DECISION

 

Brumate, Inc. v. Maci Woyat

Claim Number: FA2602002203973

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Brumate, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Bradley M. Stohry of Reichel Stohry Dean LLP, Indiana, USA. Respondent is Maci Woyat ("Respondent"), District of Columbia, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <brunates.com> ('the Domain Name'), registered with Dominet (HK) Limited.

 

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 6, 2026; Forum received payment on February 6, 2026.

 

On February 9, 2026, Dominet (HK) Limited confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <brunates.com> Domain Name is registered with Dominet (HK) Limited and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Dominet (HK) Limited has verified that Respondent is bound by the Dominet (HK) Limited 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 9, 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@brunates.com. Also on February 9, 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 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

The Complainant or a member of its corporate group is the owner of the trade mark BRÜMATE registered in the USA for temperature retaining drinking vessels since 2017.

 

The Domain Name registered in 2026 is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade mark minus its umlaut, substituting the letter 'm' for the letter 'n' and adding a letter 's' and the gTLD .com, none of which prevents confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant's mark.

 

The Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name and has not been authorised by the Complainant to use the Complainant's mark. The Domain Name has been used to impersonate the Complainant using the Complainant's mark and logo as a masthead for a web site purporting to be a web site associated with the Complainant which is not a bona fide offering of products or services or a noncommercial legitimate fair use. The Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name.

 

The Domain Name has been registered and used in bad faith causing confusion and taking advantage of the Complainant's trade mark in full knowledge of the Complainant's rights.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The Complainant or a member of its corporate group is the owner of the trade mark BRÜMATE registered in the USA for temperature retaining drinking vessels since 2017.

 

The Domain Name registered in 2026 is being used to impersonate the Complainant using the Complainant's mark and logo as a masthead for a web site purporting to be a web site associated with the Complainant.

 

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 Domain Name consists of a sign confusingly similar to the Complainant's BRÜMATE mark (registered, inter alia, in the USA for temperature retaining drinking vessels since 2017) without its umlaut, substituting the letter 'n' for the letter 'm' and adding a letter 's' and the gTLD.com.

 

The Panel agrees that visually similar misspellings of a complainant's mark in a domain name do not prevent confusing similarity between the domain name and the complainant's trade mark pursuant to the Policy. See Acme Lift Company, L.L.C. v. VistaPrint Technologies Ltd, FA 1607039 (Forum Apr. 11, 2015) (stating, "Where a respondent has created a domain name in an effort to visually deceive Internet users via a simple misspelling (and when such misspellings are visually similar to the mark), a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) is appropriate."). As such the substitution of the letter 'm' with a letter 'n' and the addition of a letter 's' does not prevent the Domain Name being confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade mark under the Policy.

 

The domain name system does not allow the use of an umlaut as part of a domain name and removal of an umlaut does not prevent confusing similarity between a disputed domain name and a Complainant's mark. See Bär & Karrer AG v. Baer Karrer, D2015-2322 (WIPO January 26, 2016).

The gTLD .com does not serve to distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant's mark, which is the distinctive component of the Domain Name. See Red Hat Inc v Haecke, FA 726010 (Forum July 24, 2006) (concluding that the redhat.org domain name is identical to the complainant's red hat mark because the mere addition of the gTLD was insufficient to differentiate the disputed domain name from the mark).

 

Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar for the purposes of the Policy with a mark in which the Complainant has rights.

 

As such the Panel holds that Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant has not authorised the use of its mark. There is no evidence or reason to suggest the Respondent is, in fact, commonly known by the Domain Name. See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA 1574905 (Forum Sept. 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark). The use is commercial and so cannot be noncommercial legitimate fair use.

 

The web site attached to the Domain Name uses the Complainant's BRÜMATE mark in its logo form as a masthead to suggest that it is a site operated by or authorised by the Complainant when it is not. The Panel finds this use is deceptive and confusing. As such it cannot amount to the bona fide offering of goods and services. (See Am. Intl Group Inc v. Benjamin, FA 944242 (Forum May 11, 2007) finding that the Respondent's use of a confusingly similar domain name to compete with the Complainant's business did not constitute a bona fide use of goods and services).

 

The Domain Name differs from <brumate.com> the Complainant's url by the addition of a letter 's' and the substitution of the letter 'm' with the letter 'n', and appears to be a typosquatting registration. Typosquatting can provide evidence that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. See Macy's Inc. and its subsidiary Macy's West Stores, Inc. v. chen wenjie c/o Dynadot Privacy, FA 1552918 (Forum May 21, 2014) ("Respondent's disputed domain names are typosquatted versions of Complainant's registered mark. Typosquatting shows a lack of rights or legitimate interests.").

 

The Respondent has not answered the Complaint or rebutted the prima facie case evidenced by the Complainant as set out herein.

 

As such the Panelist finds that the Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

The Domain Name appears to be a typosquatting registration as found above. Typosquatting is an indication of bad faith per se. See Cost Plus Management Services, Inc. v. xushuaiwei, FA 1800036 (Forum Sept. 7, 2018) ("Typosquatting itself is evidence of relevant bad faith registration and use.").

 

In the opinion of the panelist the use made of the Domain Name in relation to the Respondent's site is confusing and disruptive in that visitors to the site might reasonably believe it is connected to or approved by the Complainant as it offers products under the Complainant's mark and logo used as a masthead to represent falsely that the site attached to the Domain Name is an official site associated with the Complainant in a manifest attempt to deceive. The use of the Complainant's logo shows that the Respondent has actual knowledge of the Complainant and its business, products and rights.

 

Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion, inter alia, with the Complainant's trade mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the web site likely to disrupt the business of the Complainant. (See Asbury Auto Group Inc v Tex. Int'l Prop Assocs, FA 958542 (Forum May 29, 2007) finding that the respondent's use of the disputed domain name to compete with the complainant's business would likely lead to confusion amongst Internet users as to the sponsorship or affiliation of a competing business and was therefore evidence of bad faith and use).

 

As such, the Panelist believes that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith and has satisfied the third limb of the Policy under Paragraphs 4(b)(iii) and (iv).

 

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 <brunates.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Dawn Osborne, Panelist

Dated: March 3, 2026