DECISION

 

Keller Williams Realty, LLC v. JULIAN CIENFUEGOS

Claim Number: FA2510002185237

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Keller Williams Realty, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Stewart N. Mesher of Spencer Fane LLP, Texas, USA. Respondent is JULIAN CIENFUEGOS ("Respondent"), Mexico.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <kwsantaursula.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, 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.

 

Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on October 27, 2025; Forum received payment on October 27, 2025.

 

On October 27, 2025, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <kwsantaursula.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, 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 October 30, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 19, 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@kwsantaursula.com. Also on October 30, 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 20, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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 contends in part as follows:

 

Complainant and registrant of the KELLER WILLIAMS marks has prominently and extensively used, promoted, and advertised the KELLER WILLIAMS marks for over thirty years and has used the KW mark and the KWKW mark since at least 2013. Complainant's marks have been in use for decades and Complainant has developed a considerable reputation in association with its marks. By virtue of these efforts, the Complainant's marks have become well recognized by consumers as designating Complainant as the source of the services so marked.

 

The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's marks. Complainant maintains registration of its marks with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO"). Complainant's USPTO trademark registrations for its marks are sufficient to demonstrate Complainant's rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Complainant offers real estate brokerage franchise opportunities to real estate agents as independent contractors. Complainant's franchises often create and use a website and domain specific to a particular franchise using typical formats. The at-issue domain name wholly incorporates the KW mark in the at-issue domain name along with the name of a city, Santa Ursula, and the ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD") to form the domain name <kwsantaursula.com>. Because the domain wholly incorporates the KW mark with additional descriptive words, it is confusingly similar to Complainant's marks. Additionally, Respondent's domain follows the typical domain format of an international Keller Williams franchise. Santa Ursula is a neighborhood located in Coyoacán, Mexico City.

 

Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. Respondent registered the at-issue domain name on March 14, 2024, long after Complainant began using its marks, and long after Complainant registered the marks with the USPTO. Respondent is not a licensee of Complainant nor is Respondent authorized to use Complainant's marks for any purpose. Respondent is not a licensee of Complainant nor is Respondent authorized to use Complainant's marks for any purpose. Respondent is not known as KW or Keller Williams. Respondent is not identified in its domain name registration. In sum, there is no legitimate basis for Respondent's registration and use of the domain name, which is confusingly similar to Complainant's marks, and Respondent has not established rights or legitimate interests in the domain name pursuant to UDRP Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith. Respondent registered the domain name to disrupt the business of Complainant, in violation of UDRP Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). A registration issued on the Principal Register by the USPTO serves as constructive notice of the registrant's claim of ownership thereof. Respondent therefore registered the domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the marks. Respondent's actual knowledge is evident given the notoriety of Complainant's marks and given Respondent's use of the domain name and related website to compete with Complainant. Respondent's registration and use of a confusingly similar domain name with knowledge of Complainant's trademark rights in such domain name further indicates Respondent's bad faith pursuant to UDRP Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, internet users to Respondent's website, in violation of UDRP Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). Respondent uses the confusingly similar domain name, allegedly offering real estate services for "fractional properties and vacation weeks." In reality, Respondent provides no such services and defrauds customers out of thousands of dollars. Complainant has received reports from individuals stating that they had been defrauded of money by Respondent via the <kwsantaursula.com> website. These individuals had been deceived into believing that Respondent was a legitimate Keller Williams franchise and was offering real estate services. Respondent is using an identical or confusingly similar domain name to redirect internet users to Respondent's domain name to lure clients into believing Respondent was a legitimate Keller Williams franchise in order to defraud them. Aside from being criminal, such use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to UDRP Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to UDRP Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). Respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of profiting from the business of Complainant and damaging Complainant's reputation and goodwill, in violation of UDRP Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). Respondent was clearly aware of Complainant's rights in Respondent's marks. Respondent registered the domain name as a subterfuge to falsely identify itself as legitimately associated with Complainant to conduct fraudulent activity, harming consumers and Complainant. Respondent's use of to defraud consumers constitutes bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name under UDRP Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has trademark rights in KW and related marks.

 

Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and had not been authorized to use Complainant's trademark in any capacity.

 

Respondent registered the at‑issue domain name after Complainant acquired rights in its KW trademark.

 

Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to pass itself off as one of Complainant's franchisees.

 

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

The at-issue domain name is identical to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.

 

Complainant shows that it owns a USPTO trademark registrations for the KW mark. Complainant's trademark registration is conclusive evidence of its rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Vanguard Trademark Holdings USA LLC v. Wang Liqun, FA 1625332 (Forum July 17, 2015) (finding, "Registration of a mark with a governmental authority (or, in this case, multiple governmental authorities) is sufficient to establish rights in the mark for purposes of Policy ¶4(a)(i)).

 

Respondent's <kwsantaursula.com> domain name contains Complainant's entire KW trademark followed by the suggestive geographical term "santaursula" (Santa Ursula) with all followed by the ".com" top-level domain name. Complainant explains that the domain name's format, where Complainant's KW mark is followed by an operating location, is typical of domain names used to support Complainant's franchisees. The differences between Complainant's KW trademark and Respondent's at-issue domain name fail to distinguish the domain name from the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent's <kwsantaursula.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's KW trademark. See Microsoft Corporation v. Thong Tran Thanh, FA 1653187 (Forum Jan. 21, 2016) (determining that confusing similarity exist 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.)

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

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. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond, Complainant's prima facie showing acts conclusively.

 

Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the <kwsantaursula.com> domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant's trademark in any capacity and as discussed below there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of the at‑issue domain name. 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)").

 

The WHOIS information for the at-issue domain name ultimately identifies the registrant of <kwsantaursula.com> as "JULIAN CIENFUEGOS" and the record before the Panel contains no evidence that otherwise tends to show that Respondent is commonly known by the <kwsantaursula.com> domain name. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).

 

Respondent uses its confusingly similar <kwsantaursula.com> domain name to address a website appearing as if it is sponsored by or affiliated with Complainant as a franchisee. In furtherance of fraud, the confusingly similar domain name and its referenced website bamboozles internet users into falsely believing they are dealing with Complainant. Respondent's use of the <kwsantaursula.com> in this manner constitutes neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a non-commercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Insomniac Holdings, LLC v. Mark Daniels, FA 1735969 (Forum July 15, 2017) (refusing to find rights and legitimate interests in a domain name on the part of a respondent when the disputed domain name "resolves to a website that Respondent has designed to mimic Complainant's own in an attempt to pass itself off as Complainant")

 

Given the foregoing, Respondent lacks rights and lacks legitimate interests in respect of <kwsantaursula.com>.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

As discussed below without being exhaustive, Respondent acted in bad faith.

 

Respondent used the at-issue domain name to address a website posing as if it may have been an official website of Complainant or one of its franchisees. There, passing itself off as Complainant, Respondent pretends to offer real estate investment opportunities under the KW brand. Respondent's use of <kwsantaursula.com> to pass itself off as Complainant is disruptive to Complainant's business and intended to deceivingly attract internet users seeking Complainant to Respondent's <kwsantaursula.com> domain name and <kwsantaursula.com> website. Respondent's use of the at-issue domain name to pass off as Complainant demonstrates Respondent's bad faith registration and use of <kwsantaursula.com> under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See DatingDirect.com Ltd. v. Aston, FA 593977 (Forum Dec. 28, 2005) ("Respondent is appropriating Complainant's mark to divert Complainant's customers to Respondent's competing business. The Panel finds this diversion is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)."); see also, Xylem Inc. and Xylem IP Holdings LLC v. YinSi BaoHu YiKaiQi, FA 1612750 (Forum May 13, 2015) ("The Panel agrees that Respondent's use of the website to display products similar to Complainant's, imputes intent to attract Internet users for commercial gain, and finds bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).")

 

Respondent's imposter website includes a contact page where interested parties can request further information about real estate investment opportunities in Santa Ursula, Mexico that are actually being offered by Complainant, e.g. real estate services for "fractional properties and vacation weeks." However, having stolen Complainant's identity, Respondent provides no services or other benefits to its putative, online real estate customers. Instead, Respondent criminally capitalizes on the <kwsantaursula.com> visitors' mistaken belief that they are dealing with Complainant, by swindling thousands of dollars from these unfortunate marks. See Nous Defions, LLC v. james pechi / Squarespace, FA 1666199 (Forum Apr. 17, 2016) (finding bad faith registration and use when the respondent used the disputed domain name to obtain "numerous paid orders for firearms and related goods from the consuming public, but never fulfilled an order"); see also, Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum Dec. 27, 2017) (finding bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where "Respondent registered and uses the <lbittrex.com> domain name in bad faith by directing internet users to a website that mimics Complainant's own website in order to confuse users into believing that Respondent is Complainant, or is otherwise affiliated or associated with Complainant."); see also, Funding Circle Limited v. tim mcelwain / timmcelweain, FA 2003934 (Forum Aug. 4, 2022) ("Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to facilitate [a] phishing scheme designed to swindle funds from Complainant's customers. Such use of the confusingly similar domain name indicates Respondent's bad faith under the Policy.")

 

Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the KW mark when it registered <kwsantaursula.com> as a domain name. Respondent's prior knowledge is apparent given the mark's notoriety, given that Respondent's domain name conforms to the typical format of domain names used by Complainant's franchisees for their websites, and given Respondent's use of <kwsantaursula.com> to address a website posing as if it was operated by Complainant or one of its franchisees. Respondent's knowledge of Complainant's rights in KW further demonstrates Respondent's bad faith under the Policy. See Lemon Inc. v. Sumer Singh, FA 2110519 (Forum Sept. 5, 2024 ("registration of a disputed domain name with actual knowledge of another's trademark rights is sufficient to establish bad faith, and can be shown by the notoriety of the mark and the use the Respondent makes of the disputed domain name"); see also, Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name).

 

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 <kwsantaursula.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist

Dated: November 21, 2025