DECISION

 

Luke Bronin v. Steven Wong

Claim Number: FA2510002184751

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Luke Bronin ("Complainant"), represented by John Berryhill, Pennsylvania, USA. Respondent is Steven Wong ("Respondent"), Cambodia.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <lukebronin.com>, registered with NameCheap, Inc.

 

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.

 

James Bridgeman SC as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on October 24, 2025; Forum received payment on October 24, 2025.

 

On October 24, 2025, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <lukebronin.com> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, Inc. 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 October 27, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 17, 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@lukebronin.com. Also on October 27, 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 November 18, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed James Bridgeman SC 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 disputed domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant is a former mayor of Hartford, Connecticut (2016–2024) and a current candidate for the United States Congress. His name has been prominently used in political campaigns, fundraising, and public service, and has acquired secondary meaning through continuous exposure in commerce and media.

 

Complainant submits that the eponymous disputed domain name <lukebronin.com> was originally registered by Complainant and served as the official campaign website for his 2015 and 2019 mayoral campaigns. A screen capture exhibited in an annex to the Complaint, shows the 2015 campaign homepage prominently displaying "LUKE BRONIN" alongside donation and volunteer links.

 

Complaints cites numerous decisions under the Policy confirming that personal names used in political and commercial contexts can acquire protectable rights under the Policy. In Kenneth Calvert v. Richard Mandanice, FA 162075 (Forum  Aug. 1, 2003), the panel held that a U.S. Congressman's name used for campaign purposes constituted a protectable mark, even after inadvertent lapse of registration.

 

Similarly, in Hillary Rodham Clinton v. Michele Dinoia a/k/a SZK.com, FA 414641 (Forum  Mar. 18, 2005), the panel recognized rights in the HILLARY CLINTON mark based on political use and exposure.

 

Complainant argues that these cases underscore that political figures who use their names for campaign activities and fundraising acquire rights sufficient to invoke the Policy.

 

Beyond politics, in addition to Complainant's political activities, Complainant asserts that he has practiced law privately under his name "Luke Bronin", and uses his name commercially as a recording artist and as a commercial media personality.

 

He has recorded and released the eponymous album "Luke Bronin" by "Luke Bronin", which is listed for sale at, for example, Amazon.com and Spotify as shown in a screen capture exhibited in an annex to the Complaint.

 

He is credited in the Internet Movie Database for recordings used in television programming.

 

Furthermore, Complainant submits that he has appeared as a commentator on "The Meidas Touch Podcast" and on "The Rob Dibble Show," a sports radio program.

 

Complainant argues that these activities demonstrate that LUKE BRONIN functions as a commercial identifier, akin to the circumstances in Clinton Sparks and Get Familiar Inc. v. Vyacheslav Kaplunenko, FA 1843527 (Forum  June 14, 2019), where the panel recognized secondary meaning in a musician's name based on album releases and media appearances.

 

Secondly, Complainant contends that Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, explaining that Respondent acquired the disputed domain name at auction after Complainant inadvertently failed to renew it and has used it to impersonate Complainant by unlawfully copying Complainant's former campaign website.

 

As shown in a screen capture exhibited in an annex to the Complaint, the website to which the disputed domain name currently resolves is an intentional duplicate of Complainant's 2019 campaign site, including photographs, campaign messaging, and volunteer sign-up forms.

 

Complainant submits that such conduct constitutes copyright infringement and passing off, which are per se illegitimate under the Policy.

 

Referring to documents exhibited in an annex to the Complaint, Complainant provides a detailed chronology of the domain name's history:

·       2015 Campaign: Complainant registered and used the domain name for his mayoral campaign, prominently featuring LUKE BRONIN in connection with solicitation of donations and volunteers.

·       2019 Campaign: Complainant launched a re-election campaign website at the same domain name, which included photographs, campaign messaging, and contribution links.

 

After deciding not to seek a third term, Complainant allowed the website to lapse; the last functional capture occurred in February 2022 as shown in a screen capture exhibited in an annex to the Complaint.

 

On January 13, 2025, the disputed domain name expired and was auctioned at GoDaddy for $195 on February 17, 2025.

 

Also as shown in searches exhibited in an annex to the Complaint, following the auction, the disputed domain name passed through multiple hosting providers, including Hostinger and Cloudflare, before being registered with NameCheap.

 

Complainant emphasizes that this sequence of events demonstrates deliberate action by Respondent rather than inadvertence.

 

Complainant submits that Respondent's replication of Complainant's 2019 campaign site, complete with volunteer sign-up forms, creates a risk of diverting supporters and donors, potentially interfering with Complainant's current congressional campaign.

 

Thirdly. Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, arguing that Respondent's conduct is evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

Complainant contends that Respondent opportunistically registered the disputed domain name immediately upon expiration, copied Complainant's prior campaign website, and provided false contact information, listing an address in Cambodia and a telephone country code for Indonesia.

 

Complainant argues that this pattern mirrors findings in Leonardo DiCaprio v. sandi monkey, FA 2026351 (Forum Feb. 3, 2023), where opportunistic registration after lapse was deemed evidence of bad faith, and in F.R. Burger & Associates, Inc. v. shanshan lin, FA 1623319 (Forum July 9, 2015), which held that acquiring a domain name immediately after expiration indicates predatory intent.

 

Complainant also cites 8X Entm't, Inc. v. EXC Int'l AG WIPO Case D2005-1126 and Vivendi Universal Games v. Ballard, FA 146621 (Forum Mar. 13, 2003), where panels found that hijacking and copying a complainant's website to mislead users constitutes bad faith. Here, Respondent's actions cannot be explained as inadvertent or benign.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant is a politician and political candidate for the U.S. Congress. He has appeared as a commentator in podcasts and other media, and has published a music album.

 

Complainant does not have any registered trademark or service mark.

 

The disputed domain name was registered by Complainant on January 13, 2014, which resolved to his website during his time in political office as mayor of Hartford, Connecticut, and it was subsequently allowed to lapse.

 

The disputed domain name resolves to a website with content taken from Complainant's website without consent, and includes requests for political donations to fund Complainant's election campaign.

 

There is no information available about Respondent except for that provided in the Complaint, as amended, the Registrar's WhoIs and the information provided by the Registrar in response to the request by Forum for details of the registration of the disputed domain name.

 

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 claims to rights in his name primarily on his reputation as a politician and political candidate. He also claims that he has a reputation as a media commentator including on podcasts and musician.

 

He does not have any registered trademark or service mark and claims to have rights at common law.

 

In order to succeed in this Complaint, based on common law rights in his name he must provide sufficient evidence to prove a protectable goodwill and reputation in the use of his name in commerce. The standard of proof is addressed in WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on

Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Overview 3.0") as follows:

 

"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."

 

While Complainant has shown that he engages in media commentary and has published certain sound recordings, he has not provided sufficient evidence of the extent of his business, reputation and goodwill as a media personality or musician, sufficient to establish a secondary meaning in his name which would create trademark rights at common law.

 

He states that he formerly practiced law in his own name, but he has not produced any evidence that he has any surviving reputation or protectable goodwill arising from the provision of legal services. 

 

He has adduced extensive evidence that he has a strong reputation as a successful politician, having succeeded in being elected as mayor of Hartford, Connecticut.

 

Working or seeking election as a political representative is not a business or commercial enterprise that creates protectable trademark rights.

 

The issue is addressed in WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on

Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Overview 3.0") at ¶ 1.5.2:

"Merely having a famous name (such as a businessperson or cultural leader who has not demonstrated use of their personal name in a trademark/source-identifying sense), or making broad unsupported assertions regarding the use of such name in trade or commerce, would not likely demonstrate unregistered or common law rights for purposes of standing to file a UDRP complaint."

 

The Policy provides relief only for owners of trademarks and service marks, and even then only in the limited circumstances set out Policy ¶ 4(a).

 

The Panel finds on the evidence that Complainant has not established that he has trademark or service mark rights in his name protectable at common law.

 

The Panel finds therefore that Complainant has failed to satisfy the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

As Complainant has failed to establish that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights and has not satisfied the first element of the test in in Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), it is neither necessary nor appropriate for the Panel to consider the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

As Complainant has failed to establish that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights and has not satisfied the first element of the test in in Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), it is neither necessary nor appropriate for the Panel to consider the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

DECISION

Having NOT established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall NOT BE GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <lukebronin.com> domain name shall REMAIN WITH RESPONDENT.

 

 

______________________________________________

 

James Bridgeman SC, Panelist

Dated: November 20, 2025