DECISION

 

Sub-Zero, Inc. v. Yesmukhan Tolepbergen

Claim Number: FA2602002203807

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Sub-Zero, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Bianca L. Ascolese of Foley & Lardner LLP, Wisconsin, USA. Respondent is Yesmukhan Tolepbergen ("Respondent"), Florida, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <subzero-services.com>, registered with 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.

 

Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 5, 2026; Forum received payment on February 5, 2026.

 

On February 6, 2026, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <subzero-services.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 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@subzero-services.com. 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.

 

Having received no response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On March 3, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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 contends in part as follows:

 

The at-issue domain name, <subzero-services.com>, was registered on May 28, 2025, with the registrar GoDaddy.com, LLC, by Respondent who was initially privacy protected, but who has recently been revealed as the individual "Yesmukhan Tolepbergen," an individual apparently residing in Tampa, Florida.

 

The at-issue domain name is not meaningfully different from the SUB-ZERO marks because, in short, the domain incorporates the identical SUB-ZERO house mark with the removal of the hyphen between SUB and ZERO, followed by a hyphen and the highly descriptive, if not generic, term "services," and the generic top-level domain extension ".com." The at-issue domain name's registration date is also well after the priority dates in the respective SUB-ZERO marks.

 

Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to promote competing repair and maintenance services for SUB-ZERO and WOLF brand kitchen appliances. The resolving website also advertises repair services for many third-party brands and claims to service customers in Tampa, Florida, and the surrounding areas, while using and displaying the SUB-ZERO and WOLF marks without authorization, including in an infringing SUB-ZERO WOLF APPLIANCE REPAIR logo, and in its trade names "Sub-Zero Wolf Appliance Services," "Subzero and Wolf Appliance Services," "Subzero Appliance Repair" and "Subzero Wolf Services," as used on the resolving website.

 

The resolving website does not include a disclaimer or any notice of non-affiliation with Complainant or Wolf, and gives the impression of being an authorized, factory-trained and Complainant-approved service provider offering repair services and genuine repair parts for SUB-ZERO and WOLF brand kitchen appliances.

 

Respondent's use of the at-issue domain name in this manner is likely to mislead internet visitors into believing, erroneously, that Respondent and the at-issue domain name are actually Complainant, or are affiliated with, sponsored, approved, authorized, or certified by, or otherwise officially connected with Complainant, Wolf, and the SUB-ZERO and WOLF Marks, and will divert internet visitors from Complainant's own website and business as well as Complainant's actual authorized repair service providers' websites and businesses to Respondent's website, thereby irreparably damaging Complainant's reputation and the goodwill in the SUB-ZERO and WOLF marks that Complainant and Wolf have spent numerous years developing.

 

The At-issue Domain Name is Confusingly Similar to the SUB-ZERO Marks. The registrations for the SUB-ZERO marks establish Complainant's rights in the respective marks, as "the registration of a mark with a legitimate governmental authority is sufficient under the Policy to allow a rebuttable presumption of rights in the mark."

 

The at-issue domain name is effectively identical in appearance, sight, sound, and connotation to the SUB-ZERO marks and in particular, the well-known SUB-ZERO house mark. The at-issue domain name incorporates the identical SUB-ZERO house mark with the removal of the hyphen between SUB and ZERO. The only additional differences between the at-issue domain name and the SUB-ZERO marks are the addition of a hyphen before adding the highly descriptive, if not generic, term "services," and the generic top-level domain extension ".com." These alterations and additions are inadequate to distinguish the at-issue domain name from the SUB-ZERO marks. Adding hyphens to, or removing hyphens from, a complainant's mark does not obviate the risk of confusion. Similarly, adding generic or highly descriptive terms that relate to a complainant's business, such as the generic and highly descriptive term "services," which refers to technicians servicing Complainant's SUB-ZERO brand refrigeration appliances, is not sufficient to remove the at-issue domain name from the realm of confusing similarity. To the contrary, the addition of the highly descriptive, if not generic, term "services" actually adds to the likelihood of confusion because the term has an obvious connection to Complainant's business given that Complainant's SUB-ZERO marks have been used with its refrigeration appliances and installation and repair services provided by certified technicians for its SUB-ZERO brand appliances for almost eighty (80) years. Finally, the addition of a ".com" top level domain also does not distinguish the at-issue domain name.

 

Respondent Has No Rights or Legitimate Interests in the At-issue Domain Name. Complainant must make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the at-issue domain name, and then the burden shifts to Respondent to demonstrate that it does, in fact, have rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the at-issue domain name because Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name or any derivation of the same. The WHOIS registration record for at-issue domain name was initially privacy protected, but the Registrant has recently been revealed as the individual "Yesmukhan Tolepbergen," an individual apparently residing in Tampa, Florida. This WHOIS information, and the lack of information and evidence to the contrary, is evidence that Respondent is not commonly known as SUBZERO-SERVICES.COM, SUB-ZERO SERVICES, SUBZERO-SERVICES, or any derivation of the same. The website located at the at-issue domain name prominently displays, without authorization, the SUB-ZERO marks, including an infringing SUB-ZERO WOLF APPLIANCE SERVICES logo, in combination with the trade names "Sub-Zero Wolf Appliance Services," "Subzero and Wolf Appliance Services," "Subzero Appliance Repair" and "Subzero Wolf Services," as well as with various generic or highly descriptive terms or phrases, such as "Built-In Refrigerators," "Wine Cooler and Preservation Units," and "Freezers and Ice Makers." While this could suggest that Respondent is attempting to be known in some capacity by the at-issue domain name or a derivation thereof, it cannot establish that Respondent is, in fact, commonly known by the at-issue domain name under the UDRP Policy. Here, Respondent cannot prove that it is lawfully and legitimately commonly known by the at-issue domain name or derivation thereof because Complainant owns the exclusive rights to the SUB-ZERO marks in the U.S. (and various other jurisdictions) in the context of residential kitchen appliances and related installation, maintenance, and repair services and parts, as evidenced, in part, by the corresponding registrations. In addition, to the extent that Respondent does not reply in this case, the Panel may presume that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the at-issue domain name. The at-issue domain name's resolving website also does not contain a disclaimer or any notice of non-affiliation with Sub-Zero or Wolf that discloses Respondent's lack of relationship with Complainant. The lack of a disclaimer also falsely suggests that Respondent is the trademark owner of the SUB-ZERO and WOLF marks, that Respondent is authorized, sponsored or approved by, or has some other relationship with Complainant and/or Wolf, and that the at-issue domain name is an official SUB-ZERO and WOLF appliance repair and maintenance website for providing services in Tampa, Florida, and the surrounding areas, when none of this is true. Lastly, the unauthorized use of Complainant's proprietary imagery further reinforces the false impression that Respondent is affiliated with, sponsored by, or otherwise authorized by Complainant, and constitutes clear evidence of Respondent's intent to trade on Complainant's goodwill and mislead consumers as to source, sponsorship, or endorsement. In addition, Respondent uses the confusingly similar at-issue domain name to offer repair and maintenance services for third-party appliance brands, many of which directly compete with Complainant and its SUB-ZERO brand. Such is likewise not a legitimate or fair use.

 

The At-issue Domain Name was Registered and is being used in Bad Faith. The evidence shows that Respondent "intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users" to its website located at the at-issue domain name "by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's SUB-ZERO marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement" of said website pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). Further, Respondent's use of the at-issue domain name to pass itself off as Complainant by using the SUB-ZERO marks, Complainant's copyrighted photographs, and purporting to offer certified repair, installation and maintenance services for SUB-ZERO and WOLF brand kitchen appliances constitutes bad faith under the Policy. Respondent's use of the confusingly similar at-issue domain name to operate a webpage in an attempt to pass itself off as Complainant, as affiliated with Complainant, or as officially sponsored or authorized by or connected with Complainant, and to offer directly competing services for commercial gain is likely to cause customer confusion, disrupt Complainant's businesses, and indicates Respondent's bad faith registration and use of the at-issue domain name under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii), (iv). Finally, "there is a legal presumption of bad faith when respondent reasonably should have been aware of a complainant's trademarks, actually or constructively." The evidence and totality of circumstances surrounding the at-issue domain name establishes that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant and the SUB-ZERO marks prior to registering the at-issue domain name. Complainant has continuously and exclusively used the SUB-ZERO marks throughout the U.S. and the world since at least as early as 1945 and since that time, the respective marks have become well-known and have established notoriety and goodwill in the residential kitchen appliance marketplace. It is thus inconceivable that Respondent did not have actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the SUB-ZERO marks before registering the at-issue domain name and using it to resolve to a website that offers competing appliance repair services. This is especially true because the at-issue domain name was registered more than eighty (80) years after the first use of the SUB-ZERO marks. The evidence and totality of circumstances clearly show that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant and the SUB-ZERO marks. The website associated with the at-issue domain name prominently displays, without authorization, the SUB-ZERO marks, including an infringing SUB-ZERO WOLF APPLIANCE REPAIR logo mark, as well as references Complainant's SUB-ZERO brand products throughout. Respondent was, at a minimum, placed on constructive notice of the claim of exclusive rights in the SUB-ZERO marks by virtue of the registration of such marks with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, all of which were notably used and registered well prior to the registration and use of the at-issue domain name. Accordingly, Respondent registered and uses the at-issue domain name in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has trademark rights in SUB-ZERO.

 

Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and is not authorized to use Complainant's trademarks in any capacity.

 

Respondent registered the at‑issue domain name after Complainant acquired trademark rights in its relevant mark.

 

Respondent uses the <subzero-services.com> domain to pass itself off as Complainant and to offer competing services.

 

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 at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.

 

Complainant shows that it has USPTO registrations for its SUB-ZERO trademark. Any of Complainant's relevant trademark registrations is sufficient to demonstrate Complainant's rights in a mark under the Policy. See BGK Trademark Holdings, LLC & Beyoncé Giselle Knowles-Carter v. Chanphut / Beyonce Shop, FA 1626334 (Forum Aug. 3, 2015) (asserting that Complainant's registration with the USPTO (or any other governmental authority) adequately proves its rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).

 

Respondent's at-issue domain name consists of Complainant's SUB- ZERO trademark with only minor omissions or additions to such mark. Within the <subzero-services.com> domain name the SUB-ZERO mark has its hyphen eliminated and is followed by the suggestive term "services" and the ".com" top-level. The differences between Respondent's domain name and Complainant's trademark are insufficient to distinguish one from the other for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel concludes that <subzero-services.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant's SUB-ZERO trademark. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognizable 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.")

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).

 

Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant's trademark in any capacity and as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in respect of the at‑issue domain name. See Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC v. Taha Shaikh / Tskdesigners, FA 1814475 (Forum Nov. 25, 2018) (finding no rights or legitimate interests in <spectrumfeature.com> because complainant never gave respondent permission to use the mark in any manner and "Panels may use these assertions as evidence that no rights or legitimate interests exist in a disputed domain name.")

 

The WHOIS information for the at-issue domain name leads to finding that the domain name's registrant is "Yesmukhan Tobepbergen" and the record before the Panel contains no evidence that otherwise tends to prove that Respondent is commonly known by <subzero-services.com>, or by any relevant variation thereof. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).

 

Respondent's <subzero-services.com> domain name addresses a website which poses as an official website of Complainant or a website otherwise authorized or endorsed by Complainant. Such use of <subzero-services.com> does not indicate a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the <subzero-services.com> domain name under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii) respectively. See Ripple Labs Inc. v. NGYEN NGOC PHUONG THAO, FA 1741737 (Forum Aug. 21, 2017) ("Respondent uses the [disputed] domain name to divert Internet users to Respondent's website… confusing them into believing that some sort of affiliation exists between it and Complainant… [which] is neither 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).")

 

Given the foregoing, Respondent lacks rights and lacks legitimate interests in <subzero-services.com>.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

As discussed below without being exhaustive, Respondent acted in bad faith.

 

Respondent uses its confusingly similar domain name to direct internet traffic to Respondent's <subzero-services.com> website. There, Respondent displays Complainant's SUB-ZERO trademark mark and purports to offer competing repair and maintenance services for SUB-ZERO and WOLF residential kitchen appliances. Respondent's use of <subzero-services.com> and its associated website to falsely indicate they are endorsed by Complainant is disruptive to Complainant's business and exploits the confusion Respondent created between Complainant's trademark and Respondent's domain name and associated website. Respondent thus registered and used the at-issue domain name in bad faith pursuant Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Fitness International, LLC v. ALISTAIR SWODECK / VICTOR AND MURRAY, FA 1623644 (Forum July 9, 2015) (finding that use of the subject domain to operate a website purporting to offer the exact services offered by the complainant causes customer confusion, disrupts complainant's business, and demonstrates bad faith); see also, Allianz of Am. Corp. v. Bond, FA 680624 (Forum June 2, 2006) (finding bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent was diverting internet users searching for the complainant to its own website and likely profiting); see also, Xylem Inc. and Xylem IP Holdings LLC v. YinSi BaoHu YiKaiQi, FA 1612750 (Forum May 13, 2015) ("The Panel agrees that Respondent's use of the website to display products similar to Complainant's, imputes intent to attract Internet users for commercial gain, and finds bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).")

 

Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the SUB-ZERO trademark mark before it registered <subzero-services.com> as a domain name. Respondent's prior knowledge is evident from the notoriety of Complainant and Complainant's SUB-ZERO trademark and from Respondent's offering of repair services also offered by Complainant via the <subzero-services.com> website. Respondent's registration and use of the confusingly similar <subzero-services.com> domain name with knowledge of Complainant's trademark rights in SUB- ZERO further demonstrates Respondent's bad faith. See Lemon Inc. v. Sumer Singh, FA 2110519 (Forum September 5, 2024 ("registration of a disputed domain name with actual knowledge of another's trademark rights is sufficient to establish bad faith, and can be shown by the notoriety of the mark and the use the Respondent makes of the disputed domain name");see also, Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name); see also, Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name).

 

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 <subzero-services.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist

Dated: March 3, 2026