DECISION

 

Alta Equipment Group, Inc., Alta Equipment Holdings, Inc., and Alta Industrial Equipment Michigan, LLC v. Brad Carano

Claim Number: FA2601002199492

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Alta Equipment Group, Inc., Alta Equipment Holdings, Inc., and Alta Industrial Equipment Michigan, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Joanna M. Myers of Howard & Howard Attorneys PLLC, Nevada, USA. Respondent is Brad Carano ("Respondent"), Florida, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <altgconstructions.com>, registered with NICENIC INTERNATIONAL GROUP CO., LIMITED.

 

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

 

Nick J. Gardner as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 14, 2026; Forum received payment on January 14, 2026.

 

On January 14, 2026, NICENIC INTERNATIONAL GROUP CO., LIMITED confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <altgconstructions.com> domain name is registered with NICENIC INTERNATIONAL GROUP CO., LIMITED and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NICENIC INTERNATIONAL GROUP CO., LIMITED has verified that Respondent is bound by the NICENIC INTERNATIONAL GROUP CO., LIMITED 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 19, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 9, 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@altgconstructions.com. Also on January 19, 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 10, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Nick J. Gardner 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.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE COMPLAINANTS

The Complaint in this matter was filed by three related entities: Alta Equipment Group, Inc., Alta Equipment Holdings, Inc., and Alta Industrial Equipment Michigan, LLC. The Complaint states that Alta Industrial Equipment Michigan, LLC is a subsidiary of Alta Equipment Group, Inc., and that the entities are affiliated companies, each part of a larger business group. The relevant rules governing multiple complainants are UDRP Rule 3(a) and Forum's Supplemental Rule 1(e). Forum's Supplemental Rule 1(e) provides that multiple persons or entities who have a sufficient nexus and who can each claim to have rights to all domain names listed in the Complaint may together file a single complaint. See Guess? IP Holder L.P. and Guess?, Inc. v. Jerry Guess, FA 2002904 (Forum Aug. 23, 2022) ("The Forum's Supplemental Rule 1(e) defines "The Party Initiating a Complaint Concerning a Domain Name Registration" as a "single person or entity claiming to have rights in the domain name, or multiple persons or entities who have a sufficient nexus who can each claim to have rights to all domain names listed in the Complaint." While it appears that a single Complainant filed this proceeding, there are two Complainants in this matter: Guess? IP Holder L.P. and Guess?, Inc. Complainant argues that they have a sufficient nexus to both claim rights in the Trademark GUESS because Guess? IP Holder L.P. is effectively owned by Guess?, Inc. The Panel will accept Complainant's assertion and will treat both Complainants as a single entity"). As the three Complainant entities are corporate affiliates within the same business group, each with a demonstrable connection to the ALTA marks, the Panel finds that there is a sufficient nexus between them and permits the Complaint to proceed with multiple Complainants.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant is a leading provider of material handling, construction and environmental processing equipment and related services. Complainant owns and operates one of the largest integrated equipment dealership platforms in North America, with over 85 locations across multiple states and two Canadian provinces. Complainant asserts rights in several registered ALTA marks with the USPTO, including ALTA EQUIPMENT COMPANY (U.S. Reg. Nos. 4162769 and 5599770), ALTA CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT (U.S. Reg. No. 4107227), and ALTA (U.S. Reg. No. 7123673), as well as common law rights in the mark ALTG, which is Complainant's New York Stock Exchange ticker symbol. Complainant uses the domain name <altg.com> for its official website. Complainant contends that the disputed domain name <altgconstructions.com> is confusingly similar to its ALTA and ALTG marks, incorporating Complainant's common law mark ALTG in its entirety and merely adding the generic/descriptive term "constructions" and the gTLD ".com." Complainant further contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, as Respondent is not affiliated with or authorized by Complainant and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name resolves to a website at www.altaused.com that impersonates Complainant by prominently displaying Complainant's ALTA marks, logos, and trade dress, and that Respondent has used the email address sales@altgconstructions.com to perpetrate fraud on consumers, who have paid tens of thousands of dollars believing they were purchasing genuine goods from Complainant. Complainant states it has already succeeded in a prior UDRP action against this same perpetrator, who also operates under the alias Christopher Byler. Complainant asserts that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith to attract and divert Complainant's potential customers for Respondent's financial gain through fraudulent sales.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant owns multiple trademark registrations with the USPTO for marks incorporating ALTA, including ALTA EQUIPMENT COMPANY (U.S. Reg. Nos. 4162769 and 5599770), ALTA CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT (U.S. Reg. No. 4107227), and ALTA (U.S. Reg. No. 7123673), with use in commerce since at least November 2010. Three of these registrations have been acknowledged as incontestable. Complainant also claims common law rights in the mark ALTG, its New York Stock Exchange ticker symbol. The disputed domain name <altgconstructions.com> was registered with NICENIC INTERNATIONAL GROUP CO., LIMITED. The WHOIS record lists the registrant name as Brad Carano. The disputed domain name resolves to a website at www.altaused.com that displays Complainant's ALTA marks and logos and purports to offer for sale goods identical to Complainant's, namely construction vehicles. Respondent has used the email address sales@altgconstructions.com in connection with fraudulent sales to consumers. Complainant previously succeeded in a UDRP action against the same perpetrator. Respondent failed to file a Response in this proceeding.

 

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 has established rights in the ALTA mark through its multiple USPTO registrations, the earliest dating to March 2012, as well as common law rights in the mark ALTG through its longstanding use as Complainant's stock ticker symbol on the New York Stock Exchange.

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied the threshold requirement of demonstrating rights in the ALTA trademark for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy – see Farmlane Brands, LLC v. Helene Isbell Biggane, FA 1996757 (Forum July 12, 2022) "Ownership of a trademark registration is generally sufficient evidence that a complainant has the requisite rights in a mark for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy." 

 

The disputed domain name <altgconstructions.com> incorporates a typographical variation of Complainant's ALTA trademark followed by the dictionary word "constructions". The Panel also notes that the term "constructions" is directly related to Complainant's core business of construction equipment, which increases rather than diminishes the likelihood of confusion. The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's ALTG trademark. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognisable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element."). The Panel would also reach the same conclusion by reference to Complainant's common law trademark rights in the term ALTG which has clearly been widely used by Complainant for many years. See for example Goodwin Procter LLP v. Amritpal Singh, FA 1736062 (Forum July 18, 2017) ("Complainant's demonstration of its common law trademark rights in the GOODWIN mark by showing long time continuous use of the mark, significant related advertising expenditures, as well as other evidence of the mark's having acquired secondary meaning establishes Complainant's rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).").

 

The addition of the generic top-level domain ".com" is a technical requirement of domain name registration and does not affect the confusing similarity analysis. See Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association v. Shi Lei aka Shilei, FA 1784643 (Forum June 18, 2018) ("A TLD (whether a gTLD, sTLD or ccTLD) is disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax requires TLDs.").

 

Accordingly, the Panel finds the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to marks in which Complainant has rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), it is now well established that the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) and that, if the prima facie case is made out, the burden then shifts to the Respondent to show that it does have such rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)).

 

Complainant has demonstrated that Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant's trademark and has no relationship with Complainant. The WHOIS information identifies Respondent as Brad Carano which bears no resemblance to the disputed domain name. There is no evidence that Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name or has acquired any trademark rights in " ALTA " or "ALTG" or any similar term. Accordingly, Complainant has established a prima facie case under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and the burden shifts to Respondent to demonstrate rights or legitimate interests. Respondent has failed to respond and therefore has failed to demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests.

 

The Panel finds that Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i). The disputed domain name does resolves to an active website which has been used fraudulently and fraudulent emails have also been generated. The use of a  domain name confusingly similar to a trademark for fraudulent purposes cannot constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services. See Home Depot Product Authority, LLC v. Domain Owner / Knowbe4, FA 1990823 (Forum May 25, 2022) ("Using a domain name to gain commercially through a fraudulent email scam is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services as contemplated by Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use as contemplated by Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)."). See also  Agilent Technologies, Inc. v. li wei wei et al., FA 1990953 (Forum May 23, 2022) (using disputed domain name to send fraudulent emails while inactively holding resolving website is not legitimate noncommercial or fair use).

 

Respondent has failed to rebut Complainant's prima facie case or to demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has established Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii), Complainant must prove that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Policy ¶ 4(b) provides non-exclusive examples of bad faith registration and use:

 

(i) circumstances indicating that the respondent 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 respondent's documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or

 

(ii) the respondent 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 respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

 

(iii) the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or

 

(iv) by using the domain name, the respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the respondent's website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the respondent's website or location or of a product or service on the respondent's website or location.

  

The registration of a domain name obviously connected with a well-known trademark by someone with no connection to the trademark owner suggests bad faith. See Household Int'l, Inc. v. Cyntom Enters., FA 096784 (Forum Nov. 7, 2000) (inferring that respondent registered a well-known business name with hopes of attracting complainant's customers). The ALTA and ALTG trademarks are so obviously connected with Complainant that Respondent's registration and use of the confusingly similar disputed domain name strongly supports a finding of bad faith.

 

Use of the disputed domain name in connection with fraudulent e mails amounts to conduct within Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and/or (iv)" – see Swinerton Incorporated v. [NAME REDACTED], FA 1896039 (Forum June 8, 2020) ("Respondent subsequently used the disputed domain name to send and receive fraudulent emails in furtherance of a fraudulent phishing scheme. Such use constitutes bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and/or (iv)."). See also Huntsman International, LLC v. Tony Carmean, FA 1920665 (Forum Nov. 23, 2020) ("[T]he domain name was registered and used to perpetrate a phishing scheme designed to bilk third parties. Such use of the domain name surely disrupts Complainant's business and was initiated for financial gain. Using the domain name in this manner demonstrates bad faith registration and use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv).").

 

The totality of the circumstances‚ including in particular the use of the disputed domain name for clearly fraudulent activity and lack of any conceivable legitimate use‚ compels the conclusion that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has established 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 <altgconstructions.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Nick J. Gardner Panelist

Dated: February 23, 2026