DECISION
Sub-Zero, Inc. v. Anton Ralston / Sub Zero Appliance Repair
Claim Number: FA2601002197535
PARTIES
Complainant is Sub-Zero, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Bianca L. Ascolese of Foley & Lardner LLP, Wisconsin, USA. Respondent is Anton Ralston / Sub Zero Appliance Repair ("Respondent"), California, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <sub-zero-appliance-repair.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.
Hon. Karl v. Fink (Ret.) as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 2, 2026; Forum received payment on January 2, 2026.
On January 4, 2026, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <sub-zero-appliance-repair.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 6, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 26, 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@sub-zero-appliance-repair.com. Also on January 6, 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.
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, Sub-Zero, Inc., is an industry leader in the sale of high-end residential kitchen appliances, including refrigerators, freezers, wine storage systems, etc., that are marketed and sold throughout the United States and the world under the SUB-ZERO mark and logo.
The disputed domain name, registered January 26, 2015, incorporates the entire SUB-ZERO mark and differs only by the addition of hyphens, the generic terms "appliance " and "repair", and the .com gTLD.
Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in its disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Respondent been authorized by Complainant to use its SUB-ZERO mark. Respondent has not used or prepared to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
FINDINGS
For the reasons set forth below, based upon the uncontested allegations and evidence, the Panel finds that Complainant is entitled to the requested relief of transfer of the <sub-zero-appliance-repair.com>, 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 has many registrations of the SUB-ZERO mark, including Registration No. 1543399 registered June 13, 1989, with the USPTO, Complainant's registration of the mark with the United States establishes Complainant's rights in the mark, as "registration of a mark with a legitimate governmental authority is sufficient under the Policy to allow a rebuttable presumption of rights in the mark." See Target Brands, Inc. v JK Internet Services, FA 349108 (Forum Dec. 14, 2004). The Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant argues that Respondent's <sub-zero-appliance-repair.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the SUB-ZERO mark because it incorporates that mark completely and differs only by the addition of hyphens, the generic terms "appliance" and "repair", and the .com gTLD. The addition or removal of hyphens from a complainant's mark does not obviate the risk of confusion. See The Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Vogel, FA 1769719 (Forum Feb. 22, 2018) (finding the domain name confusing similar to complainant's mark despite the addition of the hyphen and the geographically descriptive term "NY"). Similarly, the addition of generic or descriptive words does not avoid a finding of confusing similarity. Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognizable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element."). Additionally, it is a well-established principle that generic top-level domains are irrelevant when conducting a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis. See Isleworth Land Co. v Lost in Space, SA, FA 117330 (Forum Sept. 27, 2002). The Panel finds that Respondent's <sub-zero-appliance-repair.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the SUB-ZERO mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant has proved this element.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Should it succeed in this effort, the burden then shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) ("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."). The Panel finds that Complainant has made a prima facie case.
Complaint argues that Respondent has not been licensed, contracted, or otherwise permitted by the Complainant in any way to use the SUB-ZERO mark or to apply for any domain name incorporating the SUB-ZERO mark, nor has the Complainant acquiesced in any way to such use or application of the SUB-ZERO mark by the Respondent. There is no evidence of fair use and there is no evidence that the Respondent is using or plans to use the SUB-ZERO mark or the domain name incorporating the SUB-ZERO mark for a bona fide offering of goods or services. There is no evidence that Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name.
WIPO Overview 3.0, Section 2.1 provides:
While the overall burden of proof rests with the complainant, panels have recognized that this could result in the often impossible task of proving a negative, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge of the respondent. Therefore a complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. Once such prima facie case is made, respondent carries the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to do so, a complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the UDRP.
The Panel finds that Respondent has not met the burden and finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name.
Complainant has proved this element.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
Complaint argues that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith to create a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's SUB-ZERO mark to confuse internet users for commercial gain. Respondent uses the website to attempt to show some official connection with Complainant for commercial again. Complaint also argues that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the SUB-ZERO mark when it registered the disputed domain name. Respondent's prior knowledge of Complainant's SUB-ZERO mark is evident from the fame of Complainant's mark and Respondent's use of the SUB-ZERO mark in the disputed domain name and on the resolving website. Respondent's registration and use of the disputed domain name with knowledge of Complainant's rights in the SUB-ZERO mark shows Respondent's bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name pursuant to the Policy. See 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); see also, Ripple Labs Inc. v. Jessie McKoy/Ripple Reserve Fund, FA 1790949 (Forum July 9, 2018) ("Complainant contends Respondent's appropriation of Complainant's trademark was a clear intent to trade upon Complainant's reputation and goodwill in order to confuse Internet users.").
Due to the notoriety of Complainant's mark and the use made of the disputed domain name, the Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in its mark when it registered the dispute domain name. See JUUL Labs, Inc. v. Nics Telekomunikasyon A.S., FA 1890140 (Forum Apr. 24, 2020) ("[W]here a disputed domain name is so obviously connected with such a well-known name, product or service, its use by someone with no connection to the name, product or service indicates opportunistic bad faith."); See also Google LLC v. Noboru Maruyama/Personal, FA 1879162 (Forum Mar. 3, 2020) ("the registration and use of domain name that is confusingly similar to a trademark with which the respondent has no connection has frequently been held to be evidence of bad faith").
The Panel finds, from Respondent's knowledge of Complainant's mark and the use made of the disputed domain name, that Respondent registered and uses the domain name in bad faith.
Complainant has proved this element.
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 <sub-zero-appliance-repair.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Hon. Karl V. Fink (Ret.) Panelist
February 4, 2026
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page