DECISION
Lemna Environmental Technologies, Inc. v. [REDACTED]
Claim Number: FA2601002199469
PARTIES
Complainant is Lemna Environmental Technologies, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Alison W. Jarzyna of Larkin Hoffman Daly & Lindgren Ltd., Minnesota, USA. Respondent is [Redacted] ("Respondent").
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <iemna.com>, registered with Wild West Domains, 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.
James Bridgeman SC as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 13, 2026; Forum received payment on January 13, 2026.
On January 14, 2026, Wild West Domains, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <iemna.com> domain name is registered with Wild West Domains, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Wild West Domains, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Wild West Domains, 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 21, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 10, 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@iemna.com. Also on January 21, 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.
A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on February 2, 2026.
On February 2, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed James Bridgeman SC 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 disputed domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PRELIMINARY ISSUE: IDENTITY OF RESPONDENT AND REDACTION
In his Response, Respondent has denied any association with the registration of the disputed domain name in the following terms:
Any association of my name, contact information, or identity with the domain appears to be erroneous, inaccurate, or made without my knowledge or consent. I dispute the allegation that the domain is "registered and being used by" me, as stated in the Complaint and Written Notice."
In the Complaint, referring to the amended notarized affidavit of its Chief Executive Officer sworn on January 15, 2026, Complainant asserts that "Respondent is not associated or affiliated with Complainant in any way."
The Chief Executive Officer had been informed of the name of the registrant of the disputed domain name by the Registrar on January 14, 2026. Notwithstanding this additional information he confirmed that the registrant of the disputed domain name was not in any way associated with Complainant.
The Chief Executive Officer further avers that the "Complainant and its predecessor in interest have owned and used the Lemna Marks (sic) since January 1983".
Notwithstanding that Complainant had been using the LEMNA mark for over 40 years, the disputed domain name was registered only a few weeks before Complainant applied to register the disputed domain name.
On the balance of probabilities there was some connection between the registration of the disputed domain name and Complainant's decision to apply to register the LEMNA mark.
It is unlikely that the timing of the registration of the disputed domain name and the trademark applications was a mere coincidence.
It is improbable that the disputed domain name was registered without prior knowledge of Complainant's intention to file the trademark applications. The proximity of the registration of the disputed domain name and the filing of the application to register the LEMNA mark means that on the balance of probabilities the person who registered the disputed domain name had some association with, or knowledge of Complainant.
Complainant's Chief Executive Officer denies that the named Registrant had any association with Complainant. Therefore, this Panel finds on the balance of probabilities that Respondent's identity has been stolen by the true registrant of the disputed domain name as Respondent claims.
In these circumstances the Panel finds that on the balance of probabilities the disputed domain name was registered providing a false name and contact details for the registrant. The Panel directs therefore in the interests of fairness, and to protect the reputation of the person named as the registrant, that the identity of Respondent be redacted in this Decision.
Furthermore, throughout this Decision the Panel refers to the true registrant of the disputed domain name, whose identity remains unknown, as Respondent.
PARTIES' CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
Complainant claims rights in the LEMMA at common law established by use of the mark by itself and its predecessor in interest in the United States since January 1983. The claim to long use is consistent with the claim in the United States Trademark Application LEMNA, application number 99552369 of first use in commerce in January 1983. In support of this assertion of long use, Complainant has presented a notarized affidavit sworn by its Chief Executive Officer.
It is argued that the mark has acquired distinctiveness or secondary meaning, and Complainant is recognized as market leader in lagoon-based process technology and cover systems. Its expertise encompasses all aspects of wastewater project development from conceptual design to final commissioning and ongoing customer support.
Furthermore, Complainant submits that over the period of 40 years since Complainant was established it has spent at least $500,000 on marketing and advertising in various forms and asserts that it has an established Internet presence and owns the domain name <lemna.com>, which was registered on December 4, 1996, as the address of its principal website.
In his notarized affidavit sworn on January 31, 2026, Complainant's Chief Executive Officer avers that he has direct knowledge of Complainant's and its predecessor in interest's own marketing and advertising, as well as Complainant's and its predecessor in interest's own efforts to develop and protect its "LEMNA" and "LEMNA ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES" marks.
Complainant firstly alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the LEMNA mark as it consists solely of a word confusingly similar to Complainant's mark substituting a letter "i" for the letter "l" and adding the generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") extension <.com>.
It is submitted that the alteration to Complainant's LEMNA mark is not sufficient to distinguish the disputed domain name from the mark.
Previous panels established under the Policy have found that visually similar misspellings of a Complainant's mark in a domain name do not prevent consuming similarity between the domain name and the complainant's trademark pursuant to the Policy. See DrinkPAK, LLC v. keidy acevedo, FA 2174182 (Forum Sept. 30, 2025) (substitution of the letter 'i' with 'l' does not prevent the Domain Name being confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark which is still recognizable in the Domain Name.).
Moreover, it is argued that merely adding the gTLD extension <.com> does not distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant's mark. See Roraj Trade LLC v. Ding Chao, FA 2072095 (Forum Dec. 30, 2023) (finding that the respondent's <fentybeautyus.com> was confusingly similar to the complainant's FENTY BEAUTY mark, because the domain name only differs from the mark by the addition of the geographical descriptor "us," which "does nothing to distinguish the domain name from the mark, and the inconsequential .com [gTLD], which may be ignored).
Secondly Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, arguing
· Respondent did not register disputed domain name until November 11, 2025, approximately forty-three years after Complainant's first use of the LEMNA mark in commerce, and nearly thirty years after Complainant's registration of the its own domain name <lemna.com>;
· Respondent is not associated with or affiliated with Complainant in any way;
· Complainant has not authorized or licensed Respondent to register or use domain names incorporating Complainant's LEMNA mark or any variation thereof;
· upon information and belief, Respondent is neither commonly known by, nor licensed to register, the disputed domain name;
· Complainant has found no evidence that Respondent legitimately carries on business under the name "lemna," "iemna," or <iemna.com> and therefore alleges on information and belief that Respondent is not doing business under the name "lemna," "iemna," or <iemna.com>;
· Respondent is not commonly known as <iemna.com> or any similar name, but instead, the available WHOIS information for the disputed domain name registration, identifies the registrant name only as "Registration Private."; and "Registration Private" does not resemble the disputed domain name in any way, nor does it suggest that Respondent is, or has ever been, commonly known as <iemna.com> as an individual, business, or other organization. See Bittrex, Inc. v. sanoop ks, FA 1789700 (Forum July 9, 2018) (holding that WHOIS information may be used to show that a respondent is not commonly known by a domain name, especially where a respondent has utilized a privacy service -- in this case Respondent originally listed Registration Private / Domains by Proxy, LLC as domain name registrant);
· furthermore the Registrar has disclosed the name of Respondent in the course of this proceedings and Respondent's name does not resemble the disputed domain name in any way;
· additionally, as shown in copy email correspondence exhibited in an annex to the Complaint, Respondent has the disputed domain name to set up email addresses using Complainant's employees' names to send invoices to Complainant's customers or potential customers for projects;
· such use of the disputed domain name as part of a phishing and fraud scheme purporting to impersonate Complainant's employees to solicit money does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)., see Fox Factory, Inc. v. Katherine Tyler Scott, FA 2188395 (Forum Dec. 9, 2025) (the panel held that use of the complainant's mark in a fraudulent email phishing scheme cannot amount to a legitimate noncommercial or fair use).
Additionally, Complainant submits that a screen capture exhibited in an annex to the Complaint illustrates that the disputed domain name resolves to a parked webpage which includes a list of hyperlinked keywords which redirect users to third-party websites for competitive and unrelated products.
Complainant argues that upon information and belief, Respondent collects a fee each time a visitor to the resolving website clicks on the advertisement; and numerous panels have concluded that use of a domain name to resolve to a generic parked web page featuring hyperlinks does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii), irrespective of whether the advertisements are for competing or unrelated websites or products. See Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc. v. Camren de Waard, FA 1774528 (Forum Jan. 22, 2015) (finding that respondent lacked rights and legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names when the domain names resolved to parked websites featuring links that compete with, or are unrelated to, complainant's business.
Thirdly Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith arguing that:
The exhibited copy emails show that Respondent is using the disputed domain name as part of a phishing and fraud scheme whereby Respondent uses the disputed domain name as an email address to impersonate employees of Complainant to solicit money from Complainant's customers and potential customers for unrendered services.
The scheme involves the use of Complainant's mark and the actual names of Complainant's employees in conjunction with the domain name in order to convince unwitting victims to send money, ostensibly for projects or services the victims did not order. Past panels established under the Policy have found that such a phishing scheme is clear evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See DaVita Inc. v Cynthia Rochelo, FA 1738034 (Forum July 20, 2017) (holding that "passing off in furtherance of a fraudulent scheme is not considered a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate non commercial or fair use").
By this impersonation and passing off, Internet users are likely to become confused, and indeed have already been confused by Respondent's use of the confusingly similar domain name as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the <iemna.com> domain name and electronic content on the Internet. Therefore, the Panel should also find that Respondent has registered and is using the <iemna.com> domain name in bad faith under ICANN UDRP Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Qatalyst Partners L.P. v Devinmore, FA 1393436 (Forum July 13, 2011)(finding that using the disputed domain name as an e-mail address to pass itself off as the complainant is evidence of bad faith registration and use).
Complainant further argues that Respondent also demonstrates bad faith by registering and using the confusingly similar domain name to host hyperlinks to third-party websites for competing and unrelated goods and services. Previous panels established under the Policy have held that using a domain name at issue to resolve to a parked page containing hyperlinks to third-party websites misleads Internet users as to the complainant's affiliation with the domain name and constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Wiluna Holdings, LLC v. I S / ICS INC, FA 1799737 (Forum Sept. 7, 2018) (finding bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the disputed domain name was used for a parked web page with links to third party websites unrelated to the complainant).
Moreover, Complainant argues that Respondent is concealing its true identity while using the domain name for commercial, albeit illegal, purposes.
Respondent's use of a domain privacy services to conceal its true identity coupled with use of the disputed domain name in furtherance of a phishing and fraud scheme should likewise create a presumption of bad faith.
B. Respondent
In a Response the named registrant of the disputed domain name denies any knowledge of or association with the registration. He denies that he registered, owns, controls, uses, or has access to the disputed domain name. He further denies knowledge of the registration or operation of the disputed domain name or that he authorized any third party to register or use a domain name on his behalf.
Any association of the registrant's name, contact information, or identity with the domain appears to be erroneous, inaccurate, or made without knowledge or consent.
FINDINGS
Complainant claims rights at common law in the LEMNA mark established by ownership and use of the mark in its business providing services in the field of leader in lagoon-based process technology and cover systems.
Complainant has made a number of United States trademark applications to register the LEMNA mark and related marks, claiming first use in commerce on January 1, 1983. Each of the applications was filed on December 17, 2025, and are still pending.
Complainant has an established Internet presence and maintains a website to which its domain name <lemna.com> which was registered on December 4, 1996, resolves.
The disputed domain name was registered using a privacy service on November 11, 2025, prior to the filing of Complainant's trademark application.
The disputed domain name was registered using a privacy service, and the details of the registrant were disclosed by the Registrar in the course of this proceeding. In an informal response to receipt of Notice of the Complaint, the named registrant denies that he has any connection whatsoever with the disputed 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.
Identical and/or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has provided convincing evidence that it has rights in the LEMNA mark at common law established by extensive use in its business in lagoon-based process technology and cover systems since January 1983.
The disputed domain name is composed of Complainant's LEMNA mark, merely substituting a letter "i" for the letter "l" together with the gTLD extension <.com>.
The substitution of the letter "i" for the letter "l" does not distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant's mark which is recognizable within the disputed domain name.
Neither does the gTLD extension <.com> add any distinguishing character to any of the disputed domain names as it would considered by Internet users to be a necessary technical requirement for a domain name.
The Panel finds therefore that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the LEMNA mark in which Complainant has rights and Complainant has therefore succeeded in the first element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Rights or Legitimate Interests
Complainant has made out a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as set out in Complainant's detailed submissions above.
In particular, the uncontested evidence shows that Respondent is using the disputed domain name to create an email account from which messages impersonating Complainant's named employees are being sent to perpetrate a phishing scheme; and it resolves to a pay-per-click website.
It is well established that once a complainant makes out a prima facie case that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to prove its rights or legitimate interests.
Respondent has failed to discharge that burden and therefore this Panel must find that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Complainant has therefore succeeded in the second element of the test in Policy paragraph 4(a)(ii).
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
LEMNA is a distinctive mark, and the uncontested evidence is that it has been used by Complainant and its predecessor in title since 1983.
The disputed domain name is almost identical to the LEMNA mark, merely substituting the letter "i" for the letter "l". The similarity of those letters makes the disputed domain name almost identical to Complainant's own domain name <lemna.com> which it uses as the website for its business.
It is improbable that the registrant of the disputed domain name did not become aware of Complainant's domain name when the almost identical disputed domain name was chosen and registered. Given that the disputed domain name has been used to create an email account to impersonate Complainant's employees in sending fraudulent emails to unsuspecting third parties, the Panel finds that on the balance of probabilities the registrant of the disputed domain name intentionally registered a misspelling of Complainant's LEMNA mark in an act of typosquatting.
Furthermore, it is more than coincidence that the disputed domain name was registered so soon before Complainant filed its United States trademark application for the LEMNA mark. It is of course possible that the trademark applications were filed in response to the registration of the disputed domain name however that would not be determinative of the issue.
However, the registrant of the disputed domain name proceeded to quickly use the disputed domain name to create an email account from which it purported to send email messages to unsuspecting third parties in pursuance of a phishing scheme.
On the balance of probabilities therefore the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith with Complainant's mark in mind with the intention of confusing Internet users and taking predatory advantage of Complainant and its goodwill.
In addition to using the disputed domain name to pursue a phishing scheme, the evidence shows that the disputed domain name resolves to web page from which on the balance of probabilities Respondent is receiving pay-per-click revenue.
In all the circumstances described above: that Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith in an act of typosquatting; that Respondent has used the disputed domain name to perpetrate a phishing scheme; and that Respondent has caused, permitted or allowed the disputed domain name to take advantage of Complainant's goodwill and reputation, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
As the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, Complainant has succeeded in the third element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
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 <iemna.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
_________________________________
James Bridgeman SC
Panelist
Dated: February 3, 2026
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page