DECISION

 

Red Mountain Med Spa, LLC v. Eli Rosenberg

Claim Number: FA2601002198897

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Red Mountain Med Spa, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Howard Sobelman and Gabrielle M. Morlock of SNELL & WILMER L.L.P., Arizona, USA. Respondent is Eli Rosenberg ("Respondent"), represented by John Berryhill, Pennsylvania, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <redmountain.com> (the "Disputed Domain Name"), 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.

 

Douglas M. Isenberg as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 9, 2026; Forum received payment on January 9, 2026.

 

On January 9, 2026, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <redmountain.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 12, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 6, 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@redmountain.com. Also on January 12, 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.

 

On January 19, 2026, counsel for Respondent requested a four-day extension of the due date for the Response, pursuant to Rule 5(b). A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on January 26, 2026.

 

On January 26, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Douglas M. Isenberg 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: RESPONDENT'S REQUEST FOR REDACTION

Respondent appears to request that the Panel redact Respondent's name from this decision pursuant to paragraph 4(j) of the Policy ("[a]ll decisions under this Policy will be published in full over the Internet, except when an Administrative Panel determines in an exceptional case to redact portions of its decision") and paragraph 10(a) of the Rules ("[t]he Panel shall conduct the administrative proceeding in such manner as it considers appropriate in accordance with the Policy and these Rules"). In support thereof, Respondent cites Mountain Top (Denmark) ApS v. Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 0133416460 / Name Redacted, Mountaintop Idea Studio, WIPO Case No. D2020-1577, in which the panel wrote that "many of the Complainant's allegations are demonstrably false and that the Respondents will be harmed by them if the Respondent Individual's name is included in this Decision."

 

Respondent states: "Complainant's goal here, even if unsuccessful, is to forevermore associate 'Eli Rosenberg' and 'extort' in internet search engines, to be found by persons considering engaging the Respondent's financial services." Despite considerable weakness in the Complainant's case (as discussed below), the Panel sees no evidence of such a goal from Complainant here. Further, Respondent's name is not so unusual to justify such concerns. Notably, the Panel's own Google search of the Respondent's name primarily identifies a number of people who apparently are not Respondent, including an investigative tech reporter, academics, and an attorney. Accordingly, the Panel sees no reason to redact Respondent's name from this decision.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: SUPPLEMENTAL FILINGS

Paragraph 7 of Forum's Supplemental Rules states: "If a party requests an additional written submission be considered by the Panel, the additional submission must be sent to Forum along with proof of service on the opposing party(s). Forum will forward all additional submissions to the Panel. It is within the discretion of the Panel to accept or consider additional unsolicited submission(s)."

 

While Forum's practices on supplemental filings may vary from those of other providers under the Policy, the Panel notes that section 4.6 of WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Overview 3.0") states that such filings "are generally discouraged" and "panels have repeatedly affirmed that the party submitting or requesting to submit an unsolicited supplemental filing should clearly show its relevance to the case and why it was unable to provide the information contained therein in its complaint or response (e.g., owing to some 'exceptional' circumstance)." Here, neither party has met this burden, and the Panel finds all of the supplemental filings not only unnecessary but also unhelpful, repetitive and, in some ways, inappropriate. Although the Panel has read and considered the parties' supplemental filings here, such filings "risk[] undermining the finality and efficiency that the UDRP process aims to protect." Dexatel CJSC v. Sipan Babertsyan, FA 2149845 (Forum May 28, 2025).

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complaint

Complainant states that it is "a leading medical weight loss and spa service provider, offering health and wellness related products and services." Complainant states, and provides documentation in support thereof, that it is the owner of the following trademark registrations (the "RED MOUNTAIN Trademark" or the "RED MOUNTAIN Marks"):

 

·       U.S. Reg. No. 4,872,697 for RED MOUNTAIN WEIGHT LOSS (registered December 22, 2015) for use in connection with, inter alia, "beauty salon services"

·       U.S. Reg. No. 5,117,228 for RED MOUNTAIN MED SPA (registered January 10, 2017) for use in connection with, inter alia, "beauty spa services"

·       U.S. Reg. No. 7,967,787 for RED MOUNTAIN WEIGHT LOSS (registered September 30, 2025) for use in connection with, inter alia, "health spa services"

 

Complainant further states:

 

Complainant uses the RED MOUNTAIN Marks in its popular domain name and associated website <redmountainweightloss.com>, and <redmountainmedspa.com> (collectively, the "RM Domains"). Complainant's strong internet presence in connection with the RED MOUNTAIN Marks includes its RM Domains….

 

Through its widespread use, Complainant has acquired extensive rights and goodwill in the RED MOUNTAIN Marks and the RM Domains. Complainant submits… use of the RED MOUNTAIN Marks on Complainant's website through the RM Domains and Complainant's mobile app under the RED MOUNTAIN Marks. Complainant also advertises its products and services through its RED MOUNTAIN Marks via social media channels including Facebook (having over 36,000 followers), Instagram (having over 192 followers), Pinterest (having over 2,000 followers and 25,000 views monthly), and YouTube (having over 1.54K subscribers)…. Consumers recognize the RED MOUNTAIN Marks as a source indicator of Complainant's health, wellness, and weight loss related products and services.

 

As further evidence of Complainant's extensive use and associated rights and goodwill in its RED MOUNTAIN Marks, Complainant's business operation has become a recognizable name in the health, wellness and weight loss industry, with Complainant's website at <redmountainweightloss.com> attracting countless views per month. Complainant has developed a national reputation for quality services in its industry under its well-known RED MOUNTAIN Marks. Through Complainant's almost 20 years of existence, consumers recognize Complainant as the source of goods and services associated with the RED MOUNTAIN Marks.

 

With respect to the Disputed Domain Name, Complainant states:

 

The Disputed Domain was registered on August 6, 1996 by the original owner Red Mountain Machinery, located in Chandler, Arizona, and was actively used from 1998 to 2015 for machinery equipment…. The Dispute[d] Domain was then inactive from 2016-2021, with pay-per-click ads being displayed briefly in April of 2021 and then inactive again shortly thereafter…. In 2020, the domain name was purchased by Respondent…. Beginning at least as early as May 2021, the Disputed Domain has resolved to an inactive webpage…. On or about November 2025, Complainant became aware of the Disputed Domain, and the inactive webpage, and had concerns regarding the infringing use and consumer confusion such domain name would cause. Accordingly, Complainant attempted to contact Respondent through the registrar to offer to purchase the Disputed Domain for $5,000, to mitigate such concerns. Respondent responded refusing the offer unless Complainant were to offer/pay an amount "in the 6-digits" (i.e. over $100,000)…. Therefore, Complainant has filed this Complaint in order to cease Respondent's passive holding of the Disputed Domain, and cease any further harm to itself and Complainant's customers who may be confused by the Disputed Domain.

 

Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the RED MOUNTAIN Trademark because, inter alia, it "incorporates the dominant… portion… in its entirety."

 

Complainant contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name because, inter alia, "Respondent is not sponsored or endorsed by Complainant, and Complainant has never authorized or licensed Respondent to use Complainant's RED MOUNTAIN Marks"; "Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain, and instead has purchased the Disputed Domain to passively hold the Disputed Domain in an attempt to sell it and extort an excessive amount for the Disputed Domain – as Respondent requested $100,000 for purchase of the Disputed Domain in response to Complainant's offer of $5,000"; "Respondent has not made any preparations to use the Disputed Domain, or any related business name for any legitimate purpose, as the Disputed Domain was purchased in 2020, over 10 years after Complainant first acquired rights in its RED MOUNTAIN Marks, and the Disputed Domain has been continuously inactive since purchase - for over 5 years"; and "Respondent is not known by the Disputed Domain."

 

Complainant contends that Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith because, inter alia, "Respondent sought to exploit Complainant's success by registering the Disputed Domain decades after Complainant acquired rights in the RED MOUNTAIN Marks and decades after Complainant began building its health and wellness service business under those marks"; "[t]he RED MOUNTAIN Marks are distinctive"; "Respondent registered the Disputed Domain and had actual knowledge of Complainant's RED MOUNTAIN Marks as evidenced through Respondent's use of the RED MOUNTAIN Marks in the Disputed Domain"; "[p]rior panels have held that a disputed domain was registered and being used in bad faith when the disputed domain resolved to an inactive website"; "Respondent is offering the Disputed Domain for sale for an amount in excess of out-of-pocket costs (i.e. Respondent demanded over $100,000 for the sale of the Disputed Domain"; "Respondent registered the Disputed Domain through a privacy service"; and "[u]nder the circumstances of this case, it is not possible to conceive of any plausible actual or contemplated active use of the domain name by the Respondent that would not be illegitimate" (internal punctuation and cited omitted).

 

B. Response

Respondent states that he is "a licensed financial professional in the real estate industry," "a licensed Mortgage Loan Originator in nine states, and has an unblemished reputation in the field of financial services"; and that the Disputed Domain Name "is among several domain names based on the Respondent's own last name," given that "Rosenberg" means "red mountain" in German.

 

Respondent contends that the Disputed Domain Name is not confusingly similar to the RED MOUNTAIN Trademark because, inter alia, Complainant had previously argued, in an application to register one of its RED MOUNTAIN Trademarks, that "the term 'Red Mountain' is a geographically descriptive term associated with a prominent geological formation near Phoenix, Arizona"; and "Complainant provides no factual basis for" its statement that the RED MOUNTAIN Trademark is "distinctive and well known."

 

Respondent contends that it has rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name because, inter alia, "[t]he Respondent has reserved this variation of his own surname for potential future development as a brand, as the Respondent has done with other generic domain names, and the Respondent is perfectly entitled to do so"; and "[t]he domain name 'RedMountain.com', apart from being a direct derivative of the Respondent's own surname, has obvious descriptive connotations that would be of potential value in the field of real estate, in which field the Respondent is actively engaged."

 

Respondent contends that the Disputed Domain Name has not been registered and is not being used in bad faith because, inter alia, "[t]he Complainant does not allege the domain name has ever been used for any purpose relating to the Complainant's claimed services of weight loss and cosmetic procedures"; "Respondent has never heard of the Complainant prior to this dispute, and the Complaint advances utterly no factual basis to believe that a native and resident of Brooklyn would have ever heard of the Complainant's chain of clinics in Arizona, any more so than any of hundreds of other 'Red Mountain' businesses in Arizona"; "[t]he Complaint likewise advances utterly no factual basis to conclude that the Respondent's registration was premised on the Complainant's 'RED MOUNTAIN MED SPA' or 'RED MOUNTAIN WEIGHT LOSS' marks"; "the Respondent purchased the domain name from another business named Red Mountain" in 2020 for $10,000, as shown by emails and a "closing statement" from Escrow.com; and Respondent rejected Complainant's anonymous offer submitted via a GoDaddy broker to purchase the Disputed Domain Name in 2025 for $5,000, because that price was half of what Respondent had paid for the Disputed Domain Name, and Respondent referred to a six-figure offer simply because "Respondent was not interested in selling the domain name."

 

C. Complainant's First Supplemental Filing

In its first supplemental filing, Complainant says that "Respondent's counsel has attempted to reframe this proceeding by leveling incendiary accusations against Complainant and its counsel" and Complainant describes the Response as "inflammatory." Complainant then reiterates and elaborates upon many of the facts and legal arguments in the Complaint.

 

D. Respondent's First Supplemental Filing

In a document titled "Notice of Additional Authority," Respondent cites Marques de l'etat De Monaco (dba Monaco Brands) v. [Name Redacted], CAC Case No. CAC-UDRP-108171, which was apparently published shortly after the Response was filed. In that case (in which Respondent's counsel in the instant proceeding also represented the respondent), the Panel ordered that the domain name <monaco.com> should remain with the respondent and redacted the name of the respondent, which Respondent again argues should occur here, because "[t]he Complainant is determined to damage the reputation of a licensed financial professional on a case built on zero evidence of any intent of the Respondent arising from the Complainant's newfound interest in a claimed mark for which it never occurred to the Complainant to seek registration apart from longer phrases incorporating a geographically non-descriptive term."

 

Respondent also refers to five domain names containing "ironmountain" that are used by companies with founders or principals that have the last name "Isenberg" or "Eisenberg."¹

 

E. Complainant's Second Supplemental Filing

In its second supplemental filing, Complainant states that Respondent's reference to the Monaco Brands decision "appears designed to unnecessarily prolong these proceedings, rather than to bring genuinely new legal developments to the Panel's attention as the Monaco.com decision bears no factual resemblance to the present dispute." Complainant also disputes Respondent's "accusations that Complainant has somehow targeted Respondent personally or sought to damage his reputation."

 

FINDINGS

The Disputed Domain Name was created on August 5, 1996; purchased by Respondent for $10,000 on or about October 7, 2020; and is not being used in connection with an active website. Complainant has rights in the RED MOUNTAIN Trademark, which was first registered on December 22, 2015.

 

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

Based upon the trademark registrations cited by Complainant, it is apparent that Complainant has rights in and to the RED MOUNTAIN Trademark.

 

As to whether the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the RED MOUNTAIN Trademark, the relevant comparison to be made is with the second-level portion of the Disputed Domain Name only (i.e., "redmountain") because "[t]he applicable Top-Level Domain ('TLD') in a domain name (e.g., '.com', '.club', '.nyc') is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test". WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.1.

 

As set forth in section 1.7 of WIPO Overview 3.0: "in cases where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark, or where at least a dominant feature of the relevant mark is recognizable in the domain name, the domain name will normally be considered confusingly similar to that mark for purposes of UDRP standing." Here, the Disputed Domain Name does not contain the entirety of the RED MOUNTAIN Trademark, given that each of Complainant's registrations for the RED MOUNTAIN Trademark includes additional words, either "weight loss" or "med spa." However, and despite Respondent's references to Complainant's arguments in its applications to register the RED MOUNTAIN Trademark that "Red Mountain" is a "geographically descriptive" term, the words "Red Mountain" are not disclaimed. On the contrary, the only words not disclaimed in Complainant's registrations for the RED MOUNTAIN Trademark are "RED MOUNTAIN." Further, "[i]t is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement" and "[t]he standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the complainant's trademark and the disputed domain name." WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.

 

The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

As set forth in section 2.1 of WIPO Overview 3.0: "While the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the often impossible task of 'proving a negative', requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name."

 

Here, through its arguments, citation to relevant authority and support from documentation, Complainant has made out a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, shifting the burden of production to Respondent to come forward with "relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name."

 

While many of Respondent's statements (with respect to all elements of the Policy) are inflammatory (for example, he refers to Complainant's "allegedly competent attorneys," declares Complainant's "pigheaded ignorance" and, in referring to Complainant, says that "persons of such character generally are incapable of feeling shame") and/or irrelevant (for example, he says "the UDRP is seen by many as a one-way defamation street" and refers to "garbage accusations" Respondent's counsel has encountered in other cases), Respondent nevertheless raises serious questions about Complainant's allegations and arguments.

 

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides three circumstances pursuant to which a respondent can establish rights or legitimate interests:

 

(i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or

 

(ii) you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or

 

(iii) you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.

 

Respondent has not cited any of these specific subparagraphs in support of its argument that Complainant has failed to establish Respondent's lack of rights or legitimate interests, but it appears that Respondent has raised issues with respect to all three of these subparagraphs. Nevertheless, Respondent admits that, despite the connection between "Red Mountain" and "Rosenberg," "the Respondent is not 'commonly known as' Red Mountain"; therefore, the Panel need not further explore the applicability of subparagraph 4(c)(ii)).  Further, given Respondent's apparent failure to use the Disputed Domain Name, the applicability of subparagraph 4(c)(iii) – which refers to uses that a respondent is "making" (in the present tense) of a domain name – this subparagraph seems inapplicable.

 

With respect to subparagraph 4(c)(i), it is unclear whether Respondent has engaged in any "demonstrable preparations to use" the Disputed Domain Name "in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services." While Respondent has stated that he is "a licensed financial professional in the real estate industry" and that he "has reserved this variation of his own surname for potential future development as a brand," Respondent provides no documentation to support these claims.  As set forth in section 2.2 of WIPO Overview 3.0, "claimed examples of use or demonstrable preparations to use the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services cannot be merely self-serving but should be inherently credible and supported by relevant pre-complaint evidence." (Emphasis added.) While the Response is certainly supported by evidence, none of the evidence bolsters Respondent's asserted intentions for the Disputed Domain Name – not even a signed declaration from Respondent himself explaining why he registered the Disputed Domain Name and what he intends to do with it, as is frequently done in proceedings under the Policy. The Panel will not accept unsupported statements from Respondent's counsel alone on such a critical issue.

 

The bottom line is that, although Respondent has set forth a plausible explanation for its registration of the Disputed Domain Name that could establish rights or legitimate interests, Respondent has failed to support its explanation with appropriate evidence, making it difficult, if not impossible, for the Panel to reach a conclusion on this element of the Policy. In light of the Panel's conclusion with respect to the third element of the Policy, therefore, the Panel refrains from making a determination as to whether Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name.

 

The Panel reaches no conclusion with respect to the second element of the Policy.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Whether a domain name is registered and used in bad faith for purposes of the Policy may be determined by evaluating four (non-exhaustive) factors set forth in the Policy: (i) circumstances indicating that the registrant has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the registrant's documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or (ii) the registrant has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the registrant has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) the registrant has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) by using the domain name, the registrant has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the registrant's website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the registrant's website or location or of a product or service on the registrant's website or location. Policy, paragraph 4(b).

 

Complainant does not allege with specificity which, if any, of the foregoing factors establishes bad faith here. Instead, Complainant argues that bad faith exists because Respondent "capitalize[d] on the goodwill associated with Complainant's rights in the RED MOUNTAIN Marks by attempting to confuse the public as to the source and/or ownership of the Disputed Domain"; that Respondent "had actual knowledge of Complainant's RED MOUNTAIN Marks," which it says are "well known" and "inherently distinctive"; that an "inactive page" is associated with the Disputed Domain Name; and that Respondent "demanded over $100,000 for the sale of the Disputed Domain."

 

Taking Complainant's last assertion first, the Panel acknowledges that this appears to be an argument for bad faith with respect to paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy. However, Complainant's argument fails here for at least one essential reason: Paragraph 4(b)(i) requires evidence that Respondent tried to sell, rent or otherwise transfer the domain name to Complainant or a competitor of Complainant – evidence that is absent here. The record indicates that Complainant initiated communications about purchasing the Disputed Domain Name, and nothing supports the perspective that Respondent was aware of or targeted Complainant in any manner. Given the number of trademarks identified by Respondent that include the words "RED MOUNTAIN" owned by third parties, it is impossible for the Panel to agree with Complainant's argument that Respondent sought to exploit Complainant.

 

Further, the Panel finds Complainant's assertions regarding the distinctiveness and fame of the RED MOUNTAIN Trademark unsupported, and there is no evidence in the record that Respondent had actual knowledge of the RED MOUNTAIN Trademark. Accordingly, the decisions cited by Complainant are inapplicable here. For example, in HDR Global Trading Limited v. A Si Di Fen Teng Ren, FA 1975598 (Forum Dec. 31, 2021), cited by Complainant, the Panel said that Respondent "has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant's mark" and "[i]t is difficult to envisage any use of the disputed domain name that would not violate the Policy." Here, on the other hand, Respondent has presented a plausible explanation for registering the Disputed Domain Name, and, given the numerous registrations by third parties of trademarks that include the words "RED MOUNTAIN," it is easy to envisage many uses of the Disputed Domain Name that would not violate the Policy. In HDR Global Trading Limited v. Ni Cary, FA 1972574 (Forum Dec. 15, 2021) cited by Complainant, the Panel referred to "the distinctiveness and fame of Complainant's mark," which was registered "with various trademark agencies throughout the world" and, apparently was not a part of any registrations owned by third parties. Here, on the other hand, the RED MOUNTAIN Trademark is apparently registered only in the United States, and Complainant has provided no evidence that it is highly distinctive or famous. In Valio Oy v. Muhammad Tayab, Dairy Engineering Int'l, WIPO Case No. D2017-2376, cited by Complainant, the Panel said that the disputed domain name "incorporates the trademark of a well-known company" and that Respondent used the disputed domain name to market "identical products" associated with the complainant's trademark. Here, on the other hand, the record contains no evidence that Complainant is a well-known company, and Complainant admits that Respondent has not used the Disputed Domain Name, let alone to offer goods or services associated with its RED MOUNTAIN Trademark. In Instagram, LLC v. Mohammed Arshad, CelebLook, WIPO Case No. D2020-2224, cited by Complainant, the disputed domain name was used in connection with a website containing pay-per-click links and the respondent was what the panel called "a sophisticated domain name investor of many years' experience." Here, on the other hand, neither of these facts is present. In HDR Global Trading Limited v. Shawn Wilderom / CCCTrader, FA 1992115 (Forum, May 5, 2022), cited by Complainant, the respondent offered the disputed domain name for sale. Here, on the other hand, Respondent only replied, dismissively, to Complainant's attempts to purchase the Disputed Domain Name. In Groupe IRCEM v. Perfect Privacy, LLC / Milen Radumilo, White & Case, WIPO Case No. D2018-2330, cited by Complainant, the disputed domain name contained "www" at the beginning, the disputed domain name was "being used intensively by the Complainant, whose fame and repute in France have not been disputed in these proceedings," the respondent offered the disputed domain name for sale on a well-known marketplace and the respondent was "a well-known cybersquatter." Here, on the other hand, no such factors are present. And, in Telstra Corp. Ltd. v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003, the landmark decision that established the passive holding doctrine, the complainant's trademark had "a strong reputation and is widely known, as evidenced by its substantial use in" multiple countries, the respondent "provided no evidence whatsoever of any actual or contemplated good faith use by it of the domain name" and the respondent "actively provided, and failed to correct, false contact details." Here, on the other hand, the record contains no evidence (other than unsupported assertions) about the strength or reputation of the RED MOUNTAIN Trademark, Respondent has provided an explanation (albeit, as discussed above, unsupported by appropriate documentation) of its contemplated good faith use of the Disputed Domain Name, and there is no indication that the underlying registrant details provided by the Registrar are anything other than accurate.

 

In short: No factual or legal arguments in the Complaint support a finding of bad faith.

 

The Panel finds the third element of the Policy has not been established.

 

REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKING

Respondent has raised the issue of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking ("RDNH") but has not explicitly asked the Panel to make such a finding.

 

Paragraph 1 of the Rules defines RDNH as "using the Policy in bad faith to attempt to deprive a registered domain-name holder of a domain name". Paragraph 15(e) of the Rules provides, in relevant part: "If after considering the submissions the Panel finds that the complaint was brought in bad faith, for example in an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking or was brought primarily to harass the domain-name holder, the Panel shall declare in its decision that the complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding."

 

As set forth in section 4.16 of WIPO Overview 3.0:

 

Reasons articulated by panels for finding RDNH include: (i) facts which demonstrate that the complainant knew it could not succeed as to any of the required three elements – such as the complainant's lack of relevant trademark rights, clear knowledge of respondent rights or legitimate interests, or clear knowledge of a lack of respondent bad faith…, (ii) facts which demonstrate that the complainant clearly ought to have known it could not succeed under any fair interpretation of facts reasonably available prior to the filing of the complaint, including relevant facts on the website at the disputed domain name or readily available public sources such as the WhoIs database, [or] (iii) unreasonably ignoring established Policy precedent notably as captured in this WIPO Overview – except in limited circumstances which prima facie justify advancing an alternative legal argument.

 

Given the undertakings in paragraphs 3(b)(xiii) and (xiv) of the UDRP Rules, some panels have held that a represented complainant should be held to a higher standard.

 

Here, as set forth above, Complainant (which is represented by an attorney) has failed to establish the bad faith element of the Policy, many of its important factual assertions are unsupported by the record and many of the decisions cited by Complainant are clearly inapplicable here. Complainant (via its attorney) knew or should have known that it could not succeed in this proceeding, and that a number of its statements were unsupported (and perhaps unsupportable), such as its attempt to equate the RED MOUNTAIN Trademark to trademarks that are distinctive, famous and well-known and that Respondent had actual knowledge of the RED MOUNTAIN Trademark.

 

As a result, the Panel finds that the complaint was brought in bad faith, in an attempt at RDNH.

 

DECISION

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

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <redmountain.com> domain name REMAIN WITH Respondent.

 

 

 

Douglas M. Isenberg, Panelist

Dated: February 8, 2026