DECISION

 

West Coast Parts Distributing d/b/a Box Appliance v. Denis Pikunov / Box Appliance LLC / Liudmila Soboleva

Claim Number: FA2601002202834

 

PARTIES

Complainant is West Coast Parts Distributing d/b/a Box Appliance ("Complainant"), represented by Carolyn Juarez of NOD Law PC, Colorado, USA. Respondent is Denis Pikunov / Box Appliance LLC / Liudmila Soboleva ("Respondent"), California, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES 

The domain names at issue are <boxappliances.com>, <boxappliancesupport.com> and <boxrefrigeration.support>, registered with HOSTINGER operations, UAB and GoDaddy.com, 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.

 

Debrett G. Lyons as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 30, 2026; Forum received payment on January 30, 2026.

 

On February 2 and 3, 2026, HOSTINGER operations, UAB and GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <boxappliances.com>, <boxappliancesupport.com> and <boxrefrigeration.support> domain names are registered with HOSTINGER operations, UAB and GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. HOSTINGER operations, UAB and GoDaddy.com, LLC have verified that Respondent is bound by the HOSTINGER operations, UAB and GoDaddy.com, LLC registration agreements 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 10, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 2, 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@boxappliances.com, postmaster@boxappliancesupport.com, and postmaster@boxrefrigeration.support. Also on February 10, 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 18, 2026.

 

On February 19, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Debrett G. Lyons 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant asserts trademark rights in BOX APPLIANCE and submits that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the trademark.

 

Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names because it is not known by any of the domain names; has no trademark rights of its own; and uses the domain names to resolve to websites which deceive consumers into believing that Respondent is, or is affiliated with, Complainant.

 

Complainant alleges that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

As considered below in more detail shortly, Complainant has alleged that the disputed domain names are controlled by the same person or entity. Accordingly, the Forum treated (i) a Response dated February 17, 2026, submitted by Liudmila Soboleva, and (ii) correspondence dated February 20, 2026, from Denis Pikunov, as together being submissions from the "Respondent".

 

(i)                      The Response from Liudmila Soboleva uses the Forum's model Response form.  It is restricted to the <boxrefrigeration.support> domain name, albeit that Liudmila Soboleva is the registrant of two of the disputed domain names. The Response is signed but otherwise lacks any information – ie – it is essentially the uncompleted model form, but for her signature and nomination of the single domain name. All that might be attributed to the signed Response is the pro-forma statement therein that "Respondent respectfully requests that the Administrative Panel denies the remedy requested by the Complainant."

 

(ii)                      The February 20, 2026, correspondence from Denis Pikunov states:

 

"We respectfully submit this clarification regarding Case No. FA2601002202834. Denis Pikunov is the owner of Box Appliance LLC. Box Appliance LLC is an independent company and is not affiliated, associated, or connected in any way with any other named respondents referenced in this proceeding. Our company's domain at issue is strictly: boxappliances.com. This domain name was originally registered in 2018 and has been continuously maintained and used in connection with the legitimate business operations of Box Appliance LLC. We respectfully request that the Panel recognize that Box Appliance LLC is a separate and distinct legal entity and should not be treated as jointly connected with any unrelated parties. …"

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE RESPONDENTS

Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules provides that a "complaint may relate to more than one domain names, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder."  

 

Here, Denis Pikunov is the registrant of <boxappliances.com> and Liudmila Soboleva is the registrant of <boxappliancesupport.com> and <boxrefrigeration.support>. Nevertheless, Complainant has alleged that Rule 3(c) is satisfied because the disputed domain names are controlled by the same person or entity.  

 

Complainant states that it has provided appliance installation, maintenance, and repair services by reference to the trademark, BOX APPLIANCE, since 1978. The evidence shows that it is the owner of United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") Reg. No. 6,595,340, registered on December 21, 2021, for BOX APPLIANCE.

 

The Complaint states that "[o]n information and belief, [r]espondents are affiliated with Henry Wasserman, a serial registrant of infringing domain names through which he purports to offer appliance services in cities across the United States and engages in … fraudulent activity. The Complaint includes evidence that in 2019 a Henry Wasserman entered into a consent injunction which prohibited his use of the Sub-Zero and Wolf word and design marks. … However, Wasserman continued his activities in violation of the consent injunction. As a result, Sub-Zero pursued contempt proceedings."¹

 

In conformity with the Rules, the Complaint form included a statement that "[n]o other legal proceedings have been commenced or terminated in connection with or relating to the subject domain name."  That declaration does not appear completely accurate since elsewhere in the Complaint there is reference to the United States District Court for the District of Central California's findings in 2025 "that Wasserman violated the 2019 [consent injunction] by registering and using BOX APPLIANCE-variant domain names to imitate Complainant and defraud customers."  

 

The Panel notes that <boxappliances.com> was registered on April 14, 2018, and that the <boxappliancesupport.com> and <boxrefrigeration.support> domains were registered on October 13, 2025.  

 

The February 20, 2026, correspondence from Denis Pikunov appears accurate to the extent that the domain <boxappliances.com> was registered in 2018, but the claim that it has been used in connection with the "legitimate business operations of Box Appliance LLC" seems gravely in doubt. Coupled with that is evidence that (i) <boxappliancesupport.com> resolves to a website with content taken directly from Complainant's website; (ii) <boxrefrigeration.support> resolves to a site that is an imitation of Complainant's website; and (iii) the website resolving from <boxappliances.com> promotes the services of SUB-ZERO brand and otherwise carries obvious placeholder language and spelling mistakes.

 

On balance, the Panel finds it more likely than not that the domain name registrants and named respondents are aliases for a third party. The "empty" Response speaks for itself, and the Panel is inclined to regard the correspondence from Denis Pikunov to be a sham.  The reasonable inference is that the names are linked to one controlling mind and, for that reason, in this Decision references to "Respondent" are references to each of the named respondents.

 

FINDINGS

The factual findings pertinent to the decision in this case have been set out already.

 

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. 

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires a two-fold enquiry—a threshold investigation into whether a complainant has rights in a trademark, followed by an assessment of whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark.

 

It is well established by decisions under this Policy that a trademark registered with a national authority is evidence of trademark rights (see, for example, Mothers Against Drunk Driving v. phix, FA 174052 (Forum Sept. 25, 2003)). Complainant provides evidence of its registration of BOX APPLIANCE with the USPTO, a national trademark authority, and so has shown trademark rights.

 

Complainant's submission is that the domain names are identical or confusing similar to the trademark. Even when the gTLDs are disregarded (see, for example, Rollerblade, Inc. v. McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000) finding that the gTLD can be disregarded for the purposes of comparison), none of the domain names is identical to the trademark.

 

The only question is that of confusing similarity and in that respect there is no question that <boxappliances.com> is confusingly similar to BOX

APPLIANCES. The domain name <boxappliancesupport.com> adds only the descriptive term "support" and, again, the Panel finds confusing similarity (see, for example, 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 slightly more difficult comparison is that of BOX APPLIANCE with <boxrefrigeration.support>. Complainant's submission is that the domain name takes the distinctive term BOX and replaces APPLIANCE with the generic term "refrigeration".

 

Confusing similarity rests on the strength of the shared word, "box", when compared with the added matter. The Panel accepts the submission that "refrigeration" is generic and notes that the USPTO registration is conditioned with a disclaimer to exclusivity in the word "appliance", indicative of its generic character.

 

The Panel assumes that the word "box" was most likely chosen as a reference to so-called "white goods" being boxed or box-like. As such, it is not most distinctive of terms, but certainly is more memorable than either of the directly descriptive accompanying words. On balance, the Panel finds confusing similarity.

 

The Panel accordingly finds that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy states that any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate rights or legitimate interests to a domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy:

 

(i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services;  or

 

(ii) you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights;  or

 

(iii) you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.

 

Complainant need only make out a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, after which the onus shifts to Respondent to rebut that case by demonstrating those rights or interests (see, for example, Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, WIPO Case No. D2000‑0624).

 

There is no evidence that Respondent might genuinely be known by any of the disputed domain names, or that Respondent has any trademark rights of its own. The Panel accepts Complainant's assertion that Respondent has no authority to use the trademark. The use of the domain names as described above is clearly not a bona fide offering of goods or services or fair use of the names. The Panel finds no evidence of rights or legitimate interest and a prima facie case has been made (see, for example, Caterpillar Inc. v. Carlos Remy, FA 1825645 (Forum Feb. 18, 2019) ("Use of a domain name to pass itself off as a complainant in order to sell competing goods is not a use indicative of rights or legitimate interests per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).")).

 

The onus shifts to Respondent and in the absence of a Response, Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or interests and so finds that Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out four illustrative circumstances, which, though not exclusive, shall be evidence of the registration and use of the domain names in bad faith for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, including:

 

4(b)(iv)        by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site 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 your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location.

The Panel has already found the terms to be confusingly similar. The resolving websites clearly exist for commercial gain. In terms of the Policy, the Panel finds that Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent's websites, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's trademarks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of those websites and the products promoted there (see, for example, Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum Dec. 27, 2017) finding bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where "Respondent registered and uses the <lbittrex.com> domain name in bad faith by directing Internet users to a website that mimics Complainant's own website in order to confuse users into believing that Respondent is Complainant, or is otherwise affiliated or associated with Complainant.").

 

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has established the third and final element of the Policy.

 

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 <boxappliances.com>, <boxappliancesupport.com> and <boxrefrigeration.support> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Debrett G. Lyons, Panelist

Dated: February 23, 2026