DECISION

 

Brumate, Inc. v. no / lar frank

Claim Number: FA2601002198982

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Brumate, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Bradley M Stohry of Reichel Stohry Dean LLP, Indiana, USA. Respondent is no / lar frank ("Respondent"), Philippines.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <brumatemalls.com>, registered with NameSilo, 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.

 

Petter Rindforth as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

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

 

On January 12, 2026, NameSilo, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <brumatemalls.com> domain name is registered with NameSilo, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameSilo, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameSilo, 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 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@brumatemalls.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.

 

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 Petter Rindforth 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 is the owner of the BRÜMATE trademark, used since 2017 in connection with insulated beverage containers, drinkware products, and coolers. Complainant owns U.S. Trademark Registrations for the BRÜMATE trademark, as well as the domain name <brumate.com>.

 

The <brumatemalls.com> domain name contains the entirety of the unique BRÜMATE mark plus the generic term MALLS.

 

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain name. Instead, Respondent is merely using the domain name to mimic Complainant's website in a clear attempt to confuse consumers.

 

Respondent is not "making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the domain name" within the meaning of the ICANN Policy. To the contrary, the website at the domain name is clearly intended to cause confusion or mistake as to the source or origin of the website, and not for any fair or legitimate purpose.

 

Respondent's registration and use of the domain name in this manner was clearly intended to cause confusion or mistake as to the source or origin of the website, and to cause the public to believe that the website is associated or affiliated with Complainant.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The Complainant is the owner of the following U.S. trademark registrations:

 

No. 5,308,478 BRÜMATE (word), registered on October 10, 2017 for goods in Intl Class 21; and No. 6,341,625 BRÜMATE (fig), registered on May 4, 2021 for goods in Intl Class 21.

 

The disputed domain name <brumatemalls.com> was registered on December 6, 2025.

 

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

The Complainant claims rights to the BRÜMATE trademark based upon registration with the USPTO. Registration with USPTO sufficiently establishes rights in a trademark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Haas Automation, Inc. v. Jim Fraser, FA 1627211 (Forum Aug. 4, 2015) (finding that Complainant's USPTO registrations for the HAAS mark sufficiently demonstrate its rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). Complainant provides copies of its USPTO registrations for the BRÜMATE trademark (e.g., Reg. No. 5,308,478, registered on October 10, 2017). Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the BRÜMATE trademark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Next, Complainant asserts that the <brumatemalls.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the BRÜMATE trademark as it contains the trademark in its entirety, merely adding the word "malls", and the ".com" gTLD. Registration of a domain name that contains a trademark and adds a generic term and a gTLD does not distinguish the domain name from the trademark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Starbucks Corporation d/b/a Starbucks Coffee Company v. Waseem A Ali / Micron Web Services, FA 1785616 (Forum June 8, 2018) (finding the <starbucksreal.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to the STARBUCKS mark, as "the addition of the generic term 'real'  to Complainant's mark does not distinguish the Domain Name from Complainant's trade mark pursuant to the Policy."); see also See Dell Inc. v. Protection of Private Person / Privacy Protection, FA 1681432 (Forum Aug. 1, 2016) ("A TLD (whether a gTLD, sTLD or ccTLD) is disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax requires TLDs.

 

The Panel finds that Respondent's <brumatemalls.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's BRÜMATE trademark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Once the Complainant makes a prima facie case in support of its allegations in respect of the second element of the Policy, the burden shifts to the Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Forum Sept. 25, 2006) ("Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names."); see also Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006) (holding that the complainant must first make a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under UDRP ¶ 4(a)(ii) before the burden shifts to the respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name).

 

The Complainant contends that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <brumatemalls.com> domain name.  Where a response is lacking, WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Dale Anderson, FA 1613011 (Forum May 21, 2015) (concluding that because the WHOIS record lists "Dale Anderson" as the registrant of the disputed domain name, the respondent was not commonly known by the <statefarmforum.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)). Additionally, lack of authorization to use a complainant's trademark may indicate that the respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA 1574905 (Forum Sept. 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark).

 

The WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as "no / lar frank" as the registrant and no information suggests that Complainant has authorized Respondent to use the BRÜMATE trademark. Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

Complainant argues that Respondent's lack of rights or legitimate interests in the <brumatemalls.com> domain name is evinced by its failure to use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services, or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Complainant contends that Respondent is attempting to create the impression of association with Complainant to trade off the good-will associated with Complainant. Attempting to create a false affiliation to divert Internet users seeking complainant's website is not a bona fide offering or legitimate use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii). See Ripple Labs Inc. v. NGYEN NGOC PHUONG THAO, FA 1741737 (Forum Aug.21, 2017) ("Respondent uses the [disputed] domain name to divert Internet users to Respondent's website… confusing them into believing that some sort of affiliation exists between it and Complainant… [which] is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)."). Here, Respondent has linked the disputed domain name to a web site that is more or less visually a copy of Complainant's own web site. Therefore, the Panel agrees with Complainant and finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant argues that Respondent has registered and uses the <brumatemalls.com> domain name in bad faith because Respondent is attempting to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent's own website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the content thereon. Bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) can be found where a respondent uses a confusingly similar domain name to falsely indicate an association with a complainant. See AOL LLC v. iTech Ent, LLC, FA 726227 (Forum July 21, 2006) (finding that the respondent took advantage of the confusing similarity between the <theotheraol.com> and <theotheraol.net> domain names and the complainant's AOL mark, which indicates bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)). Here, Complainant claims that Respondent created and is using the disputed domain name merely to mimic Complainant's website in a clear attempt to confuse consumers.

 

The Panel agrees with Complainant and finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).

 

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 <brumatemalls.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Petter Rindforth, Panelist

Dated: February 17, 2026