DECISION
DMB Mesa Proving Grounds LLC v. Andreas Lorenz
Claim Number: FA2602002205313
PARTIES
Complainant is DMB Mesa Proving Grounds LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Mario C. Vasta of Fennemore Craig, P.C., Arizona, USA. Respondent is Andreas Lorenz ("Respondent"), Arizona, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <familymarketateastmark.com> and <eastmarkfarmersmarket.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
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.
Adam Taylor as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 13, 2026; Forum received payment on February 13, 2026.
On February 16, 2026, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <familymarketateastmark.com> and <eastmarkfarmersmarket.com> domain names are registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. 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 19, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 11, 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@familymarketateastmark.com and postmaster@eastmarkfarmersmarket.com. Also on February 19, 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 12, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Adam Taylor 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES' CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Respondent has not used the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; on the contrary, Respondent is using the disputed domain name <familymarketateastmark.com> to misleadingly associate Respondent's market with Complainant's brand. Respondent is not actively using the disputed domain name <eastmarkfarmersmarket.com>. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names. Respondent has not made legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names. Complainant has never authorized Respondent to use Complainant's mark.
Respondent registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith. Respondent has used the disputed domain names to create a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark for commercial gain.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
FINDINGS
Complainant operates a website at www.eastmark.com.
The disputed domain name <eastmarkfarmersmarket.com> was registered on April 6, 2022, and the disputed domain name <familymarketateastmark.com> was registered on September 5, 2024.
Respondent redirected both disputed domain names to a website branded "FAMILY MARKET at RADIANCE". After Complainant contacted Respondent regarding the disputed domain names, Respondent redirected the disputed domain name <eastmarkfarmersmarket.com> to a dictionary definition of "honesty".
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 3.1 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
Each of the disputed domain names incorporates Complainant's distinctive EASTMARK mark and adds a number of descriptive terms ("family market at" and "farmers market"). It is well established under the Policy that the incorporation of a complainant's mark in its entirety may be sufficient to establish confusing similarity, even when combined with additional terms. 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
Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii); then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) ("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.").
Complainant argues that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or for legitimate noncommercial or fair use.
As discussed under the third element below, the Panel considers that Respondent has used the disputed domain name <familymarketateastmark.com> to intentionally attempt to attract, confuse and profit from Internet users seeking Complainant's goods and/or services. Such activity is plainly not bona fide. Nor does it qualify as legitimate noncommercial or fair use.
As regards the disputed domain name <eastmarkfarmersmarket.com>, although the historical use of a domain name may be relevant to assessing the parties' claims, panels tend to assess claimed respondent rights or legitimate interests at the time of the filing of the complaint, but would also consider any evidence of past use, including its veracity and surrounding context. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.1 at ¶ 2.11. Here, so far as the Panel is aware, the disputed domain name <eastmarkfarmersmarket.com> was not being used for an offering of goods or services when the Complaint was filed.
In any case, for the reasons given above, the Panel does not consider that Respondent's previous use of the disputed domain name <eastmarkfarmersmarket.com> in the same manner as the disputed domain name <familymarketateastmark.com> would have constituted a bona fide offering either.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent does not use the disputed domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services, or for legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).
WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Braun Corp. v. Loney, FA 699652 (Forum July 7, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain names where the WHOIS information, as well as all other information in the record, gave no indication that the respondent was commonly known by the domain names, and the complainant had not authorized the respondent to register a domain name containing its registered mark).
The WHOIS information for the disputed domain names lists the registrant as "Andreas Lorenz" and there is no other information on the record indicating that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain names.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
The Panel considers that Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to its websites for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's trademark under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
First, the disputed domain names consist of Complainant's distinctive EASTMARK mark together with descriptive terms ("family market at" and "farmers market") that are relevant to the kinds of community services offered by Complainant.
Second, Respondent has redirected the disputed domain names to websites that creates the impression that they are associated with Complainant including by prominent use of Complainant's mark, as well as by offering services liable to be associated with those of Complainant, and by the lack of any prominent disclaimer.
Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent has registered, and is using, the disputed domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
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 <familymarketateastmark.com> and <eastmarkfarmersmarket.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Adam Taylor, Panelist
Dated: March 13, 2026
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page