DECISION

 

Suncast Corporation v. Philip Litassy

Claim Number: FA2601002200062

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Suncast Corporation ("Complainant"), represented by Maria Jose Rivera of McHale & Slavin, P.A., Florida, USA. Respondent is Philip Litassy ("Respondent"), Slovakia.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <suncastic.com>, registered with Gransy, s.r.o.

 

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.

 

David P. Miranda, Esq., as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 16, 2026; Forum received payment on January 16, 2026.

 

On January 21, 2026, Gransy, s.r.o. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <suncastic.com> domain name is registered with Gransy, s.r.o. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Gransy, s.r.o. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Gransy, s.r.o. 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@suncastic.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 10, 2026.

 

On February 10, 2026, Additional Submissions were received and considered.

 

On February 11, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed David P. Miranda, 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

This Complaint is based on the trademark SUNCAST® owned by Complainant. Complainant is the owner of four live, incontestable U.S. Trademark Registrations (Regs. Nos. 2085417, 2232821, 3453575, and 4817443) for the SUNCAST® trademark in connection with a wide variety of goods including, but not limited to storage sheds and accessories; plastic, metal and wood products and structures including: deck boxes; outdoor furniture such as chairs, benches and tables; patio accessories; hose reels; planters; edging and fencing; garden scooters; garden stations; storage bins and slat wall systems for garages; storage lockers and cabinets; snow tools such as shovels, pushers and scrapers; and refuse receptacles.

 

Complainant contends that since at least as early as December 4, 1984, Complainant has been continuously using the mark "SUNCAST" in connection with the manufacture and sales of commercial and residential products in the home and industrial markets. The extensive scope of Complainant's product range includes innovative items in categories encompassing outdoor storage; lawn and garden; snow tools; deck and patio accessories; outdoor furniture; planters; and several others. In addition to sales from its own website Suncast.com, the SUNCAST brand is prevalent in "big box" stores such as Wal-Mart, Home Depot, Lowes, and Target, in at least 37 countries SUNCAST® products are sold and recognized in five of the seven continents of the world.

 

Complainant contends its mark represents extensive goodwill and consumer recognition built up by Complainant through substantial amounts of time, effort, and money expended by Complainant in advertising, developing, marketing, co-branding, and promoting Complainant's goods and services using Complainant's "SUNCAST" mark.

Respondent's objectionable domain name is <suncastic.com>. The Complainant's website is located at the domain name <suncast.com> – a site where consumers may receive extensive product information and may find related products to purchase directly from the Complainant's website.

Respondent's passive holding of Complainant's "SUNCAST," trademark incorporated into the objectionable domain name <suncastic.com> can only be intended for the purpose of disrupting the business of Complainant. Respondent infers a bad faith intent and takes unfair advantage of or otherwise abuses Complainant's mark.

Respondent is the owner of the webpage operating under the offending domain name uses Complainant's trademark without authorization and is likely to cause confusion, mistake, or deception among consumers, likely and logically misled to believe there might be an affiliation to sell products through association, without authorization, sponsorship, endorsement, or approval.

 

Respondent should be considered as having no rights or legitimate interests in respect to the subject domain name. Complainant has superior rights in its SUNCAST® trademark. Complainant is a manufacturer and marketer of a variety of commercial and residential products. Complainant holds a significant share of the market with respect to these products, and its reputation is well known to the public with major retailers such as Wal-Mart, Target, Home Depot, Lowe's, Sears, and Ace Hardware promoting and selling products bearing the SUNCAST® trademark.

Complainant is the owner of four incontestable registrations for the SUNCAST® trademark. It is also the owner of SUNCAST® trademarks in Canada, China, Australia, the European Union and throughout the Caribbean. Complainant's innovative products have further been the subject of patent protection in the U.S., Canada, Mexico, China, and the European Union.

Complainant has promoted its products under its SUNCAST® trademark since as far back as 1984.

 

The WHOIS search for the subject <suncastic.com> domain indicates it was created on December 24, 2025. Respondent's website at this domain appears to have operated since on or about December 24, 2025.

 

Complainant has developed substantial goodwill in the SUNCAST® trademark based on the foregoing longstanding and widespread use of its trademark, and the public has come to associate the trademark with Complainant's products. Indeed, the SUNCAST® trademark is famous within the meaning of Section 43(c) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c).

 

There appears to be no legitimate interest from Respondent in the subject domain, other than to capture potential internet traffic intended for Complainant by taking advantage of Complainant's SUNCAST® mark to disrupt its business.

 

Respondent's subject domain should be considered as having been registered in bad faith. The domain is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's asserted incontestable and famous SUNCAST® trademark to suggest sponsorship or endorsement by Complainant, namely, promoting sales of Complainant's products. Further, Respondent's webpage combines the trademark with wording that is descriptive of Complainant's products to suggest sponsorship or endorsement by Complainant, namely, promoting sales of Complainant's products and disrupting the business of Complainant.

 

Complainant contends Respondent has engaged in intentional likelihood of confusion with Complainant's SUNCAST® trademark. The Respondent then takes unfair advantage of or otherwise abuses Complainant's mark by engaging in behavior detrimental to the Complainant's trademark. The result is an intentional likelihood of confusion between Respondent's webpage and Complainant's SUNCAST trademark.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent alleges that Complainant's assertion that Respondent is 'diverting Internet users' seeking Suncast Corporation 'for commercial gain' is incorrect and unsupported. The website at <suncastic.com> contains no advertising, no affiliate links, and no promotion of third-party goods related to Complainant. The service is a non-commercial solar-energy forecasting tool.

 

Respondent's project has only three registered users, one of whom is Respondent. There is no meaningful traffic from the United States. These facts directly contradict the allegation that U.S. consumers searching for Suncast products are being misdirected.

 

The project is exclusively focused on photovoltaic production forecasts, energy planning, and weather data. The project has no connection to garden storage, outdoor furniture, or any category in which Complainant operates. The content and functionality of the website are entirely unrelated to Complainant's business.

 

Complainant has provided no instance of actual confusion, misrepresentation, or impersonation. The mere presence of the letters 'suncast' within a longer coined term does not establish bad faith where the overall context, audience, and use are unrelated. The attached Annexes demonstrate that the site clearly presents itself as a solar-forecasting application with no suggestion of affiliation with Complainant.

Respondent contends the name 'Suncastic' was independently coined from the concepts of Sun + forecast + fantastic. Respondent contends it had no prior awareness of Suncast Corporation and have never sought to trade on its reputation.

 

C. Additional Submissions

Complainant contends that Respondent's current registration of the disputed domain name, incorporating the Complainant's entire mark plus the non-distinctive letters "-ic", creates a likelihood of confusion for Internet users, and that Respondent is diverting such users to its website based on that confusion for commercial gain. Internet users seeking Complainant's wide range of home garden and outdoor goods, and services by entering its widely known mark in a browser find themselves at Respondent's website, where they are diverted to third party service providers for Respondent's gain. Based on the nature of Complainant's mark, widely known and pre-dated federal trademark registrations of Respondent's registration, Respondent knew or should have known that its registration would be identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's mark.

 

FINDINGS

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires a complainant to prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order cancelling or transferring a domain name:

 

(1)       the domain name registered by the respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and

(2)       the 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.

 

Complainant, having failed to establish bad faith registration and use of the domain at issue, has failed to establish all elements of the Policy.

 

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;

(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

When a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark, or where at least a dominant feature of the relevant mark is recognizable in the domain name, the domain name will normally be considered confusingly similar to that mark.

The asserted trademark is SUNCAST. The domain name <suncastic.com> is confusingly similar to the asserted trademark because it contains the exact SUNCAST® trademark in its entirety, combined with the additional wording IC.

 

Here, Respondent's subject domain contains Complainant's SUNCAST® trademark in its entirety with additional non-distinctive wording that suggests sponsorship or endorsement by Complainant. Respondent's use of the asserted trademark in the subject domain may therefore be considered identical and/or confusingly similar to the Complainant's marks.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant has met its burden of submitting prima facie proof that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the name. Thus, the burden shifts to Respondent to establish its rights or legitimate interest in the name.

 

Respondent is not known by the name and contends it has minimal to no use of the name other than its website, which has only 2 registered users other than the Respondent. Respondent concedes it has made no commercial use of the name and has not indicated any legitimate business purpose for the name.

 

Panels have recognized that it is difficult for a respondent to establish rights or legitimate interests where, as here, that respondent has no relevant trademark rights and without the authority of the complainant has used a domain name identical to the complainant's trademark. Even where a domain consists of a trademark plus an additional term, UDRP panels have largely held that such composition cannot constitute legitimate interests or rights without some proof of such rights. Thus, Complainant has met its burden as to this element of its claim.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant contends generally that panels have found that the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a famous or widely known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith, and that panels have found registration and use in bad faith pursuant to Policy 4(b)(iv) based solely on a respondent using a domain name that is confusingly similar to a complainant's mark. Complainant offers no citations to decisions that support this proposition.

 

Complainant provides no proof of bad faith registration and use other than the similarity of the domain and the mark. Complainant provides no specific case that would support a finding of bad faith in a case such as this. Complainant attempts to shift the burden by contending that Respondent must show good faith registration and use of the mark, which is not the standard.

 

Complainant has failed to submit sufficient support to establish bad faith registration and use of the domain in question. The panel finds Complainant as such has failed to meet its burden of establishing bad faith under UDRP Policy 4(b)(iv). This finding is without prejudice to Complainant establishing bad faith registration and use in the future.

 

DECISION

Having not established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED, without prejudice.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <suncastic.com> domain REMAIN WITH Respondent.

 

 

__________________________________________________________________

 

David P. Miranda, Esq., Panelist

Dated: February 24, 2026