DECISION

 

Real Capital Solutions, Inc. v. Mich Leb / Prop LLC

Claim Number: FA2604002213686

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Real Capital Solutions, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Emily Cooper of Holland & Hart LLP, Colorado, USA. Respondent is Mich Leb / Prop LLC ("Respondent"), Colorado, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <rcapitalsolutions.com>, registered with Tecnocrática Centro de Datos, S.L.

 

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 April 1, 2026; Forum received payment on April 1, 2026.

 

On April 23, 2026, Tecnocrática Centro de Datos, S.L. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <rcapitalsolutions.com> domain name is registered with Tecnocrática Centro de Datos, S.L. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Tecnocrática Centro de Datos, S.L. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Tecnocrática Centro de Datos, S.L. 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 April 23, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 13, 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@rcapitalsolutions.com. Also on April 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 formal response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On May 14, 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 name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant is an established, proven real estate investment firm with over 40 years of experience across nearly all real estate asset classes across dozens of states. It invests smart capital and provides practical solutions for real estate opportunities. Over the course of its existence, Complainant has purchased and managed more than 395 real estate assets totaling more than $5.1 billion in acquisition value. Complainant is known for its expertise across many asset classes, creative deal structuring, and track record of closing transactions with speed and certainty. Since 2010 it has developed and managed residential, commercial, and solar projects across states as varied as Colorado, Texas, North Carolina, Minnesota, Illinois, Ohio, New Jersey, and Florida. Its projects include several luxury condominium and apartment complexes in resort locations such as Fort Meyers and Panama City, Florida, and Keystone and Steamboat Springs, Colorado, which also have many timeshare properties.

 

Complainant has continuously, exclusively, and prominently used the "Real Capital Solutions" name and trademark in nationwide commerce. As a result of longstanding and uninterrupted use since 2010, Complainant has established superior common law trademark rights in the REAL CAPITAL SOLUTIONS mark throughout the United States. By virtue of Complainant's substantially exclusive use for over 15 years, the REAL CAPITAL SOLUTIONS mark has acquired distinctiveness, substantial goodwill, secondary meaning, and widespread recognition among investors, lenders, real estate professionals, and other market participants in the commercial real estate industry.

 

On or about December 11, 2025, Complainant discovered that Respondent, operating under the name "Real Capital Solutions, LLC" had begun using the identical REAL CAPITAL SOLUTIONS mark in connection with purporting to offer commercial real estate services in the United States, and using a website offered at the domain <rcapitalsolutions.com> to do so. The domain name was created on March 1, 2025. In particular, Complainant learned about Respondent when several of Complainant's clients alerted it that they had been contacted by a business using the name "Real Capital Solutions" and indicated uncertainty if not confusion as to whether these solicitations were affiliated with Complainant.

 

The only difference between the REAL CAPITAL SOLUTIONS mark and the Disputed Domain Name is that the Disputed Domain Name substitutes an "r" for the term "REAL". This small abbreviation of one term of Complainant's mark does not obviate the Disputed Domain Name's confusing similarity. Moreover, Respondent uses "Real Capital Solutions" in its email signature block and solicitations, furthering the implication that "r" in its domain name is simply an abbreviation for "real."

 

Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name because Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant in any way, nor is Respondent licensed or permitted to use the REAL CAPITAL SOLUTIONS mark. Further, despite the presence of a website, all evidence suggests that Respondent is running a scam under the REAL CAPITAL SOLUTIONS name, intended only to defraud consumers, rather than running a legitimate business offering bona fide goods and services. Respondent continued to use Complainant's REAL CAPITAL SOLUTIONS mark even after receiving specific, actual notice of Complainant's rights in the form of a demand letter sent by Complainant's general counsel. Respondent failed to respond to the cease-and-desist letter or comply with any of the demands contained therein.

 

Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith to impersonate Complainant in furtherance of illegal fraud. Upon information and belief, Respondent has used the REAL CAPITAL SOLUTIONS mark to induce other unsuspecting consumers to transfer large sums of money to Respondent under the guise of purchasing the victim's ownership stakes in timeshares. Its actions are targeted to disrupt Complainant's business by persuading Complainant's legitimate, unsuspecting customers and prospective customers to engage with Respondent and its fraudulent business by appearing associated with Complainant and its strong reputation. This also shows that Respondent was aware of Complainant's strong trademark rights and brand reputation.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a formal Response in this proceeding. However, on April 24, 2026 Forum received a message from the email address associated with Respondent in the WHOIS record for the disputed domain name stating, in part, "We are a third-party service provider. * * * I exhausted all possible ways to communicate with our client without any luck. * * * My finance department was about to suspend the account because we hadn't received any payment from them for over 20 days. * * * [W]e don't want anything to be responsible for our client's information."

 

FINDINGS

-       Complainant has not demonstrated, with evidence, that it owns common law trademark rights in the phase REAL CAPITAL SOLUTIONS; and

-       Complainant has not shown, by a preponderance of the presented evidence, that Respondent is conducting a fraudulent scheme and impersonating Complainant such that it has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name or that it has registered or uses the domain name in bad faith.

 

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

Complainant asserts that it has common law trademark rights in the term REAL CAPITAL SOLUTIONS based on its longstanding use thereof. Registration of a trademark is not required, under the Policy, when a complainant can demonstrate established common law rights in an asserted mark. See Klabzuba Oil & Gas, Inc. v. LAKHPAT SINGH BHANDARI, FA 1625750 (Forum July 17, 2015) ("Complainant does not claim to own a trademark registered with a governmental authority. However, Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) does not require such registration if a complainant can demonstrate having common law rights."). To establish common law rights in a name, a complainant generally must show extensive and continuous use in commerce such that the mark has developed a secondary meaning with respect to the complainant and its business. See Iacocca v. Tex. Int'l Prop. Assocs., FA 1088017 (Forum Nov. 29, 2007) ("In order to garner the benefit of common law trademark rights, Complainant must lay out, not only evidence of extensive and continuous use of the mark in commerce, but also evince some strong probability that as a result of such exposure, that consumers have come to associate the mark with Complainant, as to the source of the goods.").

 

Here, Complainant claims that the phrase REAL CAPITAL SOLUTIONS "has acquired distinctiveness, substantial goodwill, secondary meaning, and widespread recognition" and that it has developed "strong trademark rights and brand reputation…" In support, it submits into evidence screenshots of three pages from its <realcapitalsolutions.com> website showing very limited details of deals for the sale of a condominium building in Fort Myers, Florida; the sale of an apartment community in Panama City Beach, Florida; and the securing of a bridge loan for a property called "One River Run" with no location mentioned. These pages display the name Real Capital Solutions at the top, and each contains a footer with the notice "© Copyright 2003 Real Capital Solutions". No evidence is provided relating to Complainant's claims of billions of dollars in acquisition value of hundreds of real estate assets in various states or of its other claims of "substantial goodwill, secondary meaning, and widespread recognition among investors, lenders, real estate professionals, and other market participants in the commercial real estate industry."

 

Having reviewed Complainant's very limited evidence, the Panel finds it insufficient to show "extensive and continuous use" over time such that the term REAL CAPITAL SOLUTIONS has developed secondary meaning or common law trademark rights. This finding is also informed by the descriptive nature of the phrase in relation to Complainant's services of financial arrangements relating to real estate. In prior UDRP decisions, findings of common law rights have been supported by evidence such as examples of advertising, website and social media pages (including consumer comments), unsolicited news articles, sponsorships, trade show participation, awards and recognition, consumer surveys, and the like. These can show the nature and scope of a name's use as well as how it is perceived by the relevant consumer group.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests and Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Although it is unnecessary to provide further analysis in this case, the Panel has decided to do so in the hope that it will be instructive to the Parties and to future UDRP participants.

 

Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and that it registered and is using the domain name in bad faith where "all evidence suggests that Respondent is running a scam under the REAL CAPITAL SOLUTIONS name…" As with its claim of common law trademark rights, the Panel finds Complainant's submitted evidence on this point to be very limited and insufficient to support a conclusion that scam activity is taking place.

 

The evidence provided consists of screenshots of the <rcapitalsolutions.com> home page, an email from Respondent to an unknown person presenting an offer to sell or rent "weeks at your vacation resort", and the transcripts of three voice messages for Complainant asserted to be from individuals who are seeking clarification if calls they have received from Real Capital Solutions are legitimate or related to Complainant. The Panel notes that the email from Respondent mentions an office address in Chicago and uses a blue, white, and red logo for its Real Capital Solutions, LLC name whereas Complainant's site shows a rather minimal gold colored logo. This logo and color scheme are also shown on the <rcapitalsolutions.com> website. Complainant also states that "attempts to effect service of process at the listed address were further unsuccessful" and it submits a message from an individual who states "I spoke with a building employee. They stated that the defendant moved over one year ago to address unknown."

 

The Complaint also points to a "likely AI-generated 'bio' that appears on the website operated at the Disputed Domain Name for a 'Richard Louis Benjamin'" and states that "[a] Reverse WHOIS search for domain name records associated with the email address, [REDACTED]@gmail.com, located 59 matching records, many of which suggest they are related to real estate."

 

While Complainant's evidence shows that there is some activity by Respondent that has raised questions, the Panel finds that it falls short of showing, prima facie, that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, that it is engaged in bad faith, or that "all evidence suggests that Respondent is running a scam". Factors informing this conclusion include the descriptive nature of the phrase REAL CAPITAL SOLUTIONS in relation the financing of real estate deals, the significant graphical difference between the parties' logos and websites, and the absence of supporting evidence such as any correspondence showing that "counsel hereto has been in direct contact with Richard Louis Benjamin, who has specifically disavowed any affiliation with the Respondent"¹, the mentioned "Reverse WHOIS search" for other real estate related domain names associated with Respondent's email address, or a copy of the demand letter claimed to have been sent by Complainant's General Counsel. While a combination of the provided and missing evidence could support the claimed operation of a scam, it does not do so by itself and further evidence is needed to indicate that Respondent is not operating a legitimate business that happens to use the same descriptive phrase as Complainant.²

 

Based on the above, the Panel finds that Complainant has not met its burden of proof on Policy ¶¶ 4(a)(ii) or (iii).

 

Finally, Panels have held that a represented complainant should be held to a higher standard. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions ("WIPO Overview 3.1"), at 4.16. Also see Legally Co. LLC v. Stefan van Elsas, LegalVision B.V., DIO2026-0004 (WIPO Apr. 29, 2026). In the Legally Co. LLC case, "[t]he Complainant therefore had particular reason for knowing and understanding the importance of establishing targeting of the Complainant by way of cogent evidence and the particular difficulties arising from the highly descriptive nature of the Complainant's trademark." Id. The Panel notes that Complainant here is represented by counsel who has filed a number of prior disputes under the Policy and so it assumes that counsel is aware of the evidentiary standards and requirements of proving all elements of a case in order to succeed.

 

DECISION

Having not established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <rcapitalsolutions.com> domain name REMAIN WITH Respondent.

 

 

 

Steven M. Levy, Panelist

Dated: May 18, 2026