DECISION

 

Scott-Macon Equipment v. Sierra King

Claim Number: FA2512002192535

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Scott-Macon Equipment ("Complainant"), represented by Angela S. Kalsi of UBGreensfelder, Illinois, USA. Respondent is Sierra King ("Respondent"), Florida, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <smequipment.net>, registered with Name.com, 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.

 

Debrett G. Lyons as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

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

 

On December 4, 2025, Name.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <smequipment.net> domain name is registered with Name.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Name.com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Name.com, 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 December 8, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 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@smequipment.net. Also on December 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 December 31, 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 trademark rights in SM EQUIPMENT and SCOTT-MACON EQUIPMENT.  Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is identical to its SM EQUIPMENT trademark.  

 

Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

Complainant alleges that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

For reasons which follow, the only factual finding pertinent to the decision in this case is that Complainant operates a crane and lifting equipment rental business.

 

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.

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires a two-fold enquiry — an 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.

 

The Policy does not distinguish between registered and unregistered (common law) trademarks.  Thus, trademark rights may be established by proof of Complainant's registration of the mark with a national authority, or by proof of reputation and secondary meaning.

 

In this case, Complainant claims common law trademark rights in SM EQUIPMENT and SCOTT-MACON EQUIPMENT.  It states that it has used those marks in connection with the sale, rental, and servicing of lifting equipment since 1973 and goes on to claim that:

 

"Complainant is a highly regarded leader in the field of lifting equipment and boasts one of the largest fleets of rental cranes in North America. Complainant has been offering its [s]ervices continuously and without interruption under the SM EQUIPMENT and SCOTT-MACON EQUIPMENT marks for more than 50 years. Such services have been offered, at a minimum, throughout the States of Texas, Oklahoma, and Louisiana. As a result, Complainant has gained a reputation for excellence in those States and is known throughout the country as well. … Over the years, Complainant has spent well over $10,000,000 in advertising to promote its SM EQUIPMENT and SCOTT-MACON EQUIPMENT marks and the [s]ervices offered thereunder."

 

The only evidence in support of the claim to trademark rights is a screenshot from what looks to be the current homepage of Complainant's website. That page states:

 

"SCOTT-MACON EQUIPMENT is a leader in the sale, rental, and servicing of cranes with locations in the Gulf Coast area of the United States.

Nationally recognized for its outstanding customer support in service and parts operations, Scott-Macon Equipment sells and rents rough terrain hydraulic cranes, all terrain cranes, boom trucks, truck cranes, crawler cranes, and industrial carry deck cranes."

 

In the homepage footer is the statement:

 

"Owner of one of the largest rental fleets of cranes in North America, Scott Macon sells, rents, and services lifting equipment throughout Texas, Oklahoma, and Louisiana."

 

Although not presented in evidence, the Panel navigated the website to an "about us/history" page which essentially repeated what has been said already, with the addition:

 

"With its headquarters in Houston, TX, the company has grown to set up branch offices in Dallas, TX; San Antonio, TX; Corpus Christi, TX; Odessa, TX; Houma, LA; and Tulsa, OK to serve our customers."

 

Absent a Response, the Panel is permitted to draw reasonable inferences based on the Complaint, but may deny relief where the claims are conclusory or unsubstantiated (see, for example, 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").

 

The WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("Overview") describes proof of trademark rights as a "threshold requirement" of the Policy (Overview ¶ 1.2.1).

 

The Overview poses the question at ¶ 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. …

 

There is no support for the assertions of promotional advertising, public recognition or acquired distinctiveness made in the Complaint. The Complaint falls well short of the evidentiary requirements laid out in the Overview and the Panel is thus unable to find common law trademark rights.

 

For these reasons the Panel finds no proof of trademark rights and therefore finds that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has not been satisfied.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

No findings 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; Wasatch Shutter Design v. Duane Howell / The Blindman, FA 1731056 (Forum June 23, 2017) deciding not to inquire into the respondent's rights or legitimate interests or its registration and use in bad faith where the complainant could not satisfy the requirements of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

No findings required.

 

DECISION

Having not established one of the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <smequipment.net> domain name be REMAIN WITH Respondent.

 

 

 

Debrett G. Lyons, Panelist

Dated: December 30, 2025