DECISION

 

Minnesota Independence College and Community v. supermanis comingfast

Claim Number: FA2507002164178

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Minnesota Independence College and Community ("Complainant"), represented by Coleman Sutter of Hellmuth & Johnson, PLLC, Minnesota, USA. Respondent is supermanis comingfast ("Respondent"), Indonesia.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <miccommunity.org>, 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.

 

Debrett G. Lyons as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on July 3, 2025; Forum received payment on July 3, 2025.

 

On July 3, 2025, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <miccommunity.org> 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 July 7, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 28, 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@miccommunity.org. Also on July 7, 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 formal response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On July 28, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Debrett G. Lyons 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 a formal response from Respondent.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant asserts trademark rights in MICC and MINNESOTA INDEPENDENCE COLLEGE AND COMMUNITY which it uses in connection with education and training services for autistic and neurodivergent adults.  Complainant states that the MICC and MINNESOTA INDEPENDENCE COLLEGE AND COMMUNITY trademarks are distinctive and uniquely associated with Complainant by reason of use since as early as 2018 and that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademarks.

 

Complainant states that the disputed domain name was created after Complainant had acquired rights in the trademarks. Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because it is not known by the same name and has not been authorized to use the trademarks.

 

Complainant alleges that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith having targeted Complainant and its trademarks. In particular, Complainant states it "owned and used the disputed domain name between August 16, 2018 and March 17, 2025, when the registration was inadvertently allowed to lapse. During that time, Complainant used the disputed domain to promote Complainant's education and workplace readiness programs.  Complainant submits that Respondent brazenly impersonated Complainant by publishing a replica of a prior version of Complainant's website using Wayback Machine Uploader. More recently, it is said that Respondent repurposed the resolving website as either an online gambling service or merely as a parking spot until the domain can be sold for profit.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding but wrote to Forum after receipt of the Complaint stating: "i will take down the domain asap. are you interested in buying the domain?". 

 

FINDINGS

The factual findings pertinent to the decision in this case are that:

1.       Complainant provides education and training services for autistic and neurodivergent adults;

2.       the disputed domain name was registered on May 15, 2025, using a privacy service to shield the name of Respondent; and

3.       the domain name previously resolved to a website which mimicked a legacy version of Complainant's website but more recently resolves to a gambling site.

 

DISCUSSION

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted 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.  

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires a two-fold enquiry—an investigation into whether a complainant has rights in a trademark, followed by an assessment of whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark.

 

Complainant does not assert registered trademark rights but states that it has developed strong common law rights in MICC and MINNESOTA INDEPENDENCE COLLEGE AND COMMUNITY by reason of their use in respect of education and training services since August 2018.

 

The Policy does not distinguish between registered and unregistered (common law) trademark rights. Complainant must therefore prove unregistered trademark rights (see, for example, Microsoft Corporation v. Story Remix / Inofficial, FA 1734934 (Forum July 10, 2017) finding that "The Policy does not require a complainant to own a registered trademark prior to a respondent's registration if it can demonstrate established common law rights in the mark."). In that regard, the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Overview") asks at #1.3:

 

What does a complainant need to show to successfully assert unregistered or common law trademark rights?

 

To establish unregistered or common law trademark rights for purposes of the UDRP, the complainant must show that its mark has become a distinctive identifier which consumers associate with the complainant's goods and/or services.

 

Relevant evidence demonstrating such acquired distinctiveness (also referred to as secondary meaning) includes 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.

…

Specific evidence supporting assertions of acquired distinctiveness should be included in the complaint; conclusory allegations of unregistered or common law rights, even if undisputed in the particular UDRP case, would not normally suffice to show secondary meaning. In cases involving unregistered or common law marks that are comprised solely of descriptive terms which are not inherently distinctive, there is a greater onus on the complainant to present evidence of acquired distinctiveness/secondary meaning.

…

 

The Complaint is supported by a declaration of Complainant's CFO who swears that Complainant offers education and training services at its campus in Richfield, Minnesota. It is declared that over 480 individuals have attended programs there. Further, that Complainant has invested more than $870,000.00 on marketing, advertising, and promotion of its educational and training programs since its foundation.

 

There is no specific evidence of those claims and no evidence of actual public recognition of the marks. That said, Complainant's website is well developed and shows a convincing history of the business and timeline of its development. The Panel notes extrinsic references to Complainant on the internet and bearing in mind that UDRP panelists have, where the evidence was similar, found common law rights in marks used locally by businesses such as car dealerships and real property agencies, finds just enough material to support the claim to unregistered rights in both MICC and MINNESOTA INDEPENDENCE COLLEGE AND COMMUNITY.

 

For the purposes of comparison, the Panel need only take account of the MICC mark. The gTLD, ".org", can be disregarded and the word "community" – already associated with Complainant - is obviously elided with the trademark.  Neither addition distinguishes the domain name from the trademark and the Panel finds that the compared terms are confusingly similar (see, for example, Morgan Stanley v. Morgan Stanley, FA 1169733 (Forum May 3, 2008) finding addition of a gTLD irrelevant for the purposes of comparison; Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognisable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element.").

 

The Panel therefore finds that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy are satisfied.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy states 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 rights or legitimate interests to a domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy:

 

(i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your use 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) you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights;  or

 

(iii) you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.

 

Complainant need only make out a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, after which the onus shifts to Respondent to rebut that case by demonstrating those rights or interests (see, for example, Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000‑0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000)).

 

The name of Respondent was shielded by a privacy service. Once revealed in consequence of these proceedings as "supermanis comingfast", nothing indicated that Respondent might be commonly known by the domain name (see, for example, Tercent Inc. v. Lee Yi, FA 0139720 (Forum Feb. 10, 2003) stating "nothing in [the respondent's] WHOIS information implies that [the respondent] is 'commonly known by' the disputed domain name" as one factor in determining that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) does not apply").

 

There is no evidence that Respondent has any trademark rights.  Complainant's CFO declares that Respondent has no permission to use the trademark. The Complaint states that: 

 

"Respondent brazenly impersonated Complainant by publishing a replica of a prior version of Complainant's website using Wayback Machine Uploader. Since Complainant reported the fraudulent activity to the domain registrar, Respondent has repurposed the resolving website at the disputed domain for use as a purported online gambling service or merely as parking spot until the domain can be sold for profit. … On or about June 16, 2025, the website at the disputed domain was updated to host an online gambling service with sexually suggestive images."

 

Reviewing the evidence, the Panel broadly finds those claims supported and sees no bona fide use of the domain name within the terms of paragraph 4(c) of the Policy or otherwise. The Panel accordingly finds that a prima facie case has been made (see, for example, Ripple Labs Inc. v. NGYEN NGOC PHUONG THAO, FA1741737 (Forum Aug. 21, 2017) ("Respondent uses the [disputed] domain name to divert Internet users to Respondent's website… confusing them into believing that some sort of affiliation exists between it and Complainant… [which] is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate non-commercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).")).  

 

The onus shifts to Respondent and in the absence of a Response, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or interests and so finds that Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant must prove on the balance of probabilities both that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith and used in bad faith.  

 

Further guidance on that requirement is found in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy, which sets out four circumstances, any one of which is taken to be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith if established. 

 

The four specified circumstances are:

 

'(i) circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the respondent's documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or

 

(ii) the respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

 

(iii) the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or

 

(iv) by using the domain name, respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, internet users to respondent's website 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 the respondent's website or location or of a product or service on the site or location.'

 

The Panel finds that Respondent's conduct is caught by, at the very least, paragraph 4(b)(i) above. The timing indicates that the disputed domain name was registered opportunistically when it was not renewed by Complainant. The use was in bad faith. Taken together with Respondent's informal email asking whether Complainant wanted to purchase the name, there is compelling evidence that Respondent registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to Complainant or to a competitor of Complainant, for consideration in excess of the Respondent's out-of-pocket costs.

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied the third and final element of the Policy.

 

DECISION

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

 

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

 

 

Debrett G. Lyons, Panelist

August 6, 2025