NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM

DECISION

Fitness International, LLC v. Moses Temidayo

Claim Number: FA2602002206312

PARTIES

Complainant is Fitness International, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by C. Wook Pak of Cislo & Thomas LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Moses Temidayo ("Respondent"), Nigeria.

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <losangelesfitnesstrainer.com>, registered with Unstoppable Domains Inc.

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.

The Honorable Neil Anthony Brown KC as Panelist.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

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

On February 20, 2026, Unstoppable Domains Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <losangelesfitnesstrainer.com> domain name is registered with Unstoppable Domains Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Unstoppable Domains Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Unstoppable Domains 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 23, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 16, 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@losangelesfitnesstrainer.com. Also on February 23, 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 17, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed The Honorable Neil Anthony Brown KC 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 made the following contentions.

1. The Complainant is a prominent United States company engaged in the provision of a broad range of health club-related goods and services and has been so engaged including through a predecessor-in-interest since 1989.

2. The Complainant provides its goods and services under the trademark for LA FITNESS.

3. The Complainant acquired its registered trademark rights by virtue of the following registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") namely Reg. No. 2,326,358 for LA FITNESS registered by the Complainant on March 7, 2000 and numerous other registrations by the Complainant and its predecessor-in-interest for LA FITNESS and derivatives and L.A.FITNESS (collectively "the LA FITNESS trademark").

4. The LA FITNESS trademark has attracted substantial goodwill and is uniquely associated with the Complainant's goods and services and with the Complainant as its owner.

5. The Respondent registered the domain name <losangelesfitnesstrainer.com> on June 6, 2025 ("the disputed domain name").

6. As well as the LA FITNESS trademark, the Complainant has registered the domain name <lafitness.com> which it uses in its business and to promote its goods and services on its website at www.lafitness.com.

7. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the LA FITNESS trademark.

8. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as:

(b) the Respondent is not a licensee, authorized retailer or distributor of the Complainant and has no permission or authority to use the Complainant's LA FITNESS trademark;

(d) the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii);

(e) the Respondent has not used the domain name for a legitimate non-commercial or fair use within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii); rather, the Respondent registered and has used the domain name for the express purpose of misleading internet users into believing that the domain name is registered by the Complainant or with its permission, neither of which is true; and

(f) there is no other ground on which it could conceivably be contended that the Respondent has a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.

9. The Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith as:

(a) the circumstances show that the Respondent registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling it to the Complainant or a competitor of the Complainant within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(b)(i);

(b) the Respondent had actual knowledge of the Complainant and its aforesaid trademark when it, the Respondent, registered the disputed domain name;

(c) by its aforesaid conduct, the Respondent has sought to disrupt the Complainant's business within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii);

(d) by its aforesaid conduct, the Respondent has sought to engender confusion among internet users within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv);

(e) the Respondent has not used the domain name for any legitimate business or other purpose, but has registered and used it to target the Complainant and to try to induce the Complainant to make an offer to buy the domain name because of its obvious affiliation with the Complainant's name and trademark; and

(f) there was and is no plausible circumstance under which the Respondent could have legitimately registered or used the disputed domain name.

10. Accordingly, the disputed domain name should be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

FINDINGS

2. The Complainant provides its goods and services under the trademark for LA FITNESS.

4. The Respondent registered the domain name <losangelesfitnesstrainer.com> on June 6, 2025 ("the disputed domain name").

5. The Respondent has registered and used the domain name by offering it for sale and has traded on the goodwill associated with the trademark.

6. By reason of the matters aforesaid, and as established by the evidence, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's aforesaid trademark, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and the disputed domain name has been registered and used in bad faith.

7. Accordingly, the disputed domain name will be transferred from the Respondent to 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 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 first question that arises is whether the Complainant has rights in a trademark or service mark on which it may rely . The evidence is that the Complainant provides its goods and services under the LA FITNESS trademark and that it acquired its registered trademark rights by virtue of the following registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") namely Reg. No. 2,326,358 for LA FITNESS registered by the Complainant on March 7, 2000 and numerous other registrations by the Complainant and its predecessor-in-interest for LA FITNESS and derivatives and L.A.FITNESS (collectively "the LA FITNESS trademark").

The aforesaid registrations have been established by documentary evidence that the Panel has examined and finds to be in order, and particularly by the exhibits to the Declaration of C. Wook Pak filed on behalf of the Complainant.

The evidence has also established that all of the relevant trademarks were registered prior to the Respondent's registration of the disputed domain name on June 6, 2025 and that they are current and registered in the name variously of the Complainant and its predecessor-in-interest.

The Complainant has thus established its trademark rights pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) and hence its standing to bring this proceeding.

The next question that arises is whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's aforesaid trademark. The Panel finds that the domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's LA FITNESS trademark. That is so for the following reasons.

The domain name includes as its first and most dominant feature the words "losangeles" which clearly invoke the substance of the trademark, as "losangeles" in the domain name would no doubt be seen by internet users as the equivalent of LA in the trademark as they are interchangeable in popular use. Thus, the objective bystander would look at the domain name and conclude that it is invoking the trademark and the brand it personifies. These considerations clearly make the domain name similar to the trademark. That conclusion is fortified by the addition to the domain name of the word or words "fitnesstrainer" as "FITNESS" is included in the trademark. Internet users would therefore conclude that the entirety of the domain name had the meaning of invoking the provision of the services of fitness training in Los Angeles which is the substance of the trademark. The domain name as a whole is therefore very similar to the trademark.

The Policy requires, of course, that as well as the domain name being similar to the trademark, it must be confusingly so. That requirement has been met by the fact that the domain name as a whole would engender in the mind of the internet user the question whether this is a genuine or legitimate domain name of the Complainant or not.

Thus, applying these well-accepted principles, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's LA FITNESS trademark.

The Complainant has thus made out the first of the three elements that it must establish as provided in Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

Rights or Legitimate Interests

It is now well established that the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) and that, if the prima facie case is made out, the burden then shifts to the Respondent to show that it does have such 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)).

The Panel finds on the evidence that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case that arises from the following considerations.

It should first be noted that the evidence is that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name on June 6, 2025. It should also be noted that the domain name does not resolve to an active website but to a landing page as is shown by Exhibit C to the Declaration of C. Wook Pak. The landing page carries the statement that the domain name is for sale and that the price is $650 and also carries an invitation to proceed with the purchase.

Exhibit E is the WHOIS data base showing data for the domain name and also the statement that the domain name is for sale at $650 and "$21.99/yr".

Exhibit G shows the landing page and a further statement that the domain name is for sale at $650.

Having regard to the whole of the evidence, it is clear that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names on all of the grounds relied on by the Complainant, namely:

(a) It is clear from all the circumstances that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name to take advantage of and intentionally trade on the LA FITNESS trademark and the goodwill associated with it; this has been established by the evidence because the Respondent has taken the trademark and used it as the basis for its domain name and in fact devising a domain name that as well as owing its origins to the trademark, says virtually the same as the trademark; the domain name obviously means and was intended to mean fitness training services in Los Angeles, whereas the trademark means in substance fitness services in Los Angeles provided almost inevitably by a trainer; it is clear that the Respondent intended all of this to be accepted and understood by anyone who saw the domain name; it is equally clear that the Respondent would not be doing this as an academic exercise, but because of the goodwill attaching to the trademark and the services offered under it, an intention shown by the fact that the Respondent then offered the domain name for sale;

(b) the evidence is that the Respondent is not a licensee, authorized retailer or distributor of the Complainant and has no permission or authority to use Complainant's LA FITNESS trademark; thus, it could not be said that the domain name was registered and used with any sort of consent from the Complainant; indeed, the evidence of the Complainant shows specifically that no consent has been given by the Complainant to the Respondent to use its trademark;

(c) the Respondent has not used the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) because the domain name does not resolve to an active website but resolves to a landing page where it is offered for sale; it is clear from the evidence as a whole that the Respondent was attracted to constructing the domain name in the way in which it did, by the prospect of intimidating the Complainant into buying it, in other words by blackmailing the Complainant; thus, the Respondent would have been in trouble no matter what it did with the the domain name; but when, as is the case, it brazenly offered it for sale, it is clear that this conduct could not conceivably give the Respondent a right or legitimate interest in the domain name; indeed, it would probably be more appropriate to describe the Respondent's conduct as mala fide rather than bona fide;

(d) the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii); there is no evidence that the Respondent is known by the domain name and there is no evidence that it is known by any name other than its own;

(e) the Respondent has not used the domain name for legitimate non-commercial or fair use within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii); there is nothing legitimate about the way the Respondent has used the domain name by offering it for sale; this is, as well as being entirely unprincipled, purely commercial and it is clearly not fair, either to the Complainant or to internet users in general, as it is trying to extort money from the former and mislead the latter; the Respondent registered and has used the domain name for the express purpose of misleading internet users into believing that the domain name is registered by the Complainant or with its permission, neither of which is true; and

(f) there is no other ground on which it could conceivably be contended that the Respondent has a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.

The Complainant has thus made out a persuasive and detailed case on the evidence for all of the grounds it relies on to show that the Respondent does not have a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.

All of these matters make out the prima facie case against the Respondent. The Respondent is in default and has not advanced any evidence or submissions to show that it could rebut the Complainant's contentions.

The Complainant has therefore made out the second of the three elements it must establish under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

It is clear that to establish bad faith for the purposes of the Policy, the Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith. It is also clear that the criteria set out in Policy ¶ 4(b) are not exclusive but that domain name proceedings may also rely on conduct that is bad faith within the generally accepted meaning of that expression.

In view of the evidence, particularly the Declarations of C. Wook Pak, Robert Bryant (which shows the extent of the activities and renown of the Complainant and its considerable expenditure on advertising its services) and Daniel M. Cislo and the exhibits attached to them, it is clear that the Complainant has made out all of the grounds relied on. The Respondent has clearly been motivated by bad faith in the registration of the domain name in the first place because it was in effect copying the Complainant's trademark and it has continued in that conduct after its registration, showing bad faith use, by offering the domain name for sale; the registration was clearly an attempt by the Respondent to trade on the goodwill of the trademark by incorporating it in the domain name and invoking the Complainant's trademark to try to induce the Complainant to buy the domain name under an implied threat that if it did not do so, the Respondent would sell it to somebody else, probably a competitor of the Complainant; to that end the Respondent has plagiarised the Complainant's name and trademark. It is therefore clear from the evidence that, as the Complainant has submitted:

(a) the evidence shows that this is a clear case of an abuse of Policy ¶ 4(b)(i) where the Respondent registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling it to the Complainant or a competitor of the Complainant within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(b)(i); in that regard the price demanded by the Respondent must have been in excess of its costs of the registration, as it is common knowledge that such costs would be far less than $650; thus the Complainant has made out a strong case on this issue;

(b) the Respondent had actual knowledge of the Complainant and its aforesaid trademark when it, the Respondent, registered the disputed domain name; the Respondent must have had such actual knowledge in view of its obvious copying of the Complainant's trademark and it could not have carried out its subterfuge without having had that actual knowledge; thus the domain name was registered in bad faith;

(c) by its aforesaid conduct, the Respondent has sought to disrupt the Complainant's business within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii); clearly, the Respondent has embarked on copying the Complainant's trademark by registering a domain name that the likely market of health club afficionados would see as the official domain name of the Complainant and which has the potential for attracting them to that domain name and any website to which it might resolve in the future; that is clearly disruptive of the Complainant's business as also is the inevitable time, trouble and cost to which the Complainant must have been put to retrieve the domain name;

(d) by its aforesaid conduct, the Respondent has sought to engender confusion among internet users within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv); the evidence shows that the Respondent's intention and the effect of its conduct was probably to confuse internet users into believing that the domain name was probably an official domain name of the Complainant;

(e) the evidence shows that the Respondent has registered and used the domain name to target the Complainant and to try to induce the Complainant to make an offer to buy the domain name because of its apparent affiliation with the Complainant and its name and trademark; and

(f) the evidence shows that there was and is no plausible circumstance under which the Respondent could have legitimately registered or used the disputed domain name.

The Complainant has thus made out the third of the three elements that it must establish under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

The Complainant has presented a detailed and persuasive case consisting of evidence that has established all of the constituent elements that must be proved under the Policy.

The Complainant has also cited numerous prior UDRP decisions which support all of its contentions.

The Complainant has therefore established all the elements that it must show under the Policy and it is entitled to the relief it seeks, namely transfer of 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 <losangelesfitnesstrainer.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from the Respondent to the Complainant.

The Honorable Neil Anthony Brown KC,

Panelist

Dated: March 18, 2026