DECISION

 

ARAG North America Incorporated v. Steve Lowry

Claim Number: FA2604002213883

 

PARTIES

Complainant is ARAG North America Incorporated ("Complainant"), represented by Wendy K. Marsh of Nyemaster Goode, P.C., Iowa, USA. Respondent is Steve Lowry ("Respondent"), Canada.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The Disputed Domain Name is <legal-now.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.

 

Dawn Osborne and Professor David E. Sorkin as Panelists and Paddy Tam as Chair.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on April 2, 2026; Forum received payment on April 2, 2026.

 

On April 3, 2026, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <legal-now.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. 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 April 6, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 27, 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@legal-now.com. Also on April 6, 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 April 27, 2026.

 

On May 1, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a three-member Panel, Forum appointed Dawn Osborne and Professor David E. Sorkin as Panelists and Paddy Tam as Chair.

 

On May 5, 2026, the Panel issued Procedural Order No. 1 requesting that the Complainant submit further evidence and clarification regarding the registration and reputation of its LEGAL NOW trademark in Canada, and any evidence demonstrating that the Respondent knew or should have been aware of the Complainant's rights at the time of registration, on or before May 8, 2026. The Respondent was permitted to submit a response to the Complainant's supplemental submission on or before May 11, 2026, or within three (3) days of the Complainant's submission, whichever was earlier.

 

Both parties submitted supplemental submissions within the required period of time.

 

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.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

The Complainant states that it offers legal assistance and legal document services under the LEGAL NOW mark and has used the mark in commerce since at least 2015. The Complainant also owns the domain name <legalnow.com> and submits evidence of its trademark registration and use in connection with legal services. The Disputed Domain Name was registered on July 23, 2019. The Complainant submits evidence showing that the Disputed Domain Name previously resolved to inactive or placeholder pages before later being used to advertise "LEGAL NOW" legal services. The Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to its LEGAL NOW mark because it wholly incorporates the mark, adding only a hyphen and the ".com" gTLD, neither of which distinguishes the Disputed Domain Name from the Complainant's mark under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

 

The Complainant contends that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name because the Respondent is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name, is not affiliated with or authorized by the Complainant to use the LEGAL NOW mark, and is identified in the WHOIS record as "Registration Private." The Complainant further argues that the Disputed Domain Name was previously inactive or offered for sale before being used for a website advertising "LEGAL NOW" legal services with allegedly inactive or misleading links, which, according to the Complainant, does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under the Policy.

 

The Complainant contends that the Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith by passively holding, and subsequently using, <legal-now.com> to advertise purported "LEGAL NOW" legal services after allegedly receiving notice of the Complainant's trademark rights. The Complainant further argues that the Respondent engaged in typosquatting by incorporating the LEGAL NOW mark with the mere addition of a hyphen, thereby creating a likelihood of confusion for commercial gain and disrupting the Complainant's business under paragraphs 4(b)(iii) and 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.

 

B. Respondent

The Respondent requests denial of the Complaint and a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking ("RDNH"), arguing that the Complainant has failed to establish a lack of rights or legitimate interests or bad faith. The Respondent states that it acquired the Disputed Domain Name through GoDaddy's expired domain auction service in August 2025, launched an active website in September 2025, and has used the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a Canada only business operated through a British Columbia corporation. The Respondent further notes that it filed a Canadian trademark application for LEGAL NOW in April 2026 and argues that the Complainant holds no Canadian trademark rights or active "Legal Now" business presence in Canada.

 

The Respondent does not meaningfully dispute confusing similarity under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, acknowledging the Complainant's US trademark registration for LEGAL NOW and that the comparison is primarily textual. The Respondent argues, however, that the Complainant's rights are limited to the United States, with no Canadian trademark rights or use of "Legal Now", while the Respondent operates exclusively in Canada under that name through a Canadian company. The Respondent further contends that the Complainant's Canadian presence does not use or recognize "Legal Now" and that even the Complainant's Canadian staff were unfamiliar with the term, underscoring the territorial separation relevant to the remaining elements.

 

The Respondent asserts rights or legitimate interests under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, stating that it operates a bona fide, Canada focused AI legal technology and lawyer matching service under the name "Legal Now" in Canada, where the Complainant allegedly has no rights or use. The Respondent further states that it acquired the Disputed Domain Name in August 2025, incorporated a British Columbia company, launched its service and website in September 2025, and thereafter publicly promoted the service on LinkedIn and engaged in client outreach, all of which, it submits, demonstrate bona fide use and demonstrable preparations under paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy. The Respondent also claims that it has been commonly known as "Legal Now" within the Canadian legal technology community and has filed a Canadian trademark application for the name, which it contends supports a finding under paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy.

 

The Respondent denies bad faith under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, arguing that the Complaint rests on the unsupported premise that it acquired <legal-now.com> to target the Complainant's US only LEGAL NOW product. The Respondent states that it purchased the Disputed Domain Name through a public GoDaddy expired domain auction in August 2025 without knowledge of the Complainant and immediately used it for a Canada only AI legal technology service with no US targeting, customers, or capacity to serve US legal consumers. The Respondent contends that there is no typosquatting in any meaningful sense because "Legal Now" is descriptive, the Complainant's product lacks strong standalone consumer branding or search visibility, and there is no realistic traffic to divert. It further argues that there is no competition between the parties, defeating a claim under paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy, and no intent to confuse or attract users for commercial gain under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. The Respondent relies on its Canada only operations, LinkedIn launch, client outreach, and Canadian trademark application as evidence of good faith use and notes that any earlier "for sale" or parked pages predated its acquisition of the Disputed Domain Name. Accordingly, the Respondent submits that none of the circumstances set forth in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy apply and that the Complainant has failed to prove bad faith registration or use.

 

The Respondent requests a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking under paragraph 15(e) of the Rules, arguing that the Complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the UDRP process. It contends that the Complainant has no rights in Canada, where the Respondent operates a bona fide business under "Legal Now", as evidenced by its commercial use, LinkedIn activity, and Canadian trademark application. The Respondent further submits that the Complaint relies on selective and conclusory assertions while omitting material facts regarding the Respondent's use of the Disputed Domain Name and amounts to an improper attempt to extend US only rights into Canada.

 

C. Additional Submissions

Complainant's Supplemental Submission

The Complainant provides a timeline showing use of the LEGAL NOW trademark since 2015, including two US federal trademark registrations issued in 2018 and 2025. The Complainant notes that the Respondent acquired the Disputed Domain Name in August 2025 and filed a Canadian trademark application only after the UDRP complaint was filed.

 

The Complainant argues that the Respondent has not established legitimate use of the Disputed Domain Name prior to notice of the dispute. It challenges the Respondent's claims of exclusive Canadian use, disputes the Respondent's evidence of website activity and business operations, and asserts that Canadian focused branding and references were added only after the Complaint was filed.

 

The Complainant further contends that the Respondent knew or should have known of the Complainant's longstanding trademark rights, citing over ten years of use, federal trademark registrations, marketing expenditures, national publicity, and overlapping legal services. The complainant also argues that the Disputed Domain Dame was registered and used in bad faith, emphasizing the identical nature of the Disputed Domain Name and trademark, the offering of competing legal services, the absence of any disclaimer, and the timing of the Respondent's Canadian trademark filing. The Complainant requests transfer of the Disputed Domain Name.

 

Respondent's Supplemental Submission

The Respondent argues that the Complainant failed to provide the evidence requested in Procedural Order No. 1 regarding trademark reputation in Canada and evidence that the Respondent knew or should have known of the Complainant's mark. According to the Respondent, the Complainant's evidence remains entirely US focused and does not establish Canadian trademark rights, market presence, or Respondent knowledge.

 

The Respondent outlines a timeline intended to demonstrate legitimate development of a Canadian AI focused legal services business under the name LEGAL NOW beginning in August 2025. The Respondent states that the Disputed Domain Name was acquired through a public auction and subsequently used for website development, LinkedIn and YouTube promotion, client outreach, legal tech publications, and Canadian business operations before notice of the dispute.

 

The Respondent denies actual or constructive knowledge of the Complainant's trademark rights, emphasizing the descriptive nature of the words "legal" and "now", the absence of evidence of targeting, and a Canadian trademark search that allegedly revealed no conflicting Canadian mark. The Respondent also disputes the Complainant's reliance on a February 2026 "404" Wayback Machine capture, asserting that it reflected a temporary DNS migration during website redevelopment.

 

Finally, the Respondent argues that the facts do not support cybersquatting, emphasizing the absence of offers to sell the Disputed Domain Name, pay-per-click monetization, redirects to competitors, or demands for payment. Instead, the Respondent points to ongoing operation of a Canadian facing business and a Canadian trademark filing as evidence of good faith use, and requests that the complaint be denied.

 

FINDINGS

The Complainant, founded more than 85 years ago, is a provider of legal services and legal insurance for individuals, businesses, and employers. It operates in 19 countries and reports annual global revenues of approximately USD 2 billion. The Complainant is the owner of the registered trademark LEGAL NOW in the United States. In addition, the Complainant has sold more than 4,500 units of products and services offered under the LEGAL NOW mark, generating total revenues exceeding USD 609,000.

 

The Respondent is identified as the registrant of record of the Disputed Domain Name. The Respondent operates in Canada through its Canadian operating entity, Discover Media House Inc., a British Columbia corporation, and conducts business under the name "Legal Now Canada". Discover Media House Inc. filed an application for registration of the trademark LEGAL NOW with the Canadian Intellectual Property Office on April 14, 2026.

 

According to the WHOIS record, the Disputed Domain Name was initially registered on July 23, 2019. However, the Respondent provided an email record indicating that the Disputed Domain Name was acquired as an expired domain name on August 27, 2025.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE 1: PROCEDURAL ORDER NO. 1 AND SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMISSION(S)

Pursuant to paragraphs 10 and 12 of the Rules, the Panel may, in its sole discretion, request further statements or documents from either Party and determine the admissibility of the evidence.

 

The Panel issued Procedural Order No. 1 and, having considered the circumstances of the case, accepts the supplemental submissions and accompanying documents filed by both Parties to the extent that they address the information requested in the Order.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE 2: SCOPE OF UDRP

As numerous prior UDRP panels have recognized, the Policy was designed to provide a streamlined administrative mechanism for resolving only a limited scope of disputes involving abusive domain name registrations, such as cybersquatting, and was not intended to adjudicate broader commercial or trademark disputes involving competing claims to rights or legitimate interests. See Commercial Publishing Co., Inc. v. EarthComm, Inc., FA 95013 (Forum July 20, 2000).

 

The Panel finds that the present dispute is not a clear case of cybersquatting within the narrow scope of the UDRP, but rather a broader trademark and unfair competition dispute involving competing claims of rights and legitimate interests in the term "LEGAL NOW". The record reflects that the Respondent has presented evidence of preparations to use, and alleged use of, the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a Canadian facing legal technology business prior to notice of the dispute, including website development, promotional activity, customer outreach, and a subsequent Canadian trademark application.

 

The Panel further notes the parties' competing positions regarding the geographic scope of their respective businesses, the descriptive nature of the term "LEGAL NOW", the Respondent's alleged knowledge of the Complainant's mark, and the legitimacy of the Respondent's claimed business activities. While the Complainant relies on its US trademark registrations and asserts longstanding use of the LEGAL NOW mark, the Complainant has provided only limited evidence regarding the reputation and market recognition of the LEGAL NOW brand at the time the Disputed Domain Name was acquired by the Respondent, and no specific evidence demonstrating reputation, commercial presence, or trademark rights in Canada. The Complainant's supplemental submission in response to Procedural Order No. 1 was largely nonresponsive to the matters identified therein.

 

Resolution of these issues would require findings more appropriately made in court proceedings, with the benefit of discovery, witness examination, and fuller evidentiary procedures than are available under the Policy.

 

Accordingly, the Panel concludes that the present matter involves a legitimate trademark dispute that falls outside the limited purpose and scope of the UDRP. The Panel therefore declines to rule on the three elements under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy on the present record, without prejudice to either party pursuing its claims before a court of competent jurisdiction. 

 

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

In light of the preliminary issues discussed above, the Panel declines to make a finding under this element.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

In light of the preliminary issues discussed above, the Panel declines to make a finding under this element.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

In light of the preliminary issues discussed above, the Panel declines to make a finding under this element.

 

REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKING

In light of the preliminary issues discussed above, the Panel declines to make a finding under this element.

 

DECISION

Having not established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED without prejudice.

 

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

 

 

 

Dawn Osborne, Panelist

Professor David E. Sorkin, Panelist

Paddy Tam, Chair

Dated: May 20, 2026