DECISION

 

Magenta Line, LLC v. Sipan Babertsyan / DEXATEL OU

Claim Number: FA2506002160574

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Magenta Line, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Lilit Yeghiazaryan, Estonia. Respondent is Sipan Babertsyan / DEXATEL OU ("Respondent"), Armenia.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <magenta-line.com>, registered with Bluehost Inc.

 

PANEL

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.

 

Karen J. Bernstein as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 13, 2025; Forum received payment on June 13, 2025.

 

On June 13, 2025, Bluehost Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <magenta-line.com> domain name is registered with Bluehost Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Bluehost Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Bluehost 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 June 24, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 14, 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@magenta-line.com. Also on June 24, 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.

 

A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on July 14, 2025.

 

On July 14, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Karen J. Bernstein 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 domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: OTHER LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AND COMPLAINANT'S ADDITIONAL SUBMISSION

In the "OTHER LEGAL PROCEEDINGS" section of the Complaint form, Complainant did not disclose other legal proceedings that are pending, but it did discuss in the Complaint a prior UDRP proceeding that its related company, Dexatel, brought against the same Respondent in these proceedings entitled, Dexatel CJSC v. Sipan Babertsyan, FA149845 (Forum May 28, 2025) wherein the Panel ordered transfer of the domain name <dexatel.com> away from Respondent to the complainant (the "Dexatel Decision").

 

In its Response, pursuant to Paragraph 5(c)(vi) of the Rules, Respondent requested these proceedings be either "deferred or dismissed," because Respondent filed an "appeal" of the Dexatel Decision in a "court of competent jurisdiction," which has suspended transfer of the <dexatel.com> domain name pending resolution of the unrelated judicial proceedings. Accordingly, Respondent requested the Panel in these proceedings refrain from issuing a separate determination regarding <magenta-line.com> at this time since the domain <dexatel.com> is the primary subject of the "appeal," and any parallel review concerning <magenta-line.com> — a domain managed under the same Bluehost account and implicated solely due to its association with <dexatel.com> — would amount to duplicative adjudication and may interfere with ongoing judicial proceedings.

 

Complainant filed an Additional Submission that rejects Respondent's request for dismissal or deferral of these proceedings because the "appeal" that Complainant contends is pending in Armenia pertains solely to the <dexatel.com> domain, which involves a separate company that is not Complainant in these proceedings.

 

Respondent did not file a response to Complainant's Additional Submission.

 

Here, Paragraph 5(c)(vi) of the Rules provides that, in the Response, the Respondent shall identify any other legal proceedings that have been commenced or terminated in connection with or relating to any of the domain name(s) that are the subject of the complaint.

Paragraph 18(a) of the Rules provides that in the event of any legal proceedings being initiated prior to or during an administrative proceeding in respect of a domain name dispute that is the subject of the complaint, the Panel shall have the discretion to decide whether to suspend or terminate the administrative proceeding, or to proceed to a decision.

 

Paragraph 18(a) of the Rules does not apply in these proceedings because the "appeal" of the Dexatel Decision involves a domain name that is not the subject of the <magenta-line.com> domain in these proceedings.

 

Accordingly, Respondent's request to "defer" or "dismiss" these proceedings is denied, and the Panel will proceed to a decision.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A.       Complainant

Complainant is a Delaware limited liability company and is the owner of the unregistered trademark for MAGENTA LINE for Carrier services, including SMS, voice, and software development services. Complainant claims it has been using the MAGENTA LINE common law trademark since 2010.

 

Complainant incorporated Magenta Line, LLC in the United States in 2018 to consolidate and expand operations under the same brand. The <magenta-line.com> domain name has always been controlled by the same founder and used exclusively in connection with the MAGENTA LINE brand.

 

Complainant alleges that Respondent is a former employee of Dexatel OÜ — a company affiliated through common ownership with the Complainant. Both companies were founded and are managed by the same individual, Lilit Yeghiazaryan, who is also filing this Complaint on behalf of Magenta Line LLC. 

 

During his employment at Dexatel, the Respondent served as Chief Technology Officer and was granted administrative access to a shared Bluehost account that managed the domain names <dexatel.com> (used by Dexatel OÜ) and <magenta-line.com> (used exclusively by Magenta Line, LLC). Both domains were held in the same account solely for administrative convenience, and were paid for exclusively by Dexatel OÜ, with both domains managed and operated for legitimate business purposes by their respective companies.

 

The Respondent never registered, paid for, or claimed ownership of <magenta-line.com>, nor was the domain ever used in association with his name, identity, or business. His access to the shared account was strictly role-based, and at no time was he authorized to alter administrative control or transfer account ownership.

 

Shortly before the termination of his contract on December 4, 2023, the Respondent changed the administrative contact email associated with the account from a Dexatel corporate address to his personal Gmail address, without disclosure or authorization. This gave him control over <magenta-line.com>, a domain he never owned, paid for, or had any legitimate connection to. After his departure, he rejected formal access recovery requests and refused to cooperate. His continued control of the <magenta-line.com> domain name blocks the Complainant from using the domain for essential business operations.

 

This mirrors the Respondent's conduct in the Dexatel Decision, in which the Panel found clear bad faith and ordered the domain's transfer. The same pattern applies here: unauthorized access, refusal to return control, and deliberate disruption of the Complainant's legitimate business use.

 

B.       Respondent

Respondent did not formally respond to the Complaint or address any of the allegations contained in the Complaint, but instead submitted a short email that requested that these proceedings be deferred or dismissed in light of the Dexatel Matter. As stated above, the Panel denies Respondent's request.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has failed to prove the first element of the Policy.

 

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; (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

Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy functions primarily as a standing requirement. There are two parts to this requirement. The first part is to determine whether complainant has rights in its trademark, and the second part is whether the domain name is confusingly similar to complainant's trademark.

 

The threshold challenge for the Complainant is that it lacks a registered trademark and does not offer persuasive evidence that its claimed unregistered MAGENTA LINE mark has "become a distinctive identifier which consumers associate with the complainant's goods and/or services." See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ('WIPO Overview 3.0'), paragraph 1.7.

 

In Policy terms, a complainant must offer detailed and specific evidence to demonstrate that an unregistered mark has acquired distinctiveness or secondary meaning. Conclusory allegations of unregistered or common law rights, even if undisputed in the particular UDRP case, does not normally suffice to show secondary meaning. Such evidence of unregistered rights in a mark include a range of factors such as: (i) the duration and nature of use of the mark, (ii) the amount of sales under the mark, (iii) the nature and extent of advertising using the mark, (iv) the degree of actual public (e.g., consumer, industry, media) recognition, and (v) consumer surveys. See WIPO Overview 3.0, paragraph 1.3.

 

The onus is on Complainant to adduce evidence of unregistered rights in a mark and is more substantial than a complainant that owns federal trademark registration rights.

 

Complainant owns no federal trademark registrations and adduces no evidence other than a 2018 Delaware Certificate of Formation of Complainant and an unsigned Limited Liability Company Agreement, to show that the unregistered MAGENTA LINE mark for Carrier services, including SMS, voice, and software development services has achieved secondary meaning. These two documents do not evidence that the MAGENTA LINE name has acquired distinctiveness. See Navigo Energy Inc. v. Andreas Meier and toptarget.com BV, FA0310000206312 (Forum Dec. 6, 2003) (the "Policy was intended solely to protect registered and unregistered trademarks and not trade names because trade names are not universally protected as are trademarks").

 

Accordingly, the Panel concludes that the Complainant has failed to establish the first element of the Complaint.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Given the Panel's conclusion on the first element of the Complaint, it is not necessary to enter findings on the second element.

 

Registration and Used in Bad Faith

Given the Panel's conclusion on the first element of the Complaint, it is not necessary to enter findings on the third element.

 

DECISION

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 <magenta-line.com> domain name remain with Respondent.

 

 

Karen J. Bernstein Panelist

Dated: July 24, 2025