DECISION

 

Athletic Integrative Medicine, Inc. v. Svitlana Stepura

Claim Number: FA2602002203099

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Athletic Integrative Medicine, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Joel Rapaport, California, USA. Respondent is Svitlana Stepura ("Respondent"), Florida, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <athleticintegrativemedicine.com>, (the "Domain Name")  registered with NameCheap, Inc.

 

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.

 

Dawn Osborne as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 2, 2026; Forum received payment on February 2, 2026.

 

On February 3, 2026, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <athleticintegrativemedicine.com> Domain Name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, Inc. 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 3, 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@athleticintegrativemedicine.com. Also on February 3, 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 Dawn Osborne 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's contentions can be summarised as follows:

 

The Complainant founded in 2022 operates as a research chemical supplier. It says it has common law rights in the mark ATHLETIC INTEGRATIVE MEDICINE and that the Domain Name registered in 2024 is identical to that mark for the purposes of the Policy coupled only with the gTLD .com.

 

The Complainant says that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, is not commonly known by the Domain Name and is not authorised by the Complainant.

 

The Domain Name was pointed to a web site mimicking the Complainant's website copying it wholesale and only differing from it with respect to altered contact details and purchasing links that divert consumers. This would have been deceiving customers that the Respondent's web site was operated by the Complainant and was not a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate non commercial fair use, but was registration and use in bad faith to confuse Internet users.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The Complainant founded in 2022 operates a web site offering services as a research chemical supplier under the brand name ATHLETIC INTEGRATIVE MEDICINE. It has a pending trade mark application in the USA but has submitted no evidence of a registered trade mark or any evidence of common law rights in its mark.

 

The Domain Name registered in 2024 was pointed to a web site mimicking the Complainant's web site copying it wholesale and only differing from it with respect to altered contact details and purchasing links diverting consumers.

 

The Complainant previously submitted the same substantive Complaint which came before this Panel in prior UDRP proceedings. The Complaint was dismissed without prejudice when the Complainant failed to provide evidence of common law rights as requested by the Panel. The Complainant has still not provided the requested evidence of common law rights with this re-filed complaint.

 

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

The Complainant incorporated in 2024 currently operates a web site offering services as a research chemical supplier under the brand name ATHLETIC INTEGRATIVE MEDICINE and holds U.S. Trademark Application No. 99442713 for ATHLETIC INTEGRATIVE MEDICINE applied for in 2025.

 

The Complainant argues that the Domain Name registered in 2024 is identical to the Complainant's ATHLETIC INTEGRATIVE MEDICINE mark for the purposes of the Policy, however, the Complainant did not file any evidence of established common law rights in ATHLETIC INTEGRATIVE MEDICINE prior to the date of registration of the Domain Name by the Respondent, or any sales or advertising evidence at all to demonstrate the duration or geographical scope of its alleged rights, only screenshots of its web site and details of its social media accounts.

 

The Complainant filed a substantively similar complaint previously which came before this Panel. The Panel requested evidence of common law rights in those previous proceedings. On the Complainant's social media accounts the Panel was able to find a picture of a large banner bearing the Complainant's mark at a trade conference posted in 2019 and a picture of a point of sale style large banner bearing the Complainant's mark said to be in the lobby of partners of the Complainant posted in 2019, but 2019 is before the date the Complainant said it was incorporated in 2022 and there is no indication of how any prior rights in the mark ATHLETIC INTEGRATIVE MEDICINE before the Complainant was incorporated passed to the Complainant, the actual entity bringing this Complaint, if indeed they have. Despite an Order of this Panel in the previous proceedings requesting further evidence that the named Complainant owns common law rights in the ATHLETIC INTEGRATIVE MEDICINE mark none was provided leading to those proceedings being dismissed without prejudice and no such evidence has been provided with this re-filed complaint.  

 

DECISION

Accordingly the Panel orders that this Complaint be dismissed without prejudice.

 

 

 

 

Dawn Osborne, Panelist

Dated: February 24, 2026