DECISION

 

Brumate, Inc. v. Yan Wenming

Claim Number: FA2601002198990

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Brumate, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Bradley M. Stohry of Reichel Stohry Dean LLP, Indiana, USA. Respondent is Yan Wenming ("Respondent"), China.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <brumatea.com> ("Disputed Domain Name"), registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com.

 

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.

 

David L. Kreider, Chartered Arbitrator (UK), 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, PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <brumatea.com> domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com 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@brumatea.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 David L. Kreider 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 ("Mark"), which Complainant uses in connection with its insulated beverage containers, drinkware products, and coolers. Complainant owns a U.S. Trademark for the BRÜMATE mark. Complainant has been using the BRÜMATE mark since at least 2017. Complainant has expended significant sums in advertising and promoting its goods by reference to the Mark, by means of social media, email, and Internet advertisements with the result that a significant portion of consumers recognize the BRÜMATE mark and associate the BRÜMATE mark with Complainant and the products that Complainant offers under the BRÜMATE mark.

 

Respondent is using the Disputed Domain Name to mimic Complainant's website in a clear attempt to confuse consumers. Respondent's use of the BRÜMATE Mark and the Disputed Domain Name in this manner was intended to cause confusion or mistake as to the source or origin of the website, and to cause the public erroneously to believe that the website is associated or affiliated with Complainant.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

1.       Complainant owns U.S. Trademark Registration No. 5,308,478 for the BRÜMATE Mark.

2.       Respondent, Yan Wenming, registered the Disputed Domain Name <brumatea.com> on December 26, 2025.

3.       Respondent is using the Disputed Domain Name <brumatea.com> to impersonate Complainant and mimic the Complainant's website in an attempt to confuse consumers and not for any fair or legitimate purpose. A respondent's use of a complainant's mark to redirect users to a competing site does not support a claim to rights or legitimate interests.

4.       The Respondent's website purports to offer for sale Complainant's own merchandise in competition with Complainant, which evidences Respondent's bad faith registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name <brumatea.com> as it creates a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site.

 

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 Disputed Domain Name <brumatea.com> differs from Complainant's registered BRÜMATE Mark only in that the letter "a" has been added at the end of the unique BRÜMATE Mark. The Panel finds that this is a typical example of "typo-squatting," where a slight change in spelling is used by a cybersquatter to confuse Internet users as to the source or origin of the website. The Panel finds that the first element at Policy Paragraph 4(a)(i) is satisfied.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Respondent is not using Complainant's registered BRÜMATE Mark with the permission of or a license from Complainant, nor is Respondent in any way affiliated with Complainant. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the Disputed Domain Name <brumatea.com>. Rather, Respondent is using the Disputed Domain Name <brumatea.com> to impersonate Complainant and mimic the Complainant's website in an attempt to confuse consumers and not for any fair or legitimate purpose. The Panel finds that the second element at Policy Paragraph 4(a)(ii) is satisfied.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

As the Disputed Domain Name <brumatea.com> incorporates the entirety of Complainant's BRÜMATE Mark and website to which it resolves mimics Complainant's official website, it is inconceivable that Respondent selected the Disputed Domain Name <brumatea.com> without having knowledge of Complainant's rights. The Panel concludes that Respondent registered and used the Disputed Domain Name <brumatea.com> in bad faith intending unfairly to capitalize financially on the goodwill associated with the BRÜMATE Mark. That is, Respondent registered and used the Disputed Domain Name <brumatea.com> in bad faith to trade off Complainant's reputation in an attempt to confuse consumers who reach to Respondent's website. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the third element at Policy Paragraph 4(a)(iii) is satisfied.

 

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

 

 

 

 

David L. Kreider, Panelist

Dated: February 9, 2026