DECISION

 

West Shore Home, LLC v. Irvin Hodzic

Claim Number: FA2602002206291

 

PARTIES

Complainant is West Shore Home, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Charles A. Hooker of Hooker & Habib, P.C., Pennsylvania, USA. Respondent is Irvin Hodzic ("Respondent"), Pennsylvania, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES 

The domain names at issue are <westshorefloors.com> and <westshoreflooring.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.

 

Steven M. Levy as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 19, 2026; Forum received payment on February 19, 2026.

 

On February 25, 2026, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <westshorefloors.com> and <westshoreflooring.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 March 3, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 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@westshorefloors.com and postmaster@westshoreflooring.com. Also on March 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 formal response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On March 24, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Steven M. Levy 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

Complainant is the owner of the well-known and valuable WEST SHORE family of trademarks including United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") Reg. No. 4968264 for WEST SHORE dated May 31, 2016, and Reg. No. 5746115 for WEST SHORE HOME dated May 7, 2019. Since at least July 1, 2007, Complainant has used its WEST SHORE family of marks to promote its home renovation and remodeling services, inclusive of home flooring renovation and installation services, throughout the United States. In 2015 it began using the domain name <westshorehome.com> as its primary website address.

 

The <westshorefloors.com> and <westshoreflooring.com> domain names, both registered on April 28, 2021, are confusingly similar to the WEST SHORE mark in that they incorporate the entirety of the mark and add the generic words "floors" or "flooring", both of which are directly related to Complainant's services of replacing and installing flooring.

 

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names where it is not commonly known by the domain names and it resolves to them to either a website with monetized links to third-party sites offering flooring or to a site offering renovation and remodeling services in competition with the Complainant.

 

The disputed domain names were registered and are used in bad faith where Respondent had prior knowledge of Complainant's marks and based on the above-mentioned activity.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a formal Response in this proceeding although it did send an email to the Forum on March 3, 2026 acknowledging receipt of the Complaint and stating "I do not agree with the allegations or the requested relief, and I reserve all rights and defenses. I am reviewing the matter and preparing my response. At the same time, if your client is open to discussing a mutually acceptable resolution, I am willing to have that conversation." No further communication from Respondent appears in the record.

 

FINDINGS

-       Complainant owns trademark rights to the WEST SHORE and WEST SHORE HOME marks and the <westshorefloors.com> and <westshoreflooring.com> domain names are confusingly similar to the marks;

-       Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names where it is not commonly known thereby, and the domain names resolve to either a website that hosts monetized links to goods and services that compete with Complainant or to a page that directly offers competing services; and

-       The disputed domain names were registered and are used in bad faith based on Respondent's likely prior knowledge of Complainant's marks and the above-mentioned website activity.

 

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

Complainant asserts rights in its WEST SHORE and WEST SHORE HOME marks through its registrations with the USPTO. Registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to demonstrate rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See DIRECTV, LLC v. The Pearline Group, FA 1818749 (Forum Dec. 30, 2018) ("Complainant's ownership of a USPTO registration for DIRECTV demonstrate its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)."). Here, Complainant provides screenshots from the USPTO website showing the details of its registrations. Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the WEST SHORE and WEST SHORE HOME marks under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). 

 

Complainant further argues that Respondent's <westshorefloors.com> and <westshoreflooring.com> domain names are confusingly similar to its WEST SHORE and WEST SHORE HOME marks as Respondent uses the entirety of the WEST SHORE name and only adds the generic terms "floors" or "flooring" as well as the ".com" TLD. Panels have routinely held that the addition of a TLD or generic term typically does not distinguish a disputed domain name from a complainant's trademark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Starbucks Corporation d/b/a Starbucks Coffee Company v. Waseem A Ali / Micron Web Services, FA 1785616 (Forum June 8, 2018) (finding the <starbucksreal.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to the STARBUCKS mark, as "the addition of the generic term 'real' to Complainant's mark does not distinguish the Domain Name from Complainant's trade mark pursuant to the Policy."). Also see Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association v. Shi Lei aka Shilei, FA 1784643 (Forum June 18, 2018) ("A TLD (whether a gTLD, sTLD or ccTLD) is disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax requires TLDs."). Therefore, as the WEST SHORE mark is clearly recognizable and the added generic terms do not serve a distinguishing function – in fact they directly relate to Complainant's services and serve to increase confusion - the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant's marks.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Should it succeed in this effort, the burden then shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also 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.").

 

Next, Complainant contends that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <westshorefloors.com> and <westshoreflooring.com> domain names since Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names and Complainant has not authorized or licensed to Respondent any rights in the WEST SHORE marks. WHOIS information is often referenced when considering whether a respondent is commonly known by a disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. LY Ta, FA 1789106 (Forum June 21, 2018) (concluding that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name where the complainant asserted it did not authorize the respondent to use the mark, and the relevant WHOIS information indicated the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name). Additionally, lack of authorization to use a complainant's mark may indicate that the respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) ("lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant's mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)"). The WHOIS record for the disputed domain names, as verified to the Forum by the concerned Registrar, identifies the registrant as "Irvin Hodzic" and there is no evidence that Respondent is known otherwise. Further, Complainant specifically states that it "has never assigned, granted, licensed, sold, transferred, or authorized Respondent to register or use any of its trademarks..." Respondent's email to the Forum does not refute these claims and, in fact, it concludes its email with the valediction "Regards, Irvin Hodzic". In light of the above, the Panel finds no ground upon which to conclude that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain names per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

Finally, Complainant argues that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or in a manner that is a legitimate noncommercial or fair use as it has resolved the disputed domain names, respectively, to a pay-per-click website with links to flooring providers and to a page offering competing flooring installation and renovation services. Where a respondent uses a domain name in such manner, Panels often find that this is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Vanguard Trademark Holdings USA LLC v. Rampe Purda, FA 1333292 (Forum Aug. 16, 2010) (no bona fide use found where "Respondent's <nationalcae.com> domain name is used to redirect Internet users to competing car rental websites through pay-per-click links"). Also, General Motors LLC v. MIKE LEE, FA 1659965 (Forum Mar. 10, 2016) (finding that "use of a domain to sell products and/or services that compete directly with a complainant's business does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)"). Complainant provides screenshots of the websites to which the disputed domain names resolve and, in the case of the <westshorefloors.com> domain name, this displays pay-per-click links titled "Moisture Resistant Flooring", "Home Flooring Materials", and "Durable Flooring Solutions", all of which are related to and competitive with Complainant's flooring installation and renovation services under its registered mark. In the case of the <westshoreflooring.com> domain name, the screenshot shows an offer of flooring installation and refinishing services that also compete with Complainant's services.

 

As the Complainant has set out a prima facie claim which has not been adequately rebutted by the Respondent, the Panel finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Respondent does not use the disputed domain names for any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor does he make a legitimate noncommercial or fair use thereof under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant argues that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the WEST SHORE marks at the time of registering the <westshorefloors.com> and <westshoreflooring.com> domain names. A respondent's actual knowledge of a complainant's rights in an asserted mark prior to registering a disputed domain name can form a foundation upon which to base an argument for bad faith. See Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014) ("The Panel notes that although the UDRP does not recognize 'constructive notice' as sufficient grounds for finding Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith, the Panel here finds actual knowledge through the name used for the domain and the use made of it."). Also see AutoZone Parts, Inc. v. Ken Belden, FA 1815011 (Forum Dec. 24, 2018) ("Complainant contends that Respondent's knowledge can be presumed in light of the substantial fame and notoriety of the AUTOZONE mark, as well as the fact that Complainant is the largest retailer in the field."). Complainant asserts that it "advertises extensively under its WEST SHORE" marks and "has achieved tremendous public exposure through social media website, such as Facebook, X (formerly Twitter) and Instagram, as well as its own websites, most notably its primary business website at westshorehome.com." In support, it submits copies of its website as well as of its mentioned social media pages. The Panel further notes that Respondent is located in the city of Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania which is the same location as the address provided for Complainant. The evidence of record, combined with the fact that the disputed domain names contain generic words directly relating to Complainant's field of business, indicates a high likelihood that Respondent had knowledge of Complainant's marks and specifically targeted them at the time that it registered the disputed domain name.

 

Next, Complainant asserts that bad faith use of the <westshorefloors.com> and <westshoreflooring.com> domain names is shown by their resolution, respectively, to a pay-per-click website with links to other flooring sites and a site offering flooring services that compete with those provided by Complainant. Use of a disputed domain name to redirect consumers to third-party goods or services has been upheld as evidence of bad faith disruption of a complainant's business under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and an attempt to attract users for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See block.one v. Negalize Interactive Things, FA 1798280 (Forum Aug. 21, 2018) ("Offering links to competing products or services can demonstrate bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) where a respondent registers a domain name that is confusingly similar to the mark of another."). See also Enterprise Holdings, Inc. v. shinelle owen, FA 2197421 (Forum Mar. 17, 2026) (bad faith found "where the Respondent appears to offer car sales services in direct competition with Complainant"). Complainant provides screenshots of the disputed domain names' resolving pages, one with pay-per-click links and the other offering services which are directly related to and competitive with the flooring segment of Complainant's business. The Panel finds that this demonstrates bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 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 <westshorefloors.com> and <westshoreflooring.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Steven M. Levy, Panelist

Dated: March 26, 2026