DECISION

 

Brumate, Inc. v. Rick Blakely

Claim Number: FA2601002198984

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Brumate, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Bradley M. Stohry of Reichel Stohry Dean LLP, Indiana, USA. Respondent is Rick Blakely ("Respondent"), New Jersey, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <thebrumate.com>, registered with Dynadot 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.

 

Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. 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, Dynadot Inc confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <thebrumate.com> domain name is registered with Dynadot Inc and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Dynadot Inc has verified that Respondent is bound by the Dynadot 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 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@thebrumate.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 Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. 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

i) Complainant uses the BRÜMATE mark in connection with insulated beverage containers and related drinkware. Complainant has rights in the BRÜMATE mark through its registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 5,308,478, registered October 10, 2017). The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark as it incorporates the BRÜMATE mark in its entirety, merely with the addition of the word "the" and the ".com" gTLD.

 

ii) Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant authorized or licensed Respondent to use the BRÜMATE mark in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not using the domain name in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services, or for a legitimate non-commercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to impersonate Complainant.

 

iii) Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. First, Respondent uses the confusingly similar domain name to attract users to its website in bad faith. Additionally, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to impersonate Complainant on the associated webpage.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

1. The disputed domain name was registered on December 23, 2025.

 

2. Complainant has demonstrated rights in the BRÜMATE mark evidenced by its registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 5,308,478, registered October 10, 2017).

 

3. The website to which the disputed domain name resolves mimics Complainant's website by prominently featuring Complainant's mark BRÜMATE and product images.

 

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 asserts rights in the BRÜMATE mark evidenced by its registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 5,308,478, registered October 10, 2017). Registration with the USPTO is generally sufficient to establish rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Complainant has submitted evidence of such registration. Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in the BRÜMATE mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Complainant contends that the disputed domain name, <thebrumate.com>, is confusingly similar to Complainant's BRÜMATE mark. The disputed domain name incorporates the BRÜMATE mark in its entirety, merely omitting the umlaut on the letter "U," adding the definite article "the," and the ".com" gTLD. The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), as the addition of a generic term to a trademark does not negate confusing similarity.

 

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), then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Section 2.1, WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 ("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. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element.").

 

Complainant claims Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant's BRÜMATE mark and is not commonly known by the disputed 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). The unmasked WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as "Rick Blakely." The Panel finds that there is nothing in the records to suggest that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

Complainant argues that Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services, or for a legitimate non-commercial or fair use, because Respondent attempts to pass itself off as Complainant. Impersonating Complainant on the website associated with the disputed domain name does not qualify as either a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Am. Int'l Group, Inc. v. Busby, FA 156251 (Forum May 30, 2003) (finding that the respondent attempts to pass itself off as the complainant online, which is blatant unauthorized use of the complainant's mark and is evidence that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name).

 

Complainant has submitted a screenshot of the website resolving from the disputed domain name, which mimics Complainant's own website by displaying Complainant's mark BRÜMATE and product images. The Panel finds that Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services, or for any legitimate non-commercial or fair use.

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has established a prima facie case based on the considerations above. As Respondent has not filed a Response or attempted to rebut the prima facie case against it, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant argues that Respondent uses the BRÜMATE mark in the disputed domain name to attract Internet users in bad faith, thereby commercially benefiting from the confusing similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark. Capitalizing on the confusing similarity of a domain name to exploit the valuable goodwill of a protected mark and to mislead Internet users as to the source of the domain name is evidence of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Am. Univ. v. Cook, FA 208629 (Forum Dec. 22, 2003) ("Registration and use of a domain name that incorporates another's mark with the intent to deceive Internet users in regard to the source or affiliation of the domain name is evidence of bad faith.").

 

Further, the use of the disputed domain name to impersonate Complainant may demonstrate Respondent's bad faith registration and use. See Insomniac Holdings, LLC v. Mark Daniels, FA 1735969 (Forum July 15, 2017) (refusing to find rights and legitimate interests in a domain name on the part of a respondent when the disputed domain name "resolves to a website that Respondent has designed to mimic Complainant's own in an attempt to pass itself off as Complainant.").

 

The Panel notes that the screenshot of the website to which the disputed domain name resolves mimics Complainant's website by prominently featuring Complainant's mark BRÜMATE and product images, thereby diverting Internet users seeking Complainant to Respondent's website, disrupting Complainant's business for commercial benefit. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) & (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 <thebrumate.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist

Dated: February 4, 2026