DECISION

 

Mark Anthony International SRL v. Clamin Prince

Claim Number: FA2509002175016

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Mark Anthony International SRL ("Complainant"), represented by Steven J. Solomon of Tucker Ellis LLP, Ohio, USA. Respondent is Clamin Prince ("Respondent"), Cameroon.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <wholesalemasbymessi.com>, registered with HOSTINGER operations, UAB.

 

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.

 

Héctor Ariel Manoff as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

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

 

On September 5, 2025, HOSTINGER operations, UAB confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <wholesalemasbymessi.com> domain name is registered with HOSTINGER operations, UAB and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. HOSTINGER operations, UAB has verified that Respondent is bound by the HOSTINGER operations, UAB 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 September 8, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 29, 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@wholesalemasbymessi.com. Also on September 8, 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 30, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Héctor Ariel Manoff 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

1- Complainant, Mark Anthony International SRL was founded in 1972 and has been engaged in the business of offering innovative beverage products through its group of distinctive brands worldwide for decades.

2- Complainant owns the exclusive rights to the MÁS + BY MESSI trademark (U.S. Reg. No. 7,676,745) and the domain name <masbymessi.com>.

3- The trademark has been used for over a year and was in collaboration with football legend Lionel Messi.

4- Respondent has registered the disputed domain name <wholesalemasbymessi.com>, which is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark.

5- Respondent uses the subject domain name to impersonate Complainant.

6- Respondent is engaged in cybersquatting.

7- Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.

8- Respondent is not known by the disputed domain name.

9- Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in its Mas By Messi mark.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant, Mark Anthony International SRL owns MÁS + BY MESSI trademark (U.S. Reg. No. 7,676,745) to identify a beverage. Respondent registered the confusingly similar <wholesalemasbymessi.com> domain name and is used it 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 owns trademark registration MÁS + BY MESSI, U.S. Reg. No. 7,676,745 (Exhibit D) to identify a beverage and uses it since June 2024 (Exhibit C). Respondent registered the confusingly similar <wholesalemasbymessi.com> domain name in October 2024 (Exhibit A) and is using it in bad faith.

 

The Panel finds that the domain name <wholesalemasbymessi.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant's MÁS + BY MESSI registered mark.

 

The disputed domain name incorporates Complainants' trademark MÁS + BY MESSI (by omitting the accent mark on the letter "a" in "Más" and the plus sign) and adding the generic term "wholesale", with the top-level domain ".com".

 

The Panel finds that it is clear that Respondent knew that MÁS + BY MESSI belonged to Complainant since the disputed domain name resolves to a page that included images identical to Complainant's site. 

 

The Panel finds that the domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark since the additional elements are not sufficiently distinctive. See Microsoft Corporation v. Thong Tran Thanh, FA 1653187 (Forum Jan. 21, 2016) (determining that confusing similarity exists where [a disputed domain name] contains Complainant's entire mark and differs only by the addition of a generic or descriptive phrase and top-level domain, the differences between the domain name and its contained trademark are insufficient to differentiate one from the other for the purposes of the Policy); see also, Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognizable 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 concludes that the disputed domain name is identical and confusingly similar to MÁS + BY MESSI mark, in which Complainant has rights, under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) ("Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests").

 

The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <wholesalemasbymessi.com> domain name because Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use the MÁS + BY MESSI mark. See Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) ("lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant's mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)").

 

In addition, WHOIS information does not suggest that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. This Panel finds that Respondent has never been commonly known by the domain name.

 

Respondent has neither filed a response nor submitted evidence to prove that Respondent has any trademark rights in the <wholesalemasbymessi.com> domain name.

 

The evidence submitted by Complainant shows that Respondent's use of the <wholesalemasbymessi.com> domain is not a bona fide offering of goods. (Exhibit E). The disputed domain name currently resolves to a site which shows Complainant's mark and products.

 

This Panel agrees with Complainant that Respondent is not using the domain name in connection with a legitimate noncommercial use or fair use under Policy 4(c)(iii).

 

Therefore, the Panel agrees that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names and does not have legitimate interest under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant filed the MÁS + BY MESSI trademark application on March 2024 and has declared first use of the trademark as from June 2024 according to its trademark registration (Exhibit D). Complainant uses its trademark sells its products on the website <masbymessi.com> (Exhibit C).

 

The disputed domain name was registered on October 2024.

 

Respondent has not rebutted these facts.

 

Based on the fact that the disputed domain is identical to Complaint's mark except for an additional word "wholesale", the Panel finds that the registration of the domain name was done with Complainant's mark in mind.

 

In addition, the use of the domain name is done in bad faith since the website includes Complainant's trademark and products (Exhibit E).

 

Complainant has submitted evidence (Exhibit E) to prove that the domain name was used to impersonate Complainant by using the its trademark.

 

Complainant also submitted evidence to prove that Respondent´s website provides "Request A Quote" and "Contact Us" to collect contact information in furtherance of a fraudulent phishing scheme. (Exhibit E and J). The Panel finds bad faith in this action See Morgan Stanley v. Bruce Pu, FA 1764120 (Forum Feb. 2, 2018) ("[T]he screenshot of the resolving webpage allows users to input their name and email address, which Complainant claims Respondent uses that to fraudulently phish for information. Thus, the Panel agrees that Respondent phishes for information and finds that Respondent does so in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).").

 

This Panel concludes that Respondent has registered the domain name with the intent to attract and divert Internet users to the corresponding websites for its own benefit. See Carey Int'l, Inc. v. Kogan, FA 486191 (Forum July 29, 2005) ("[T]he Panel finds that Respondent is capitalizing on the confusing similarity of its domain names to benefit from the valuable goodwill that Complainant has established in its marks. Consequently, it is found that Respondent registered and used the domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).");

 

The Panel determines that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith under 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 <wholesalemasbymessi.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

__________________________________________________________________

 

 

Héctor Ariel Manoff, Panelist

Dated: October 13, 2025