four illustrative circumstances, which, though not exclusive, shall be evidence of the registration and use of the domain name in bad faith for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii), including:

 

(iv)                      by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location.

The circumstances set out above in relation to the second element satisfy the Panel that Respondent was fully aware of Complainant and his BLACK THUNDER mark when Respondent registered the <blackthunderoffshore.com> domain name and that Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent's website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent's website and of the products promoted on that website. This demonstrates registration and use in bad faith to attract users for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).

 

Complainant has established this element.

 

DECISION

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

 

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

 

 

 

Alan L. Limbury, Panelist

Dated: July 2, 2025