DECISION

 

Erik Harp d/b/a Gold Rush v. PRATIK SUBEDI

Claim Number: FA2508002171019

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Erik Harp d/b/a Gold Rush ("Complainant"), represented by Michael J. Douglas of Leak, Douglas & Morano, PC, Alabama, USA. Respondent is PRATIK SUBEDI ("Respondent"), Texas, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <goldrushdallas.com>, registered with IONOS SE.

 

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 August 12, 2025. Forum received payment on August 12, 2025.

 

On August 13, 2025, IONOS SE confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <goldrushdallas.com> domain name is registered with IONOS SE and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. IONOS SE has verified that Respondent is bound by the IONOS SE 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 August 18, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 8, 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@goldrushdallas.com. Also on August 18, 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 September 9, 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, Erik Harp d/b/a Gold Rush, has used its trademark GOLD RUSH in commerce since at least January 15, 2011 in connection with its business of providing monetary exchange services. Complainant has locations in Colorado and Texas and uses the websites https://goldrushhouston.com/ and https://goldrushdenver.com/.

 

Respondent's domain name <goldrushdallas.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant's registered service mark GOLD RUSH.

 

Respondent should be considered as having no rights or legitimate interests in respect to the domain name <goldrushdallas.com> because it is not a functional site. Complainant  researched <goldrushdallas.com> in an attempt to determine if it was being used for any legitimate business purpose. For example, when you click on <goldrushdallas.com>, it takes you immediately to another website: https://mallko.store/. Upon information and belief, Respondent is not using <goldrushdallas.com> at all, but this site is redirecting to another website.

 

Upon information and belief, Gold Rush Dallas a/k/a A1 Gold Rush is a brick-and-mortar business located at 14999 Preston Road, Suite D208, Dallas, Texas 75254. The websites for Gold Rush Dallas (<goldrushdallas.com> <a1goldrush.com>) identified an owner by the name of Alex Hamdan. A screenshot of the domain at issue <goldrushdallas.com> from March 13, 2024 shows the infringement by Respondent of Complainant's registered trademark.

 

On or about January 13, 2025, Complainant sent a cease and desist to Gold Rush Dallas. In response Complainant and the then-current owner entered into a confidential settlement agreement and mutual release wherein the new owner agreed to rebrand its business from Gold Rush Dallas a/k/a A1 Gold Rush to A1 Gold Run. Further, the new owner represented to Complainant  that it does not own or control the domain <goldrushdallas.com>.

 

It is clear that this website is not being used in any way and its registration can only be considered as existing in bad faith, as it redirects to a completely unrelated website. In an attempt to resolve this matter or determine more specificity into how the Registrant is using the website, Complainant attempted to contact Registrant on at least two (2) occasions and never received any response.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has failed to establish all the elements entitling it 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 it has rights in the registered service mark GOLD RUSH, namely USPTO Reg. No. 5,881,989, registered on October 15, 2019, for "Providing monetary exchange services, namely, exchanging gold of others for cash", in International Class 36, upon application filed on April 24, 2018, claiming first use and first use in commerce on January 15, 2011.

 

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 3.0, ¶ 1.7.

 

The Panel finds Respondent's <goldrushdallas.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to Complainant's GOLD RUSH mark, only differing by the addition of the geographic word "Dallas" which is insufficient to distinguish the domain name from Complainant's mark. 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

In light of the Panel's finding below, it is unnecessary to consider 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), namely:

 

(i)        circumstances indicating that you have registered or you have 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 your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or

 

(ii)        you have 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 you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

 

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

 

(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 <goldrushdallas.com> domain name was registered on March 17, 2010, almost 10 months prior to Complainant's claimed first use of its GOLD RUSH mark. There is no evidence before the Panel that the registrant has changed since then. Accordingly, Respondent could not have had Complainant's then non-existent trademark in mind when registering the <goldrushdallas.com> domain name and cannot be found to have done so in bad faith, even assuming that the domain name has been used in bad faith after Complainant acquired rights in its GOLD RUSH mark. See Passion Group Inc. v. Usearch, Inc. (eResolution case AF-0250) and Viz Communications, Inc., v. Redsun dba www.animerica.com and David Penava (WIPO case D2000-0905).

 

As explained in Yoomedia Dating Limited v. Cynthia Newcomer / Dateline BBS, WIPO Case No. D2004-1085:

 

"Previous decisions have considered the matter of good faith registration followed by bad faith use. The prevailing view is that the Policy was not designed to prevent such situations. In Substance Abuse Management, Inc. v. Screen Actors Modesl [sic] International, Inc. (SAMI), WIPO Case No. D2001-0782, the panel stated that "If a domain name was registered in good faith, it cannot, by changed circumstances, the passage of years, or intervening events, later be deemed to have been registered in bad faith". In Teradyne Inc.Teradyne, Inc. [sic] v. 4tel Technology, WIPO Case No. D2000-0026, the Respondent registered a domain name to reflect its own business name but subsequently sought to sell the name for profit when its business dissolved. The panel found that to decide the case on the subsequent bad faith action would "extend the Policy to cover cases clearly intended to be outside its scope." Similarly, in Telaxis Communications Corp. v. William E. Minkle, WIPO Case No. D2000-0005, the respondent registered the disputed domain name in good faith but subsequently began to use it in bad faith. It was held that because the registration was made in good faith the requirement of Paragraph 4(a)(iii) was not met".

 

Complainant has failed to establish this element.

 

Reverse Domain Name Hijacking

Reverse Domain Name Hijacking ("RDNH") is defined in Rule 1 as "using the Policy in bad faith to attempt to deprive a registered domain-name holder of a domain name". Rule 15(e) provides, in part:

 

"If after considering the submissions the Panel finds that the complaint was brought in bad faith, for example in an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking or was brought primarily to harass the domain-name holder, the Panel shall declare in its decision that the complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding."

 

As noted in Exhibit D to the Complaint, the <goldrushdallas.com> domain name was registered on March 17, 2010, prior to the claimed 2011 first use in commerce of Complainant's GOLD RUSH mark, registered in 2019. Accordingly, Respondent could not have had Complainant and its then non-existent trademark in mind when registering the domain name, a fact which must have been known to Complainant and its Counsel when filing the Complaint. The Panel therefore finds that the Complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding.

 

DECISION

Complainant 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 <goldrushdallas.com> domain name REMAIN WITH Respondent.

 

 

 

Alan L. Limbury, Panelist

Dated: September 11, 2025