DECISION

 

LimeWR Fyre OÜ v. Liam Spencer

Claim Number: FA2508002171353

 

PARTIES

Complainant is LimeWR Fyre OÜ ("Complainant"), represented by Jason Schaeffer of ESQwire.com, P.C., New Jersey, USA. Respondent is Liam Spencer ("Respondent"), Great Britain.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <fyrefestival.com>, registered with NameSilo, 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 August 13, 2025; Forum received payment on August 13, 2025.

 

On August 14, 2025, NameSilo, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <fyrefestival.com> domain name is registered with NameSilo, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameSilo, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameSilo, 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 August 14, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 3, 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@fyrefestival.com. Also on August 14, 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 3, 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 any response from Respondent.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

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

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A.       Complainant

Complainant asserts common law and registered trademark rights in FYRE FESTIVAL and submits that the disputed domain name is identical to

the trademark.

 

Complainant submits that Respondent has no legitimate interest in the

disputed domain name.

 

Complainant further submits that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

Complainant petitions the Panel to order transfer of the disputed domain name to Complainant "to prevent Respondent from continuing to use [it] for Respondent's own improper effort to profit off of unsuspecting consumers seeking or searching for Complainant."

 

In further elaboration of it claims, the Complaint states that in 2016 the:

 

"'Fyre Festival' was created and marketed as an unprecedented, opulent Bahamas getaway, with yachts and luxury cabanas, celebrity-chef catering, and the greatest live music entertainment that anyone had ever imagined. The media hysteria generated by the festival's founders and team is studied and recognized as a marketing success."

 

The Complaint goes on to explain that:

 

"[t]he reality was vastly different. … the failure of the festival was equally, if not more captivating and a cautionary tale. By May 2017 the global public was primed and ready to see how this 'grand' unprecedented festival would perform. As the details of the Fyre Festival began to leak to the media the public shock at Fyre Festival's collapse was swift and unrelenting."

 

So far as Complainant's assertion of trademark rights is concerned, it is said that:

 

"Throughout 2017 the Fyre Festival was extensively promoted globally. From a marketing perspective, the Fyre Festival was a spectacle that elite global influencers, actors, entertainers promoted to hundreds of millions of fans. At its peak, the Fyre Festival had a frenzy of marketing and promotions that spanned and took over the imagination of the online world. At the time, Complainant's common law trademarks were known worldwide.

…

After the failure of the festival, the notoriety of the FYRE FESTIVAL [trademark] continued to grow.

…

Suffice to say, the Fyre Festival has enjoyed extensive and undeniable common law trademark rights since at least December 12, 2016. The term "FYRE FESTIVAL" is exclusively associated with the festival as a strong common law trademark."

 

Further, by way of recent agreements, Complainant asserts beneficial/equitable ownership of registration with the United States Patent and Trademarks Office ("USPTO") of the mark, FYRE FESTIVAL.

 

The Complaint states that during negotiations to purchase the trademark and other assets of Complainant's predecessor-in-business, it was disclosed that "the disputed domain name had been taken and improperly registered and used in bad faith by Respondent to take advantage of the fame and notoriety of the Fyre Festival intellectual property and brand".

 

It is said that:

 

"[s]ometime after May 2017, after the extreme difficulties Seller was facing, the prior owner of the Disputed Domain inadvertently allowed the domain registration to lapse.

…

After May 2017, the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain. Since that time Respondent has been directing unsuspecting consumers to Respondent's website.

…

Respondent is improperly profiting from the website traffic to it is website deriving revenue from consumers looking for Complainant. … Respondent's infringing use of the Disputed Domain is causing financial harm and loss to Complainant, is misleading consumers, and has resulted in improper financial gain to Respondent.

…

Respondent's current and historical use a website that resolves from the Disputed Domain Name presenting infringing and misleading links for a travel site for Caribbean destinations and is a deliberate attempt to mislead consumers and profit off of Complainant's brand."

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The factual findings pertinent to the decision in this case which are supported by the evidence and by the Panel's reasonable and permitted enquiries are that:

 

1.       the disputed domain name was first registered on November 28, 2016, using a privacy service to shield the name of the underlying registrant;

2.       that underlying domain name registrant has not been identified;

3.       on or about July 4, 2017, the domain name lapsed for want of renewal;

4.       on or about August 8, 2017, it was registered anew, again using a privacy service to shield the name of the underlying registrant;

5.       Respondent later amended registry information to publicly identify himself as the owner; and

6.       the trademark FYRE FESTIVAL is registered with the USPTO as Reg. No. 7,322,932, filed April 14, 2018, and registered March 5, 2024, in the name of FYRE HOLDINGS, INC., and as Reg. No. 5,962,393, filed April 14, 2018, and registered January 14, 2020, in the name of XNO, LLC;

 

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:

 

(i)  the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and

(ii)  Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

(iii)  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—a threshold 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.

 

It is well established by decisions under this Policy that a trademark registered with a national authority is evidence of trademark rights (see, for example, Mothers Against Drunk Driving v. phix, FA 174052 (Forum Sept. 25, 2003)).  The trademark FYRE FESTIVAL is the subject of two USPTO registrations, detailed above, but neither in the name of Complainant.

 

Complainant states that it is the recent purchaser of all rights, title, goodwill and interests to the trademark from Fyre Holdings, Inc. which in turn had acquired all rights in Reg. No. 5,962,393 from XNO, LLC.  Those transfers are documented but the question arises whether an unrecorded owner of a trademark registered to another has "rights" for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. In that regard the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Jurisprudential Overview") states at # 1.4.1 that "[a] trademark owner's affiliate such as a subsidiary of a parent or of a holding company, or an exclusive trademark licensee, is considered to have rights in a trademark". The emphasis is on the exclusive right rather than formal ownership and so in cases where that right is proven, UDRP panelists have generally found that the Policy was satisfied.  This Panel follows that consensus and finds that Complainant has trademark rights in FYRE FESTIVAL.

 

Further, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical to the trademark since it is accepted that, for the purposes of comparison, the gTLD, ".com" can be disregarded (see, for example, Audigier Brand Mgmt. Grp., LLC v. bai wentao, FA 1286108 (Forum Nov. 16, 2009) holding that even after the "addition of a ccTLD the disputed domain name is still identical to Complainant's mark."); Abt Elecs., Inc. v. Ricks, FA 904239 (Forum Mar. 27, 2007) ("The Panel also finds that Respondent's <abt.com> domain name is identical to Complainant's ABT mark since addition of a generic top-level domain ("gTLD") is irrelevant when conducting a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis.")). 

 

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 make only 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)).

 

Complainant's accusations are that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name because Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant in any way, nor is Respondent authorized to use the FYRE FESTIVAL trademark.  Complainant then asserts that "Respondent is not an authorized licensee, vendor, supplier, distributor, or customer relations agent for Complainant's publication", which the Panel cannot tie in with any other claims. However, Complainant specifically submits that Respondent's actions are not a bona fide offering of goods or services under paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy because:  

 

"Respondent's current and historical use a website that resolves from the Disputed Domain Name presenting infringing and misleading links for a travel site for Caribbean destinations and is a deliberate attempt to mislead consumers and profit off of Complainant's brand."

 

The evidence in support of the Complaint includes the declaration of Complainant's CEO ("Complainant's Declaration") who states that on or around July 23, 2025, Complainant purchased all right, title, and interest in the name FYRE FESTIVAL. He declares that his statements are based upon his own personal knowledge.  

 

Complainant's Declaration states that "Respondent is improperly profiting from the website traffic to it is website (sic) deriving revenue from consumers looking for Complainant."  

 

Exhibit 8 to the Complaint is described as a "Screenshot of Respondent's Current Website". The screenshot is of a page entitled "Hotel Choices in Greater Antilles". The Panel observes that the screenshot is of a page from the website at www.greaterantilleshotels.com. There is no explanation of this anomaly. Further, the content of that webpage is reproduced in Complainant's Declaration and appears to be relied upon for the claims made there which must accordingly be given reduced weight.

 

The claim that Respondent is infringing Complainant's trademark rights and improperly profiting from same is made in Complainant's Declaration and repeated in the Complaint. It is said, for example, that:

 

"Respondent is improperly profiting from the website traffic to it is website deriving revenue from consumers looking for Complainant."

 

"Respondent's infringing use of the Disputed Domain is causing financial harm and loss to Complainant, is misleading consumers, and has resulted in improper financial gain to Respondent." 

 

"Respondent's current and historical use a website that resolves from the Disputed Domain Name presenting infringing and misleading links for a travel site for Caribbean destinations and is a deliberate attempt to mislead consumers and profit from use of the [trademark]."

 

Putting to one side the question of whether Respondent has in fact used the disputed domain name in the manner alleged by Complainant, these claims are underpinned by statements such as:

 

"It is indisputable that Complainant enjoys trademark rights in the FYRE FESTIVAL Marks, which long predate the creation of the Infringing Domain Name."

 

The Panel is not so convinced of that claim. The disputed domain name was registered by Respondent in August 2017. The USPTO trademark registrations were filed in April 2018.  Rights arising from those trademark registrations postdate Respondent's registration of the domain name.

 

The common law trademark claim is more nuanced, but far from "indisputable". Public domain information is that the festival was shambolic. The Complaint acknowledges that the name FYRE FESTIVAL was almost immediately notorious by reason of the spectacular failure of the event and refers to its ongoing "infamy".

 

Whether the words FYRE FESTIVAL enjoyed common law trademark rights in August 2017 is, in the Panel's assessment, contestable. Goodwill usually goes hand in glove with a common law trademark but here there is none. Even notoriety - disconnected from the provision of goods or services - is not a sufficient basis for trademark rights (see, for example, WIPO Jurisprudential Overview at #1.3: "[t]o 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.").  

 

The Complaint states that Complainant "is embarking on a new project and development for the intellectual property and FYRE FESTIVAL and FYRE brand."  Part of that project is evidently the recovery of the disputed domain name, which was allowed to lapse more than eight years ago.  The Complaint does not show with any certainty use of the domain name (nor made submissions with respect to non-use of the name).  To the extent that Complainant asserts use in connection with travel services, there is nothing to indicate that this had an impact upon any rights held by Respondent, nor caused any financial or other loss to Respondent.

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has failed to make even a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name and so finds that Complainant has not established the second element of the Policy.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

With the above finding, consideration of registration and use in bad faith is not required (see, for example, Netsertive, Inc. v. Ryan Howard / Howard Technologies, Ltd., FA 1721637 (Forum Apr. 17, 2017) finding that because the complainant must prove all three elements under the Policy, the complainant's failure to prove one of the elements makes further inquiry into the remaining element unnecessary). However, the Panel has in this case found it appropriate to consider this element of the Policy.

 

As stated, Complainant's submission is that Respondent's "current and historical use" of the domain name is to a website with travel links to Caribbean destinations. The described "Screenshot of Respondent's Current Website" is from a page at www.greaterantilleshotels.com. The Complaint take matters no further.

 

The Panel's permitted research (see, WIPO Jurisprudential Overview at # 4.8 which states that, "[n]oting in particular the general powers of a panel articulated inter alia in paragraphs 10 and 12 of the UDRP Rules, it has been accepted that a panel may undertake limited factual research into matters of public record if it would consider such information useful to assessing the case merits and reaching a decision) showed that the domain name <greaterantilleshotels.com> was created on November 3, 2016, by a Joshua Rodriguez. Further, at the time of writing the disputed domain name did not resolve to an active website.

 

Exhibited to the Complaint is a Domain Tools report on the disputed domain name. What it shows is that the disputed domain name has not itself resolved to an active website since at least August 21, 2020. Between August 8, 2017, when the domain name was registered the second time, and January 16, 2018, there appears to have been no use. From January 16, 2018, until August 21, 2020, the domain name resolved to a website listing "Hotel Choices in Greater Antilles". Whether this was exactly the same site as the one appearing at www.greaterantilleshotels.com is unclear because the resolution of the screenshots in the Domain Tools report is too poor to be certain.

 

However, the Panel's use of the WayBack Machine Internet Archive indicates that for a time after August 2020 the disputed domain name redirected traffic to www.greaterantilleshotels.com. The Panel notes finally that the Domain Tools report states that the disputed domain name and <greaterantilleshotels.com> are hosted on the same IP address.

 

Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith and is being used in bad faith. The standard of proof is the balance of probabilities – that is, more likely than not (see, for example, WIPO Overview at # 4.2).  The failure to submit a Response allows the Panel to accept reasonable allegations, but equally the Panel may deny the Complaint where it relies on unsubstantiated claims or on submissions inconsistent with the facts (see, for example, WIPO Overview at # 4.3; 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").

 

Applying these standards, the Panel does not find registration in bad faith. As discussed, the Panel's assessment is that Complainant had no clear trademark rights at the time the domain name was registered by Respondent. Nor does the Panel find use or passive holding in bad faith (see the requirements set out in the leading case of Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003).

 

Nonetheless, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out four scenarios which, if shown to apply, are to be accepted as evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. On the facts, it is only paragraph 4(b)(i) which is of possible application. It looks to:

 

"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"

 

There is no argument of this kind to be found in the Complaint, but the Panel notes the relatively quick uptake of the domain name when its initial registration lapsed; the apparent lack of its use now; its redirection for a period to another domain name sharing the same IP address; and the somewhat static character of the information resolving from that other domain name over many years.

 

That said, there is no evidence of Respondent having offered to sell the domain name to Complainant or anyone else, and nothing else of a sinister nature. On balance, the Panel finds no compelling evidence that paragraph 4(b)(i) applies.

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has not established the third element of the Policy.

 

DECISION

Having failed to established two of the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <fyrefestival.com> domain name REMAIN WITH Respondent.

 

 

 

Debrett G. Lyons, Panelist

Dated:  September 10, 2025