DECISION
Equinox Business Law Group PLLC v. IT Department
Claim Number: FA2510002185679
PARTIES
Complainant is Equinox Business Law Group PLLC ("Complainant"), represented by Janaya Carter, Washington, USA. Respondent is IT Department ("Respondent"), Pakistan.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <equinoxadvocates.com>, registered with Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu.
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.
The Honorable Neil Anthony Brown KC as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on October 28, 2025; Forum received payment on October 28, 2025.
On October 29, 2025, Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <equinoxadvocates.com> domain name is registered with Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu has verified that Respondent is bound by the Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu 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 November 4, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 24, 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@equinoxadvocates.com. Also on November 4, 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 25, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed The Honorable Neil Anthony Brown KC 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 made the following contentions.
2. The Complainant provides its goods and services under its registered trademark for EQUINOX.
3. The Complainant acquired its aforesaid trademark rights by virtue of its registration of the EQUINOX trademark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") registration number 4,848,967, registered on November 10, 2015 ("the EQUINOX trademark").
4. The EQUINOX trademark has attracted substantial goodwill and is uniquely associated with the Complainant's goods and services.
5. As well as its aforesaid trademark, the Complainant has registered the <equinoxbusinesslaw.com> domain name which it uses in its business and in particular to provide its goods and services at www.equinoxbusinesslaw.com.
6. The Respondent registered the <equinoxadvocates.com> disputed domain name on June 26, 2023 ("the disputed domain name") well after the Complainant had acquired its aforesaid trademark rights on November 10, 2015.
7. The disputed domain name embodies, without the consent of the Complainant, the EQUINOX trademark, with the addition of the word "advocates" and the generic Top Level Domain ".com".
8. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the EQUINOX trademark.
9. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. That is so because:
(a) the Complainant has not given the Respondent any permission or other consent to use its aforesaid registered trademark for EQUINIOX in a domain name or in any other manner and the Respondent has no relationship with the Complainant;
(b) the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii);
(c) the Respondent has not used the domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i);
(d) the Respondent has not used the domain name for a legitimate, noncommercial or fair use within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii);
(e) the Respondent has caused the aforesaid domain name to resolve to a website using the Complainant's registered EQUINOX trademark and name and which offer services competing with and the same as or similar to those of the Complainant; and
(f) there is no other ground on which it could conceivably be contended that the Respondent has a right or legitimate interest in the domain name.
10. The Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. That is so because:
(a) the disputed domain name includes the whole of the Complainant's EQUINOX trademark and the Respondent has thus intended capitalise on the goodwill and reputation of the Complainant in its aforesaid trademark;
(b) the Respondent's conduct in registering and using the domain name as aforesaid was calculated to generate confusion between the Complainant and the Respondent and their respective websites within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) and for profit;
(c) the Respondent at all material times had actual knowledge of the Complainant and its trademark, brand and business; and
(d) all of the acts, facts, matters and circumstances to be revealed by the evidence will show that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith and that there is no plausible circumstance under which the Respondent could legitimately have registered and used the disputed domain name.
The evidence will therefore establish that the Complainant has been able to make out all of the grounds it must establish and that it is entitled to the relief that it seeks.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
FINDINGS
1. The Complainant is a United States company engaged in the provision of legal services and related goods and services and has been so engaged since 2009.
2. The Complainant provides its goods and services under its registered trademark for EQUINOX.
3. The Complainant acquired its aforesaid trademark rights by virtue of its registration of the EQUINOX trademark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") registration number 4,848,967, registered on November 10, 2015 ("the EQUINOX trademark").
4. The EQUINOX trademark has attracted substantial goodwill and is uniquely associated with the Complainant's goods and services.
5. As well as its aforesaid trademark, the Complainant has registered the <equinoxbusinesslaw.com> domain name which it uses in its business and in particular to provide its goods and services at www.equinoxbusinesslaw.com.
6. The Respondent registered the <equinoxadvocates.com> disputed domain name on June 26, 2023 ("the disputed domain name") well after the Complainant had acquired its aforesaid trademark rights on November 10, 2015.
7. The Respondent has caused the domain name to resolve to a website purporting to be that of Equinox Advocates and to be providing the same or similar services to those of the Complainant and in particular "legal business solutions" and "legal expertise".
8. By reason of the matters aforesaid, and as established by the evidence, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the EQUINOX trademark, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and the disputed domain name has been registered and used in bad faith.
9. Accordingly, the disputed domain name should be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.
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 or Confusingly Similar
The first question that arises is whether the Complainant has rights in a trademark or service mark on which it may rely. The evidence is that the Complainant provides its goods and services pursuant to the EQUINOX trademark. The evidence is also that the Complainant acquired its aforesaid trademark rights by virtue of its registration of the EQUINOX trademark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") registration number 4,848,967, registered on November 10, 2015 ("the EQUINOX trademark"). Moreover, the evidence also shows that the EQUINOX trademark has been used by the Complainant since its registration, has attracted substantial goodwill and is uniquely associated with the Complainant's goods and services.
The Panel has examined the trademark registration and has found that it is registered with respect to "(l)egal services, namely, services of a law firm", is current and is registered in the name of the Complainant.
All of the aforesaid facts have been established by documentary evidence that the Panel has examined and finds to be in order.
The Complainant has thus established its trademark rights pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) and hence its standing to bring this proceeding.
The next question that arises is whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the EQUINIOX trademark. The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the EQUINOX trademark for the following reasons. The disputed domain name embodies, without the consent of the Complainant, the EQUINOX trademark, with the addition of the word "advocates" and the generic Top Level Domain ".com". It is clear, first, that the domain name includes the trademark. It has long been established in this field that where a domain name includes a trademark it is more likely than not that the domain name will be held to be confusingly similar to the trademark, because it is often the first or dominant aspect of the domain name. In the present case, it is obviously so. It is also significant that the domain name also includes the word "advocates", as advocacy is one of the functions of a law firm; thus, an internet user would conclude that the domain name may well have been created by the Complainant as it is a law firm using the name and trademark "EQUINOX".
Finally, is the established practice in this field that extensions such as ".com", are disregarded for the purpose of the comparison between a trademark and a domain name, as all domain names require such an extension and its presence does not inform internet users one way or the other whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark. There are many prior UDRP decisions to that effect.
Thus, the domain name is confusingly to the trademark, similar because the presence in the domain name of the trademark and confusingly so, because internet users would wonder whether, if they used the domain name, they would be using an official and genuine domain name of the Complainant or not.
The Complainant has thus made out the first of the three elements that it must establish as provided in Policy ¶4(a)(i).
Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Panel finds on the evidence that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case that arises from the following considerations. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name on all of the grounds relied on by the Complainant, namely:
(a) the evidence shows that the Complainant has not given the Respondent any permission or other consent to use its aforesaid registered trademark for EQUINIOX in a domain name or in any other manner and the Respondent has no relationship with the Complainant; the Complainant is the owner of the registered trademark and has given evidence that it has not consented to the use of the trademark; thus, the use of the disputed domain name, involving as it does extensive use of the trademark is an infringement of the Complainant's trademark rights;
(b) the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii); there is no evidence that the Respondent is known by the domain name either commonly or at all and there is no evidence that it is known by any name other than its own;
(c) the Respondent has not used the domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i); it is not bona fide to take another party's trademark and to use it to copy the trademark owner and offer the same or similar services as those of the trademark owner; in fact, the Complainant's Exhibit B, which is a copy of the website to which the domain name resolves, uses the heading "EQUINOX ADVOCATES" and states that it is offering "legal business solutions" and " legal expertise", so it is offering the same services as the Complainant offers under its trademark; clearly such conduct cannot be bona fide;
(d) the Respondent has not used the domain name for a legitimate, noncommercial or fair use within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii); the aforesaid conduct of the Respondent was not legitimate as it was an infringement of the Complainant's trademark; it was clearly commercial as it was designed to make money by one means or another and it was not fair, either to the Complainant or internet users in general;
(e) the Respondent has caused the aforesaid domain name to resolve to a website using the Complainant's registered EQUINOX trademark and name and which offers services competing with and the same as or similar to those of the Complainant; this has already been established by the evidence; and
(f) there is no other ground on which it could conceivably be contended that the Respondent has a right or legitimate interest in the domain name.
The entire conception and clearly intended use of the domain name consisted of using the substance of the EQUINOX trademark to impersonate and pass itself off as the Complainant, adding a regular function of a law firm such as advocacy and claiming to be able to offer the same or similar services as those of the Complainant. Such conduct could not give rise to a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.
The Complainant has thus made out a persuasive prima facie case on the evidence for all of the grounds it relies on to show that the Respondent does not have a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.
The Respondent is in default and has not advanced any evidence or submissions to show that it could rebut the Complainant's contentions.
The Complainant has therefore made out the second of the three elements it must establish under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
It is clear that to establish bad faith for the purposes of the Policy, the Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith. It is also clear that the criteria set out in Policy ¶ 4(b) are not exclusive but that domain name proceedings may also rely on conduct that is bad faith within the generally accepted meaning of that expression.
In view of the evidence discussed above, particularly Exhibit B, which is equally as applicable to bad faith as it is to rights and legitimate interests and which it is not necessary to repeat here, it is clear that the Complainant has made out all of the grounds relied on. The only conclusion that can be reached on the limited evidence is that the Respondent has been motivated by bad faith in the registration of the domain name and has continued in that conduct after its registration, showing bad faith use; the registration was clearly an attempt by the Respondent to use its domain name, incorporating as it does the Complainant's trademark, for a purpose competing with the Complainant and it is significant that it used the Complainant's trademark in domain name, added the word "advocates" , which must have encouraged at least some internet users to believe that it may well be a domain name of the Complainant. It is therefore clear from the evidence that, as the Complainant has submitted:
(a) the evidence has shown that the disputed domain name includes the whole of the Complainant's EQUINOX trademark and the Respondent has thus intended to capitalise on the goodwill and reputation of the Complainant in its aforesaid trademark;
(b) the evidence has shown that Respondent's conduct in registering and using the domain name as aforesaid was calculated to generate confusion between the Complainant and the Respondent and their respective websites within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) and for profit;
(c) the Respondent at all material times probably had actual knowledge of the Complainant and its trademark, brand and business; in any event, the Respondent could have made a search that would have revealed the Complainant's interest in the EQUINOX trademark and either did not do so or, if it did conduct any such search, it ignored the result; the targeting of the Complainant and the expression of the domain name shows that the Respondent had actual knowledge of the Complainant and its trademark and that it could not have carried out its scheme without having had such actual knowledge; and
(d) all of the acts, facts, matters and circumstances revealed by the evidence have shown that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith and that there is no plausible circumstance under which the Respondent could legitimately have registered and used the disputed domain name.
The Complainant has thus made out the third of the three elements that it must establish under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
The Complainant has therefore out the three elements in must establish and is entitled to the relief that it seeks.
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 <equinoxadvocates.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
The Honorable Neil Anthony Brown KC,
Panelist
Dated: December 1, 2025
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page