DECISION

 

C. H. Belt & Associates, Inc. DBA SunLeaf v. Carol Lyons / Robert S Lyons

Claim Number: FA2601002202053

 

PARTIES

Complainant is C. H. Belt & Associates, Inc. DBA SunLeaf ("Complainant"), represented by Andrew Dallmann of Key Kesan Dallman PLLC, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Carol Lyons / Robert S Lyons ("Respondent"), Tennessee, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <sunleaf.com>, registered with Domain.com - Network Solutions, 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.

 

Charles A. Kuechenmeister, Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 27, 2026; Forum received payment on January 27, 2026.

 

On January 28, 2026, Domain.com - Network Solutions, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <sunleaf.com> domain name is registered with Domain.com - Network Solutions, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Domain.com - Network Solutions, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Domain.com - Network Solutions, 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 February 2, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint setting a deadline of February 23, 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@sunleaf.com. Also on February 2, 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 24, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Charles A. Kuechenmeister 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 a Response or any other submittal from Respondent.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

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

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant provides quick-frozen food products. It has rights in the SUN LEAF mark based upon its registration of that mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Respondent's <sunleaf.com> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the SUN LEAF mark as it fully incorporates the entire mark, merely omitting a space and adding the ".com" generic top-level domain (gTLD).

 

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. The domain name resolves to an active website but the website does not support a legitimate business or offering tied to the domain name, as the business it appears to support has been out of business since 2016.

 

The domain name was registered in 1999 and while it may not have been registered in bad faith its current use, or lack thereof, indicates bad faith in that the business the resolving website advertises has been closed since 2016. Respondent demanded $25,000.00 for the domain name when Complainant offered to purchase it in 2022. Respondent is presently making no active use of the domain name but is passively holding it.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted 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 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.

 

In view of Respondent's failure to submit a Response, pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules the Panel will decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations 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. Nevertheless, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory allegations unsupported by competent evidence.

 

Normally the Panel would evaluate the evidence applicable to each of the three elements listed in Policy ¶ 4(a) but the circumstances present here render that unnecessary. As stated in the Complaint and supported by the evidence, the domain name was registered in 1999 (WHOIS printouts submitted as Complaint Annexes A and B) by the named Respondents, who, according to the statement appearing on the resolving website (screenshots submitted as Complaint Annexes F and G), were doing business as Sun Leaf Nursery, LLP until they decided to close the business at the end of 2015. Complainant appears not to have acquired rights in the SUN LEAF mark until the April 2008 first use date shown on the USPTO registration certificate submitted as Complaint Annex C. This sequence of events precludes a finding of bad faith registration. Indeed, the Complaint as much as admits that.

 

Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) requires a finding of both registration and use in bad faith. Actual knowledge of complainant's mark and intent to target that mark at the time a domain name is registered are foundational requirements for proof of bad faith registration. There is no evidence that Complainant acquired its rights in the SUN LEAF mark prior to 2008, some nine years after the domain name was registered. Respondent could not have known of or targeted Complainant when it registered the domain name because Complainant was not even in existence, and certainly had no rights in the SUN LEAF mark at that time. Registration in bad faith is not proven.

 

REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKING

Paragraph 1 of the Rules defines Reverse Domain Name Hijacking ("RDNH") as "using the Policy in bad faith to attempt to deprive a registered domain-name holder of a domain name". Paragraph 15(e) of the Rules provides, in relevant part: "If after considering the submissions the Panel finds that the complaint was brought in bad faith, for example in an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking or was brought primarily to harass the domain-name holder, the Panel shall declare in its decision that the complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding."

 

The WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, (WIPO Overview 3.1) ¶ 4.16 states:

 

Reasons articulated by panels for finding RDNH include: (i) facts which demonstrate that the complainant knew it could not succeed as to any of the required three elements – such as the complainant's lack of relevant trademark rights, clear knowledge of respondent rights or legitimate interests, or clear knowledge of a lack of respondent bad faith…, (ii) facts which demonstrate that the complainant clearly ought to have known it could not succeed under any fair interpretation of facts reasonably available prior to the filing of the complaint, including relevant facts on the website at the disputed domain name or readily available public sources such as the WhoIs [RDAP] database, [or] (iii) unreasonably ignoring established Policy precedent notably as captured in this WIPO Overview – except in limited circumstances which prima facie justify advancing an alternative legal argument.

 

Given the undertakings in paragraphs 3(b)(xiii) and (xiv) of the UDRP Rules, some panels have held that a represented complainant should be held to a higher standard. [See also discussion of the use of AI tools in section 4.2.]

 

The deficiencies in Complainant's case are glaring. The domain name was registered some nine years before Complainant acquired any rights in the SUN LEAF mark. And, it was registered for a legitimate business that remained in operation, using the domain name for some 15 years before closing its doors. Complainant's counsel should have realized immediately that it could not prevail. There is a substantial body of jurisprudence in existence from the 25 years that the Policy has been in in effect, and even a cursory review of past UDRP decisions would have alerted counsel that the lack of evidence supporting bad faith registration in this case would preclude recovery. As little as a careful reading of Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) would have revealed that. The facts here demonstrate that Complainant clearly ought to have known it could not succeed under any fair interpretation of facts reasonably available prior to the filing of the Complaint. Reverse domain name hijacking is found.

 

DECISION

Complainant having failed to establish all three elements required under the Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED.  

 

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

 

 

 

Charles A. Kuechenmeister, Panelist

February 25, 2026