DECISION

 

Lightspeed Group, LLC v. Joseph Balistreri

Claim Number: FA2512002196664

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Lightspeed Group, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Stevan H. Lieberman of Greenberg & Lieberman, LLC, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Joseph Balistreri ("Respondent"), Illinois, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <bylightspeed.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.

 

Debrett G. Lyons as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on December 26, 2025; Forum received payment on December 26, 2025.

 

On December 29, 2025, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <bylightspeed.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 January 13, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 2, 2026 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@bylightspeed.com. Also on January 13, 2026, 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 February 3, 2026, 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 LIGHTSPEED and states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its common law mark.

 

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.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: BUSINESS/CONTRACTUAL DISPUTE OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE UDRP

Complainant gives a declaratory statement that in late 2023 it was formed to provide automated homebuilding technology, robotics-enabled prefabrication systems, construction software, and related services.

 

There is no evidence of the actual date of the company formation but there is evidence that the disputed domain name was created on December 28, 2023, described as being "during Lightspeed Group, LLC's formation period".

 

Complainant gives evidence that Respondent "was involved as a service provider and associate during the Company's formation". It is said that Respondent "assisted with various aspects of the company's early development, including acquiring domain names for the company's marketing collateral and online presence."

 

Complainant further declares that "[b]y mid-2025, Respondent had ceased cooperating with [Complainant] and that "[d]espite multiple attempts … to contact Respondent via voicemail and text messages, Respondent refused to respond to our communications."

 

Later, and without apparent explanation, Respondent demanded USD700,000 for transfer of the disputed domain name to Complainant.

 

Upon review of the submissions, an issue arises for the Panel as to whether this is primarily a business or contractual matter that falls outside the scope of the UDRP. In J&M Manufacturing, LLC v. marwan taweel, FA 1894234 (Forum June 18, 2020), the panel noted that the Policy was committed to the practice of abusive cybersquatting and not the resolution of contractual or business disputes. Furthermore, it has been observed that more complex legal or factual determinations relating to business or contractual validity or business issues require procedural tools that go beyond those available in an expedited administrative procedure like the UDRP (see, for example, Raidofinance OU v. Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp., FA 1972094 (Forum Dec. 16, 2021) finding that determination of complex factual issues, such as the validity of a contract, are outside the scope of the UDRP; Swisher International, Inc. v. Hempire State Smoke Shop, FA 1952939 (Forum July 27, 2021) finding that in the proper forum, a respondent may raise evidentiary and legal issues not appropriate to the very narrow scope of the Policy).

 

Albeit that there has been no Response in these administrative proceedings, the Panel finds key aspects of the Complaint lacking in detail. The relationship between Respondent and Complainant, or in 2023, of the soon-to-be-incorporated Complainant, is unclear. Weasel words like "associate" do not assist Complainant's cause. The Panel notes for example that on December 27, 2023, the parties were still communicating on gmail accounts. Further, although Complainant is keen to characterise Respondent as an agent of the company, on January 16, 2024, Respondent submitted an invoice with the cover note: "Here's the invoice from last month- Dec 15-Jan15. All of us will go on payroll moving forward jan 30. Please review and let me know if good to pay from account."  The reference to payroll status raises unresolved questions about Respondent's role as does his apparent ability to reimburse himself from some account. 

 

On balance, the Panel finds that the Complaint points to a dispute of a broader nature not properly falling within the scope of the Policy.

 

DECISION

For these reasons, the Complaint is DISMISSED. 

 

 

Debrett G. Lyons, Panelist

Dated: February 3, 2026