DECISION

 

LFG Enterprises, Inc. v. Nugg Moldova

Claim Number: FA2507002167070

 

PARTIES

Complainant is LFG Enterprises, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Lisel M. Ferguson of Rimon PC, Idaho, USA. Respondent is Nugg Moldova ("Respondent"), Hungary.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <nugg.md> ("Domain Name"), registered with Public Institution Information Technology and Cyber Security Service.

 

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.

 

Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on July 22, 2025; Forum received payment on July 22, 2025.

 

On July 29, 2025, Public Institution Information Technology and Cyber Security Service confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <nugg.md> domain name is registered with Public Institution Information Technology and Cyber Security Service and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Public Institution Information Technology and Cyber Security Service has verified that Respondent is bound by the Public Institution Information Technology and Cyber Security Service 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 31, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Romanian and English Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 20, 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@nugg.md. Also on July 31, 2025, the Romanian and English 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 in Romanian and English.

 

On August 21, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Nicholas J.T. Smith 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.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDING

The language of the Registration Agreement in this case is Romanian.  The Complaint has been provided in English and Complainant has requested that the language of the proceeding be English. 

 

It is established practice to take UDRP Rules 10(b) and (c) into consideration for the purpose of determining the language of the proceeding to ensure fairness and justice to both parties.  Factors which previous panels have seen as particularly compelling are: WHOIS information which establishes Respondent in a country which would demonstrate familiarity with the English language, filing of a trademark registration with an entity which shows an understanding of the English language, and any evidence (or lack thereof) exhibiting Respondent's understanding of the language requested by Complainant.  See The Argento Wine Company Limited v. Argento Beijing Trading Company, D2009-0610 (WIPO July 1, 2009) (panel exercising discretion in deciding that the language of the proceedings advance in English, contrary to the Registration Agreement, based on evidence that respondent has command of the language).  Further, the Panel may weigh the relative time and expense in enforcing the Romanian language agreement, which would result in prejudice toward either party.  See Finter Bank Zurich v. Shumin Peng, D2006-0432 (WIPO June 12, 2006) (deciding that the proceeding should be in English, stating, "It is important that the language finally decided by the Panel for the proceeding is not prejudicial to either one of the parties in his or her ability to articulate the arguments for the case.") and Zappos.com, Inc. v. Zufu aka Huahaotrade, Case No. D2008-1191 (WIPO October 15, 2008) (holding that proceedings could be conducted in English even though the registration agreement was in Chinese where "the disputed domain resolves to a website [that] is exclusively in English, from which can be reasonably presumed that the Respondent has the ability to communicate in English in order to conduct his business over the website in English").

 

Pursuant to UDRP Rule 11(a), the Panel finds that persuasive evidence has been adduced by Complainant to suggest the likely possibility that the Respondent is conversant and proficient in the English language.  The Domain Name has resolved to a website ("Respondent's Website") that is entirely in English (and offers services from the United States), clearly indicating a familiarity with the language.  The Panel also notes that the Respondent has not objected in any way to the proceeding continuing in English.  After considering the circumstances of the present case, the Panel decides that the proceeding should be in English.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant offers a service connecting patients in need of medical marijuana recommendations with licensed doctors, which it has done so under the NUGGMD Mark and from its website at www.nugmd.com since 2015. Complainant asserts rights in the NUGGMD mark based upon registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (e.g., Reg. No. 7,258,526, registered January 2, 2024). Respondent's <nugg.md> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's NUGGMD trademark as it incorporates the NUGG portion of the mark with the ".md" country-code top-level-domain ("ccTLD").

 

Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <nugg.md> domain name. Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant's NUGGMD mark and is not commonly known by the Domain Name. Respondent also does not use the Domain Name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent redirects the Domain Name to the Respondent's Website which offers competing services in the field of medical marijuana recommendations from licensed physicians.

 

Respondent registered and uses the <nugg.md> domain name in bad faith. Respondent disrupts Complainant's business by offering competing services. Respondent creates a likelihood of confusion with Complainant for commercial gain. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the NUGGMD mark given the reputation of the mark and the use of the Domain Name to offer competing services.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant holds trademark rights for the NUGGMD mark.  The Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's NUGGMD mark.  Complainant has established that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name and that Respondent registered and has used the Domain Name in bad faith.

 

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 asserts rights in the NUGGMD mark through its registration of the mark with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 7,258,526, registered January 2, 2024). Registration with the USPTO can sufficiently establish rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).  See Thermo Electron Corp. v. Xu, FA 713851 (Forum July 12, 2006) (finding that the complainants had established rights in marks where the marks were registered with a national trademark authority).

 

The Panel finds that the <nugg.md> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's NUGGMD mark because it wholly incorporates Complainant's NUGGMD mark. The Panel notes that in the present case it has considered the ccTLD ".md" for the purpose of assessing confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the NUGGMD mark.  Section 1.11.3 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Overview") states that:

 

"Where the applicable TLD and the second-level portion of the domain name in combination contain the relevant trademark, panels may consider the domain name in its entirety for purposes of assessing confusing similarity (e.g., for a hypothetical TLD ".mark" and a mark "TRADEMARK", the domain name <trade.mark> would be confusingly similar for UDRP standing purposes)." 

 

The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant alleges that Respondent holds no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.  In order for Complainant to succeed under this element, it must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the Domain Name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests.  See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006) and AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Forum Sept. 25, 2006) ("Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light.  If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names.").  The Panel holds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case.

 

Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name as Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the NUGGMD mark.  Respondent has no relationship, affiliation, connection, endorsement or association with Complainant.  WHOIS information can help support a finding that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, especially where a privacy service has been engaged.  See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Dale Anderson, FA1504001613011 (Forum May 21, 2015) (concluding that because the WHOIS record lists "Dale Anderson" as the registrant of the disputed domain name, the respondent was not commonly known by the <statefarmforum.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)); see also Kohler Co. v. Privacy Service, FA 1621573 (Forum July 2, 2015) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) where "Privacy Service" was listed as the registrant of the disputed domain name).  

 

The WHOIS lists "Nugg Moldova" as registrant of record.   However there is no affirmative evidence that the Respondent is actually commonly known under the Nugg Moldova name as opposed to simply registering the Domain Name under a name for the purpose of asserting rights or legitimate interests.  Even if a respondent appears from the WHOIS record to be known by the domain name, without additional affirmative evidence, it can be concluded that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).  See Google Inc. v. S S / Google International, FA 1625742 (Forum Aug. 4, 2015) ("Respondent did identify itself as 'Google International' in connection with its registration of the Disputed Domain Name, and this is reflected in the WHOIS information.  However, Respondent has not provided affirmative evidence from which the Panel can conclude that Respondent was commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name before Respondent's registration thereof."); see also Hewlett-Packard Co. v. HP Supplies, FA 282387 (Forum July 22, 2004) ("The Panel finds, because of the prominence of the HP mark, that Respondent's registration under the 'HP Supplies' name does not establish that Respondent is commonly known by the <hpsupplies.com> domain name.").  Given the lack of evidence that the Respondent is actually known under a name corresponding to the Domain Name, and Complainant's unrebutted assertions as to absence of any affiliation or authorization between the parties, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name in accordance with Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).  

 

The Domain Name is presently inactive but prior to the commencement of the proceeding redirected to the Respondent's Website which advertised services connecting patients in need of medical marijuana recommendations with licensed doctors, in direct competition with Complainant's services.  In the absence of further information about the Respondent or its use (none being provided) the Panel finds that in this case the use of a confusingly similar domain name to redirect to a competing website does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the name under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).  See General Motors LLC v. MIKE LEE, FA 1659965 (Forum Mar. 10, 2016) (finding that "use of a domain to sell products and/or services that compete directly with a complainant's business does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).").  

 

The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

The Panel, while noting that the date the Respondent registered or acquired the Domain Name (at or after the creation date of the Domain Name, being September 19, 2018)) likely precedes the date at which the NUGGMD mark was registered (January 2, 2024), finds on the balance of probabilities that at that time Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's NUGGMD mark, which had been in use for at least 3 years.  The Respondent's Website offers services in direct competition with Complainant. Furthermore, there is no obvious explanation, nor has one been provided, for an entity to register a domain name that is essentially identical to the NUGGMD mark and use it to redirect visitors to a website offering identical medical marijuana recommendation services in the United States other than to take advantage of Complainant's reputation in the NUGGMD Mark.  In the absence of rights or legitimate interests of its own this demonstrates registration in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

The Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the Domain Name in bad faith as Respondent uses the Domain Name to redirect Internet users to Respondent's own website where Respondent purports to offer services (connecting patients in need of medical marijuana recommendations with licensed doctors) in direct competition with Complainant. Using a confusingly similar domain name to divert Internet users to a respondent's competing website can show bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See ZIH Corp. v. ou yang lin q, FA1761403 (Forum Dec. 29, 2017) (finding bad faith where the respondent used the infringing domain name to disrupt the complainant's business by diverting Internet users from the complainant's website to the respondent's website where it offered competing printer products).   Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the Domain Name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). 

 

The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

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 <nugg.md> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Nicholas J.T. Smith, Panelist

Dated: August 25, 2025