DECISION

 

Bestway Inflatables & Material Corp. v. Muhammad Ayaz

Claim Number: FA2602002206378

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Bestway Inflatables & Material Corp. ("Complainant"), represented by Jenny T. Slocum of Dickinson Wright PLLC, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Muhammad Ayaz ("Respondent"), Pakistan.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <saluspas.com>, registered with NameCheap, 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.

 

Darryl C. Wilson, as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 20, 2026; Forum received payment on February 20, 2026.

 

On February 20, 2026, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <saluspas.com> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, 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 24, 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@saluspas.com. Also on February 24, 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.

 

A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on February 24, 2026.

 

Additional Submissions were timely received from both Complainant and Respondent on February 26, 2026. 

 

On February 26, 2026, pursuant to the Parties' request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Darryl C. Wilson, 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: CONSENT TO TRANSFER

Respondent's answer to Complainant's pleadings includes a copy(?) of an undated email (draft?) addressed from Respondent to Complainant as "Bestway Team". That email contains purported options presented by the Respondent in an effort to resolve the dispute via a friendly resolution. One of the options presented is "Transferring the domain (and, if desired, the associated website content)…." However, selling the domain name and/or website to Complainant is also listed amongst the other options. Further, Respondent specifically seeks a panel decision in the matter and respectfully requests that the "...Panel denies the remedy requested by the Complainant."

 

Given the conflicting language offered by Respondent's submission it is the Panel's determination that a decision be made on the merits of all the documents filed by the parties in this proceeding.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A.       Complainant

Complainant has owned a registration for the SALUSPA mark with the USPTO since at least 2016 and has used the SALUSPA mark since that time, which long predates Respondent's registration of the Domain Name.

 

The Domain Name fully incorporates the SALUSPA mark and includes an "s" on the end of SALUSPA to convey the commercial impression that it contains multiple products. This alone establishes the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's SALUSPA mark.

 

There is no evidence that Respondent has any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. Respondent does not have authorization, consent or approval to use the Domain Name or Complainant's mark. On information and belief, Respondent, Muhammad Ayaz, is not commonly known by the Domain Name or any name containing the SALUSPA mark.

 

Respondent is not using the Domain Name in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services or any legitimate non-commercial or fair use. Instead, as noted above, Respondent uses the Domain Name to resolve to a website that purports to be owned and controlled by Bestway.

 

Respondent's use of the Domain Name cannot be considered a fair use of

the SALUSPA mark because Respondent's use of the Domain Name is not connected to dictionary definitions and is instead directly targeted to the Complainant's name and business.

 

The unauthorized use of the Domain Name and these links contained on the website by Respondent, have no connection to or permission from Complainant, and instead represent Respondent's opportunistic bad faith.

 

The fact that Respondent registered the Domain Name using Complainant's SALUSPA mark and maintains a webpage that refers to products offered by Complainant strongly suggests that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark and has registered, and is using, the Domain Name in bad faith.

 

Respondent's use of the Domain Name to divert Internet users seeking Complainant's website, products, and services also is disruptive to Complainant's business and is further evidence of bad faith registration and use.

 

B. Respondent

The response begins with an undated email addressed to "Beltway Team" that may be a copy of communication Respondent sent to Complainant.

 

The email portion of the response includes the following statements;

"At the time I launched the site in 2020, there was limited public awareness (at least in my circles) that SaluSpa was a brand owned and manufactured by Bestway. I genuinely believed it was a generic product name, similar to how many affiliate marketers promote popular items. In fact, I reached out to Bestway multiple times back then to inquire about potential affiliate partnerships, though I never received a response."

 

"I fully respect your brand and intellectual property rights. If my use of the domain has caused any concern or is deemed a violation, I am more than willing to resolve this matter amicably and promptly."

 

The email portion of the response offers options such as transfer or sale of the domain name and website to Complainant. In a different portion of the response the Respondent states; "I have bought this domain in 2020 where there was no awareness (sic) that this brand name is owned by Bestway i thought it was that a product model name" and in another portion Respondent request that Complainant's requested relief be denied.

 

C. Additional Submissions

Complainant

Respondent has been holding himself out as the manufacturer and source of authentic SALUSPA branded spas, when he is not. The resolving website is replete with references to "our" products, or "our catalog."

 

Respondent admitted to contacting Bestway in the past to inquire about a potential partnership. Respondent further acknowledges that no response was received and that he did not have permission to use

the SALUSPA trademark. Clearly, Respondent had knowledge of Complainant. Respondent knew the SALUSPA was a registered trademark as he integrated the registration symbol ® after the SALUSPA trademark, as part of the website content.

 

Respondent

Respondent's additional submission consisted of a website picture that now included a disclaimer of association with Complainant.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant is Bestway Inflatables & Material Corp. ("Complainant"), of Shanghai, China. Complainant is the owner of the USPTO registration for the mark SALUSPA which it has used continuously since at least as early as November 2016 in connection with its production of heated inflatable pool spas and related goods and services.

 

Respondent is Muhammad Ayaz ("Respondent"), of Lahore, Pakistan. Respondent's registrar's address is indicated as Phoenix, AZ, USA. Respondent registered the <saluspas.com> domain name on or about June 16, 2023.

 

Based on the reasons noted below Complainant has successfully proven all the elements necessary for its requested relief to be granted.

 

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.

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Complainant asserts rights in the SALUSPA mark based upon its registration of the mark with the USPTO (see USPTO Reg. No. 5080682 registered November 15, 2016). Registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently establishes rights in the mark. See DIRECTV, LLC v. The Pearline Group, FA 1818749 (Forum Dec. 30, 2018) ("Complainant's ownership of a USPTO registration for DIRECTV demonstrates its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).").

 

The Panel here finds that Complainant has established rights in the SALUSPA mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

The disputed domain name contains the SALUSPA mark in its entirety while merely adding a letter "s" and the generic .com top-level domain (gTLD). Prior UDRP panels have found that the incorporation of a trademark in its entirety with the addition of a generic top-level domain is sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a complainant's registered mark. See Vulcan Materials Co. v. Ned Hatchinson/Milen Radmullo, FA 2003227 (Forum Aug. 10, 2022) (finding <vulcanmaterials.co> confusingly similar to VULCAN), see also MTD Products Inc v. Mike Kernea / Skyline, FA 1775278 (Forum Apr. 19, 2018) ("The mere addition of a gTLD is inconsequential and does not avoid a finding of identity.").

 

Respondent does not contest any of Complainant's assertions regarding this element, stating only that he thought the disputed domain was a generic product model name when he registered it.

 

The Panel here finds the domain name is identical and/or confusingly similar to Complainant's mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

The Complainant has proven this element.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Panel notes that 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 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."). Complainant has made out a prima facie case here.

 

Complainant contends that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name nor has Respondent been given license or consent to use Complainant's SALUSPA mark, any derivatives thereof, nor register domain names using its mark.

 

Although Respondent provides a shell of a general response to Complainant's UDRP filing, Respondent does not contest any of Complainant's assertions on this element and makes no direct arguments regarding Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Viewing an email (draft?) Respondent included as part of his response in a light most favorable to Respondent one might surmise that statements in that email stating that " …Respondent has spent thousands of dollars on building the website to market Complainant's goods and services…." and engaged in other related activity, as alluding to Respondent's belief that Respondent had rights or some legitimate interests regarding the domain name. However, Respondent clearly indicates elsewhere that the actions undertaken were not sanctioned or authorized by Complainant. Additionally, as noted earlier, Respondent admits to not being commonly known by the domain name prior to its registration, allegedly thinking instead that the domain was a generic term for an existing product.

 

The Panel here finds Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and further lacks rights or legitimate interests in the name per Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

The Complainant has proven this element.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Respondent did not dispute that it used Complainant's mark and copied Complainant's website as well as provided links to itself and others regarding the procurement of Complainant's goods and services. Prior panels have found that such use of a complainant's marks and unauthorized offerings via links to competitors is indicative of a respondent's bad faith registration and use. See Snap Inc. v. Albert Gulyamov, FA 2025849 (Forum Feb. 9, 2023) (finding Respondent's use of the SNAPCHAT® mark in the domain and as a service name on the website to offer blog articles about the Snapchat App and to benefit financially from promoting an unrelated commercial website and WordPress SEO plugin via advertisements and embedded links, was bad faith); see also Black & Decker Corp. v. Clinical Evaluations, FA 112629 (Forum June 24, 2002) (finding bad faith where respondent registered and used a confusingly similar domain name to divert internet users to pay-per-click websites for respondent's financial gain).

 

Complainant provided evidence in support of its contention that Respondent misappropriated Complainant's trademark in a scheme to profit from the trademark and to misrepresent himself as Complainant in order to divert consumers from Complainant's own website so that Respondent could profit from advertising links to third party websites. Respondent did not directly address any of Complainant's arguments regarding this element.

 

The Panel here finds that Complainant has shown bad faith registration and use by Respondent per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

The Complainant has proven this element.

 

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that Complainant's requested relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <saluspas.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Darryl C. Wilson, Panelist

Dated: March 9, 2026