DECISION

 

Kevin James Taylor v. Domain Admin / HugeDomains.com

Claim Number: FA2601002200487

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Kevin James Taylor ("Complainant"), Maryland, USA. Respondent is Domain Admin / HugeDomains.com ("Respondent"), Colorado, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <5starreview.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.

 

PANEL

The undersigned certify 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.

 

Dennis A. Foster and Robert A. Badgley as Panelists and Gerald M. Levine as Chair.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 19, 2026; Forum received payment on January 19, 2026.

 

On January 20, 2026, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <5starreview.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, 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 22, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 11, 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@5starreview.com. Also on January 22, 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 11, 2026.

 

On February 13, pursuant to Respondent's request to have the dispute decided by a three-member Panel, Forum appointed Dennis A. Foster and Robert A. Badgley as Panelists and Gerald M. Levine as Chair.

 

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

Complainant states that he has a trademark for the term 5 STAR REVIEW with the United States Patent and Trademark Office, which matured to registration on February 19, 2019. He further states that he was the registered holder of <5starreview.com> from 2006 to 2025. He asserts that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests to the domain name because 1) it purchased the domain in bad faith to sell for a profit, 2) it infringes on his trademark and 3) it is cybersquatting.

 

The Complainant supports these allegations through a series of negative reviews of the Respondent's business model from third-party consumers and concludes by stating that the domain name was purchased by the Respondent in bad faith to sell at a high profit.

 

B. Respondent

The Respondent notes at the outset that instead of presenting evidence that Respondent targeted Complainant's trademark at the time of acquisition, the Complaint relies heavily on screenshots from third-party consumer review websites and generalized criticism of Respondent's domain resale business. According to the Respondent, those materials do not establish bad faith registration or use under the Policy and do not satisfy Complainant's burden of proof.

 

With regard to the phrase "5 star review" the Respondent states that it is a common descriptive expression referring to the highest possible rating in a review system. The Respondent continues that the phrase is universally understood by consumers as a description of favorable feedback, not as a unique source identifier. It refers the Panel to the definition in Merriam-Webster that "five-star" signifies "the highest quality," and "review" as "a critical evaluation" or "a report that gives someone's opinion about the quality of a product or service." According to the Respondent, in ordinary usage, a "5 star review" simply denotes positive consumer feedback. This meaning exists independently of Complainant's business and is used daily across a wide range of industries.

 

The Respondent further states that as it is engaged in the lawful business of acquiring, holding, and reselling descriptive and generic domain names for their inherent value it has established rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. According to the Respondent, it  acquired the disputed domain name because it consists of a common descriptive phrase with obvious dictionary meaning, making it suitable for a wide range of lawful uses unrelated to Complainant.

 

It further states in this regard that <5starreview.com> is valuable because it is descriptive, not because of any association with Complainant. The phrase "5 star review" has an independent meaning that predates and exists apart from Complainant's business. Respondent did not impersonate Complainant, redirect users to a competing service, or use the domain name in a manner referencing Complainant. The domain has been passively held and offered for sale in the ordinary course of Respondent's business.

 

Having regard to the history of the disputed domain name, the Respondent notes that while Complainant alleges that it previously owned the domain name, prior ownership does not establish that Respondent's later acquisition was in bad faith. It states that expiration and re-registration of descriptive domain names is a lawful and common practice and that the Policy does not provide a remedy for a complainant who allowed a domain name to lapse and later wishes to reacquire it.

 

The Respondent concludes by noting that the limited nature of Complainant's historical use of its domain name further undermines any suggestion that Respondent targeted Complainant or its alleged goodwill. Publicly available archival records (the wayback machine located at www.archive.org) indicate that, during Complainant's prior ownership, the domain name resolved for extended periods to minimal or largely inactive content, with no consistent commercial presence. While Respondent does not suggest that archival records are determinative, the absence of sustained use is consistent with Respondent's position that the domain name derives its value from its descriptive meaning rather than from any association with Complainant. This further supports the conclusion that Respondent's acquisition was motivated by the ordinary value of a descriptive phrase, not by any intent to exploit Complainant's mark.

 

The Respondent requests that the Panel find reverse domain name hijacking.

 

FINDINGS

1.       On February 19, 2019, the United States Patent and Trademark Office registered the term 5 STAR REVIEW to the Complainant, registration no: 5,678,796;

2.       The Complainant was the immediate prior registrant of the domain name <5starreview.com> before it lapsed in 2025;

3.       As a result, <5starreview.com> was returned to the general pool of available domain names;

4.       The Respondent acquired <5starreview.com> in the ordinary course of its business sometime thereafter and is holding it for eventual resale as a valuable descriptive term;

5.       The Complainant has failed to establish that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests or that the Respondent registered or is using the disputed domain name in bad faith;

6.       Accordingly, the Complaint is dismissed.

7.       The Panel has carefully considered the circumstances herein as it concerns the Complainant's reasons for commencing this proceeding and declines to find reverse domain name hijacking.  

 

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

It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant's trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Overview 3.0"), section 1.7.

 

The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1.

The entirety of the mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is identical to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.

 

It is also well established that the specific top level of a domain name such as ".com", ".org" or "net" does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar. See F Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Macalve e-dominios S.A., WIPO Case No. D2006-045.

 

In addition to its registered mark, the Complainant also appears to assert common law rights to "5 Star Review" predating the date of its trademark registration although it does no more than cite to three US trademark decisions and leaves the implication of its long-time holdership and use of the disputed domain name to the Panel. See WIPO Overview, supra. at Section 1.3: "To establish unregistered or common law trademark rights for purposes of the UDRP, the complainant must show that its mark has become a distinctive identifier which consumers associate with the complainant's goods and/or services." As there is no evidence that the phrase "5 Star Review" functioned as a trademark, any assertions that it did must be rejected.

 

The evidence before the Panel shows that "5 Star Review" is a descriptive term with no particular association with this Complainant. It is also widely used by other market participants in non-infringing fields. However, as the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant's registered mark, the Panel finds that it succeeds under Section 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant makes naked assertions that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests because "they[sic] • Purchased the domain in bad faith to sell for a profit[,] • Are infringing on a trademark[,] [and] • Are cybersquatting." The Respondent has offered a full rebuttal of these assertions as previously noted which the Panel finds persuasive.

 

Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has failed to establish a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 1406896 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy paragraph 4(a)(ii)).

 

Except as set forth above, given the Panel's finding on the third element of the Policy below, it is not necessary for the Panel to reach a definitive determination regarding the second element.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

The genesis of Complainant's claim of cybersquatting against the Respondent follows from its failure to timely renew its registration of <5starreview.com> sometime in 2025. In consequence, the domain name returned to the general pool of available domain names and upon its availability it was registered by the Respondent.

 

As in the rights or legitimate interests discussion above, the Complainant under this head simply sets forth a single conclusory allegation to serve as proof that "[t]he domain was purchased by the respondent in bad faith to sell at a high profit." The Complainant does not say to whom the Respondent intended "to sell [the domain name] at a high profit" and the Complainant adduces no evidence that it was the intended target of the acquisition or even that the Respondent had any actual knowledge of the Complainant or its mark when it acquired <5starreview.com>.

 

Although the Complainant does not specifically rely on any one of the four subdivisions of Section 4(b) of the Policy, its curtailed argument appears to make reference to subsection 4(b)(i) since it alone addresses the issue of "valuable consideration in excess of [the Respondent's] documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name." Subsection 4(b)(i) states that a respondent acts in bad faith where there are   

 

(i) circumstances indicating that you have registered or you have 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 your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name.  

In its rebuttal to the Complainant's Amended Complaint the Respondent denies having any knowledge of the Complainant or any improper purpose in acquiring <5starreview.com>. In its words, it acquired the domain name for its value as a descriptive term, "not because of any association with Complainant."

The Panel has carefully reviewed the submitted evidence to determine whether the Respondent could be found to have acquired the disputed domain name "primarily for a [forbidden] purpose" and finds no evidence that it did. Nor has the Complainant directly or indirectly suggested it was the intended target of the Respondent's acquisition of the lapsed domain name. 

The Panel found that it is rather to the contrary. The Respondent saw the availability of <5starreview.com> as an opportunity to add it to its portfolio of generic and descriptive names. That it came at the expense of the Complainant cannot amount to an actionable claim of cybersquatting. See WIPO Overview at Sec. 3.1.1: "Generally speaking, panels have found that the practice as such of registering a domain name for subsequent resale (including for a profit) would not by itself support a claim that the respondent registered the domain name in bad faith with the primary purpose of selling it to a trademark owner (or its competitor)." See Mutineer Restaurant v. Ultimate Search, Inc., FA 114434 (Forum Aug. 23, 2002) (concluding: "It is not a violation of policy to simply seek to register generic words, as they become abandoned [or here, lapsed for failure to renew]."). 

In Future France v. Name Administration Inc., WIPO Claim No. D2008-1422 ("The Panel concludes that it appears likely that the Respondent reasonably determined that the disputed domain name, <joystick.com>, composed of a simple English language term, was available for use on a generic basis in a lawful manner . . . ").

The fact that there are consumer reviews by third parties who may regard the Respondent's business model negatively and refer to it as "scums of the earth" and cybersquatters does not add up to evidence in this particular case that the Respondent's registration and use of <5starreview.com> violates the Policy. 

Finally, in arguing that Respondent is a cybersquatter, the Complainant has a further obstacle to surmount, namely that it failed to timely renew its registration for <5starreview.com> resulting in the domain name returning to the general pool of available domain names. While it does not address this issue directly, the consequences of this lapse are set forth with particular clarity by the registrar in its Registrar's Registration Agreement (GoDaddy, Inc. in this particular case). The Registration Agreement reads at Sec. 3B "if the registrant fails to renew the registration agreement "the domain name will be cancelled, and you will no longer have use of that name." On this point, see Displays Depot, Inc. v. GNO, Inc., WIPO Claim No. D2006-0445 (In response to Complainant's assertion that "Respondent's registration must have been in bad faith because it registered the Domain Name after Complainant inadvertently allowed its registration to lapse," the Panel held:

"This argument has no merit […]. The registration of a domain name that was previously registered to a third party cannot constitute bad faith absent a showing that the registration was specifically done to take unfair advantage of an obviously inadvertent expiration, and to trade on the goodwill of the underlying trademark.").

As the Complainant has adduced no evidence of any kind from which it may be inferred that the Respondent acquired <5starreview.com> "specifically . . . to take unfair advantage of an obviously inadvertent expiration" it has not established the third element of the Policy and the complaint must fail.

REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKING

The Respondent has requested that the Panel sanction the Complainant for reverse domain name hijacking. In considering whether RDNH is appropriate in this case, the Panel has taken into account that the Complainant owns a trademark registration in the term 5 STAR REVIEW and that for close to two decades it has held and used the domain name corresponding to its mark. The Panel does not find that under these circumstances that the Complainant's attempt to restore what it regarded as its right amounts to bad faith or intended to harass the Respondent for any of the reasons set forth in Rules 1 and 15, thus declines to find reverse domain naming hijacking. 

 

DECISION

Having not established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED. It also denies Respondent's request for a finding of reverse domain name hijacking.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <5starreview.com> domain name REMAIN WITH Respondent.

 

 

 

Dennis A. Foster and Robert A. Badgley as Panelists

and Gerald M. Levine as Chair

Dated: February 18, 2026