DECISION

 

PFI HOLDCO LLC v. Kenneth Nicolas Bany

Claim Number: FA2601002201239

 

PARTIES

Complainant is PFI HOLDCO LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Staci R. DeRegnaucourt of Varnum LLP, Michigan, USA. Respondent is Kenneth Nicolas Bany ("Respondent"), Philippines.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

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

 

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.

 

Jeffrey J. Neuman as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 22, 2026; Forum received payment on January 22, 2026.

 

On January 26, 2026, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <lakewoodjuice.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 27, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 17, 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@lakewoodjuice.com. Also on January 27, 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 18, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Jeffrey J. Neuman 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 states that it is the owner of multiple federally registered LAKEWOOD-formative trademarks used in connection with fruit and vegetable juices and non-alcoholic beverages. Complainant's LAKEWOOD mark has been in continuous use since at least January 1, 1932, and is the subject of multiple USPTO registrations, including U.S. Reg. Nos. 1,187,977; 4,248,677; and 6,023,577. Complainant also has pending applications for LAKEWOOD LITTLES and LAKEWOOD ORGANIC NURTURE.

 

Complainant asserts that for decades it has prominently and extensively used, promoted, and advertised its LAKEWOOD-formative marks in connection with juice products. Complainant owns and operates its primary website at www.lakewoodorganic.com, through which it sells and promotes its authentic juice products. Complainant also owns multiple related domain names, including <lakewoodjuices.com>, <lakewoodorganicjuice.com>, <lakewoodorganicjuices.com>, <lakewoodorganics.com>, and <shoplakewoodorganic.com>, all of which redirect to its main website.

 

Complainant contends that by virtue of its long-standing use dating back to the early 1930s, its federal trademark registrations, and its online presence, the LAKEWOOD marks have become well recognized by consumers as designating Complainant as the exclusive source of its juice products. Complainant further asserts that maintaining a clear and singular online presence is particularly important given that its products are consumable goods, including products often made for children.

 

Complainant argues that the disputed domain name <lakewoodjuice.com> is confusingly similar to its LAKEWOOD mark because it incorporates the mark in its entirety and merely adds the descriptive term "juice," which directly corresponds to Complainant's goods.

 

Complainant further contends that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, is not affiliated with or authorized by Complainant, and has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. According to Complainant, the disputed domain name resolves to an online gambling website offering betting services via various media, including telephone, WhatsApp, and online platforms.

 

Finally, Complainant asserts that Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith by intentionally attempting to attract Internet users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's LAKEWOOD marks and diverting those users to an unrelated gambling website.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The Panel finds that:

1.       Complainant has established rights in the LAKEWOOD mark through multiple valid and subsisting USPTO registrations, and has used the LAKEWOOD-formative marks in commerce in connection with juice and beverage products since at least January 1, 1932.

2.       The disputed domain name <lakewoodjuice.com> was registered on March 1, 2022, decades after Complainant's marks became well-established and federally registered.

3.       The disputed domain name resolves to a commercial website featuring online gambling and betting-related content, including promotional materials and links to gambling services.

4.       Respondent is identified in the WHOIS as "Kenneth Nicolas Bany," located in the Philippines, and there is no evidence in the record that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name or has been authorized by Complainant to use its mark.

5.       Based on the record as a whole, including the long standing use of the LAKEWOOD mark, the decades long gap between Complainant's established rights and Respondent's 2022 registration, the deliberate pairing of the distinctive term "Lakewood" with the product descriptor "juice," and the redirection of the domain name to a commercial gambling website, the Panel finds it implausible that Respondent registered the disputed domain name without knowledge of Complainant's mark and concludes that the domain name <lakewoodjuice.com> was registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

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

Registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to establish rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Liberty Global Logistics, LLC v. damilola emmanuel / tovary services limited, FA 1738536 (Forum Aug. 4, 2017). Complainant has provided evidence of federal registrations for the LAKEWOOD mark, including U.S. Reg. No. 1,187,977, first used in commerce on January 1, 1932; U.S. Reg. No. 4,248,677, first used in commerce on January 1, 1932; and U.S. Reg. No. 6,023,577, first used in commerce on January 1, 2019. The Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in the LAKEWOOD mark.

 

The disputed domain name <lakewoodjuice.com> incorporates the LAKEWOOD mark in its entirety and merely adds the term "juice," which directly describes Complainant's goods. The addition of a descriptive term does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. See Am. Council on Educ. & GED Testing Serv. LLC v. Anthony Williams, FA 1760954 (Forum Jan. 8, 2018); see also Disney Enters., Inc. v. Noel, FA 198805 (Forum Nov. 11, 2003).

 

The addition of the ".com" gTLD is irrelevant. See Blue Cross and Blue Shield Ass'n v. InterActive Commc'ns, Inc., FA 139408 (Forum Feb. 21, 2003). Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's LAKEWOOD mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant must make a prima facie showing that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. Once established, the burden shifts to Respondent. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).

 

The WHOIS identifies Respondent as "Kenneth Nicolas Bany." There is no evidence Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Emerson Electric Co. v. Adilcon Rocha, FA 1735949 (Forum July 11, 2017); see also Caterpillar Inc. v. Ruth Weinstein, FA 1770352 (Forum Mar. 7, 2018). Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its mark. 

 

The record reflects that the disputed domain name resolves to a website featuring online gambling content and links redirecting Internet users to gambling platforms. Complainant asserts that such use misleads Internet users seeking information about Complainant and its juice products and instead diverts them to gambling related services. Complainant further states that it has not authorized this conduct and is unaware of any bona fide business activity by Respondent using the disputed domain name.

 

Panels have consistently held that using a confusingly similar domain name to divert Internet users to online gambling services for commercial gain does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Polski Standard Płatności sp. z o.o. v. Irina Zenenkova, WIPO Case No. D2024-1228 (May 10, 2024) (finding that redirecting users to online gambling content and related links, without authorization, did not support rights or legitimate interests and that the complainant had established a prima facie case that was unrebutted).

 

As in that case, the Panel finds that Complainant has established a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent has failed to rebut that showing or provide any evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(c).

 

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) provides that bad faith exists where a respondent uses a domain name to intentionally attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with a complainant's mark as to source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement.

 

The record reflects that Complainant has used the LAKEWOOD mark in commerce since at least January 1, 1932 and holds federal registrations reflecting that use. The first two registrations therefore reflect use dating back approximately ninety years prior to Respondent's March 1, 2022 registration of the disputed domain name. This substantial temporal gap further supports the inference that Respondent registered the disputed domain name with Complainant's mark in mind. The disputed domain name wholly incorporates the LAKEWOOD mark and appends the term "juice," which directly describes Complainant's longstanding line of juice and beverage products.

 

In light of the duration of Complainant's use, the existence of federal registrations, and the precise pairing of the distinctive term "Lakewood" with the product descriptor "juice," the Panel finds it more likely than not that Respondent selected the disputed domain name with Complainant and its mark in mind. The inference of knowledge is further supported by the manner in which the disputed domain name has been used.

 

The disputed domain name does not resolve to a site offering goods or services related to juices or beverages. Instead, it resolves to a commercial website featuring online gambling content and links redirecting Internet users to gambling platforms. Panels have observed in similar circumstances that a deliberate attempt to trade on the reputation of another's trademark in order to offer gambling services does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under the Policy. See WhatsApp LLC and Instagram LLC v. Stewart Aitken, Regency Betting Group, WIPO Case No. D2025-0833 (Apr. 24, 2025).

 

Using a confusingly similar domain name to divert Internet users to unrelated commercial gambling services for financial gain constitutes evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See G.D. Searle & Co. v. Celebrex Drugstore, FA 123933 (Forum Nov. 21, 2002); see also Drs. Foster & Smith, Inc. v. Lalli, FA 95284 (Forum Aug. 21, 2000).

 

On this record, the Panel concludes that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to 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 <lakewoodjuice.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. 

 

 

 

Jeffrey J. Neuman, Panelist

Dated: March 2, 2026