DECISION

 

REINSCH, INC., E. G. and TRI-STATE COMMUNITIES LLC v. Tony Rivera

Claim Number: FA2604002214022

 

PARTIES

Complainant is REINSCH, INC., E. G. and TRI-STATE COMMUNITIES LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Kandis M. Koustenis of Bean Kinney & Korman, PC, Virginia, USA. Respondent is Tony Rivera ("Respondent"), represented by Jeffrey J. Neumann of JJN Solutions, LLC, Virginia, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <chainbridgeestates.com> ("Domain Name"), registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.

 

PANEL

The undersigned certify that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelists in this proceeding.

 

Alan L. Limbury and Ho-Hyun Nahm as Panelists and Nicholas J.T. Smith as Chair.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on April 3, 2026; Forum received payment on April 3, 2026.

 

On April 7, 2026, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <chainbridgeestates.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 13, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 4, 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@chainbridgeestates.com. Also on April 13, 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 29, 2026.  On May 5, 2026 Complainant filed an unsolicited supplemental filing. On May 6, 2026 Respondent filed a response to Complainant's supplemental filing.

 

On May 7, 2026, pursuant to Respondent's request to have the dispute decided by a three-member Panel, Forum appointed Alan L. Limbury and Ho-Hyun Nahm as Panelists and Nicholas J.T. Smith as Chair.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the Domain Name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE COMPLAINANTS

In the instant proceedings, there are two Complainants. Paragraph 3(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") provides that "[a]ny person or entity may initiate an administrative proceeding by submitting a complaint."Forum's Supplemental Rule 1(e) defines "The Party Initiating a Complaint Concerning a Domain Name Registration" as a "single person or entity claiming to have rights in the domain name, or multiple persons or entities who have a sufficient nexus who can each claim to have rights to all domain names listed in the Complaint." 

 

Previous panels have interpreted Forum's Supplemental Rule 1(e) to allow multiple parties to proceed as one party where they can show a sufficient link to each other. For example, in Vancouver Org. Comm. for the 2010 Olympic and Paralymic Games & Int'l Olympic Comm. v. Malik, FA 666119 (Forum May 12, 2006), the panel stated:

 

"It has been accepted that it is permissible for two complainants to submit a single complaint if they can demonstrate a link between the two entities such as a relationship involving a license, a partnership or an affiliation that would establish the reason for the parties bringing the complaint as one entity."

 

In Tasty Baking, Co. & Tastykake Invs., Inc. v. Quality Hosting, FA 208854 (Forum Dec. 28, 2003), the panel treated the two complainants as a single entity where both parties held rights in trademarks contained within the disputed domain names. Likewise, in Am. Family Health Srvs. Group, LLC v. Logan, FA 220049 (Forum Feb. 6, 2004), the panel found a sufficient link between the complainants where there was a license between the parties regarding use of the TOUGHLOVE mark.

 

The Panel has reviewed the Complaint and is satisfied that Tri-State Communities LLC, the owner of any common law rights in the CHAIN BRIDGE ESTATES mark, is a wholly owned subsidiary of REINSCH, INC., E. G.. This is sufficient to establish a sufficient nexus or link between the Complainants such that they should be treated as a single entity in this proceeding referred to in the singular, as "Complainant", though in certain instances in the decision it has been necessary to refer to the parties separately.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: SUPPLEMENTAL FILINGS

Under paragraphs 10 and 12 of the Rules and Rule 7 of Forum's Supplemental Rules the Panel, in its sole discretion, may determine the admissibility, relevance, materiality and weight of the evidence, insofar as both parties are treated with equality and are given a fair opportunity to present their case.

 

Unsolicited supplemental filings are generally discouraged. A party is usually required to prove that the supplemental filing is important and that the additional evidence and arguments were not available when it filed its initial Complaint or Response. In the present case, the Panel finds that Complainant's additional submission does add some information, by way of reply to the Response, about the nature of the relationship between the parties which it is appropriate to consider.

 

Therefore, the Panel accepts Complainant's supplemental filing and also Respondent's supplemental filing, which was filed in response to Complainant's filing.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant asserts common law rights in the CHAIN BRIDGE ESTATES mark based on longstanding and continuous use in commerce in connection with its role as the developer, marketer and manager of a luxury retirement community in Northern Virginia under the same name. Respondent's <chainbridgeestates.com> Domain Name is identical to Complainant's mark because Respondent wholly incorporates the CHAIN BRIDGE ESTATES mark and adds the ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD").

 

Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <chainbridgeestates.com> domain name. Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant's CHAIN BRIDGE ESTATES mark and is not commonly known by the Domain Name. Prior to March 11, 2026, third party Bloomsbury Development LLC d/b/a Bloomsbury Living ("Bloomsbury"), an entity managed by Respondent, held a minority interest in Complainant Tri-State Communities LLC however from that date Complainant REINSCH, INC., E. G. acquired 100% of Bloomsbury's equity thus becoming the sole owner to all rights in the Chain Bridge Estates project and sole owner of all rights to the Domain Name.

 

Respondent registered and uses the <chainbridgeestates.com> domain name in bad faith.  While Complainant currently holds limited administrative access to the website content associated with the Domain Name, Respondent, without authorization, retains exclusive control over the Domain Name, in circumstances where it has no legitimate basis to control this registration. Respondent's unauthorized and improper control of the Domain Name registration creates an immediate and ongoing risk of abuse.  

 

B. Respondent

Respondent is an individual who is a well-known land developer in Northern Virginia. In 2018, through an LLC, Respondent purchased land to develop as a luxury retirement community, now known as Chain Bridge Estates. He then submitted a proposal to the local government and received approval for development in May 2021. In order to assist with the financing of this development, Respondent formed Tri-State Communities LLC which was co-owned on a 16.7%-83% split with REINSCH, INC., E. G.. Respondent was the manager of Tri-State Communities LLC from its inception until November 2025.

 

On October 26, 2021, Respondent registered the <chainbridgeestates.com> domain name. At all times the Domain Name has been used in connection with the Chain Bridge Estates development and Complainant has administrative access to the website. The parties are now in dispute over ownership of the respective assets connected to the development, however this is a dispute that should be resolved in other fora, as it does not involve cybersquatting.

 

Complainant does not hold a registration for the CHAIN BRIDGE ESTATES mark and has not satisfied its burden to show common law rights in the CHAIN BRIDGE ESTATES mark. Complainant provides no evidence of the extent or duration of use of the mark, sales or customer data, advertising expenditures or marketing reach, media coverage or industry recognition or consumer perception, all of which are standard evidentiary requirements to show common law rights in a mark. Rather, it largely refers to Instagram, Facebook and LinkedIn activity, none of which commenced any earlier than 2024. Furthermore "CHAIN BRIDGE ESTATES" is an inherently descriptive term, with Chain Bridge referring to a well-known street in Northern Virginia.

 

Complainant has failed to show that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. Respondent registered the Domain Name in his capacity (through an associated entity) as a member of Tri-State Communities LLC and as Manager of the entity responsible for the Chain Bridge Estates project. This registration was made to promote a bona fide development project that Respondent was associated with and corresponds with the name of the project. The Domain Name resolves and at all times has resolved to a website promoting the project. There is no evidence that Respondent has used the Domain Name to mislead consumers, divert traffic, or capitalize on any alleged trademark rights. This is not a case of a third party opportunistically registering a domain name to exploit another's mark.  Rather, it is a dispute among participants in a common enterprise concerning control of an asset associated with that enterprise. To the extent Complainant now disputes Respondent's current status as a member or manager of Tri-State Communities LLC, that issue is the subject of an ongoing business and legal dispute between the parties and is not appropriately resolved under the Policy.

 

The Domain Name was not registered in bad faith, rather it was registered by Respondent in his role as Manager of Tri-State Communities LLC in connection with the development and operation of the Chain Bridges Estate project. The date of registration (October 26, 2021) was well before any trademark rights accrued in the CHAIN BRIDGE ESTATES mark. Respondent could not have registered the Domain Name to target Complainant and its rights in the CHAIN BRIDGE ESTATES mark because no such mark exists, and if such mark did exist, its existence came into effect well after the date of registration, and because Respondent registered the mark for a bona fide purpose in connection with his role as manager of Tri-State Communities LLC. Nor is the Domain Name used in bad faith; at all relevant times the Domain Name has resolved to an active website in connection with the Chain Bridge Estates development and Respondent continues to provide Complainant with administrative access to the website. Regardless of the dispute between the parties over Respondent's status in connection with Tri-State Communities LLC, Respondent continues to use the Domain Name in good faith.

 

The present case is an example of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking. Complainant is fully aware of the history between the parties and their dispute but has chosen to bring this proceeding when it:

·       knew it had no trademark rights;

·       knew it could not establish bad faith registration; and

·       knew it could not establish bad faith use.

 

Rather Complainant filed the Complaint to gain leverage in a business dispute between the parties, which is outside the scope of the UDRP as it does not involve cybersquatting. Finally, the Complaint is misleading in that it omits key information. Rather than providing the Panel with an explanation of the history of the parties, including Respondent's known role as a member and manager of Tri-State Communities LLC at the time he registered the Domain Name, the Complaint portrays Respondent as an unrelated third party. This selective presentation of the record is inconsistent with the duty of candor expected in UDRP proceedings and reinforces the conclusion that the Complaint was brought in bad faith.

 

C. Complainant's Supplemental Filing

Complainant has brought this Complaint to address Respondent's conduct in hijacking the Domain Name to gain leverage in a business dispute. Respondent had previously agreed to transfer the Domain Name to Complainant but has now chosen to challenge the valid foreclosure of his business entity and retain control of the Domain Name. Rather than transfer the Domain Name to Complainant, as he had previously offered to do, Respondent now seeks to retain possession in his personal capacity and "license" the Domain Name to Complainant, presumably to gain leverage in his threatened litigation over the foreclosure sale that removed any interest he had in Tri-State Communities LLC and the Chain Bridge Estates project.

 

Respondent re-registered the Domain Name in bad faith in March 2026. This renewal was made in bad faith. Respondent's ongoing retention and use of the Domain Name is unauthorized and directly interferes with the exclusive rights held by Complainant in the CHAIN BRIDGE ESTATES mark.

 

Respondent's allegations of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking fail as Respondent registered the Domain Name in his personal, individual capacity and Respondent's continued administrative control, despite his lack of authority, creates a real and ongoing risk to Complainant and its authority to continue to develop and promote the Chain Bridge Estates project.

 

D. Respondent's Supplemental Filing

Complainant's supplemental filing confirms that this Complaint arose in the context of a business dispute and hence it is outside the scope of the Policy, which is designed for cases of cybersquatting. Complainant now confirms that the Domain Name was registered in the context of the relationship between Respondent and Tri-State Communities LLC and the present dispute arises out of the breakdown of that relationship. This further supports a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.

 

Complainant also adopts the legal theory that the renewal of the Domain Name or the change in administrative details, amounts to a re-registration of the Domain Name supporting a finding in bad faith. This is contrary to well-settled principles see the WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.1 ("WIPO Overview 3.1") at ¶ 3.9.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant does not provide sufficient evidence of trademark rights in the CHAIN BRIDGE ESTATES mark for the purposes of satisfying Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).  Complainant has failed to establish that the Domain Name was registered in bad faith in satisfaction of Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). The Complaint was brought in bad faith in an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.

 

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 that it has rights in the CHAIN BRIDGE ESTATES mark based upon common law rights in the mark. As Complainant does not have any registered trademark rights it is necessary to consider whether Complainant holds common law rights in the CHAIN BRIDGE ESTATES mark as Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) does not require a complainant to hold a registered trademark if it can demonstrate established common law rights in the mark. See Microsoft Corporation v. Story Remix / Inofficial, FA 1734934 (Forum July 10, 2017).

 

Common law rights in a trademark can be established by evidence of secondary meaning, which is proven by showing exclusive use of the mark in commerce for a period of time, evidence of advertising and sales, recognition of the mark by customers, unsolicited media attention, or other evidence showing that the relevant consuming public has come to associate the mark with goods or services provided by a single vendor. Gourmet Depot v. DI S.A., FA 1378760 (Forum June 21, 2011) ("Relevant evidence of secondary meaning includes length and amount of sales under the mark, the nature and extent of advertising, consumer surveys and media recognition."). The WIPO Overview 3.1 at ¶ 1.3 lists a number of factors that support a claim of common law trademark rights, including "(i) the duration and nature of the use of the mark, (ii) the amount of sales under the mark and during which time period, (iii) the nature and extent of advertising using the mark—including evidence of expenditures over a relevant time period, (iv) the degree of actual public (e.g., consumer, industry such as trade and professional associations, media) recognition, and (v) consumer surveys.  The fact that a respondent is shown to have been targeting the complainant's mark (e.g., based on the manner in which the mark is used on the related website or impersonating documents or other instruments) may also support the complainant's assertion and evidence that the mark has achieved significance as a source identifier."  

 

Lack of evidence to support secondary meaning may result in failure to establish common law rights in a mark. See CW & Associates Consulting and Recruiting Inc. v. Lynda Pitchford / ITSR, FA 1619758 (Forum June 29, 2015) (finding Complainant failed to establish common law rights, stating, "Complainant has failed to provide evidence of any sales figures or advertising expenditures or any indication of the extent of use aside from what may be implied from the business name registration and placement of the name(s) on social media. There is no evidence to show that the public is aware of the claimed marks at all, much less a public association of the claimed ETS marks with the Complainant.").

 

In the present case, Complainant does not provide sufficient evidence to support its contention that it has common law rights in the CHAIN BRIDGE ESTATES mark. It states that it has used the mark since 2021 but its evidence consists of an Instagram page with 708 followers, a Facebook page with 51 followers, and the website at the Domain Name. The Response contains evidence that Complainant's social media accounts were only established in 2024. As noted in the Response, Complainant provides no evidence of the extent or duration of use, sales or customer data, advertising expenditures or marketing reach, media coverage or industry recognition or consumer perception of the CHAIN BRIDGE ESTATES mark. Based on the material provided, the Panel is not satisfied that the CHAIN BRIDGE ESTATES mark has achieved significance as a source identifier; the mere fact that an entity has a modest social media following, without more, does not establish common law rights in a mark.  Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has failed to establish common law rights in the mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

As the Panel has concluded that Complainant has not satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) because it has not established rights in the CHAIN BRIDGE ESTATES mark, the Panel declines to analyze the second element of the Policy but considers it appropriate, in light of its finding under Reverse Domain Name Hijacking, to address the third element. See Netsertive, Inc. v. Ryan Howard / Howard Technologies, Ltd., FA 1721637 (Forum Apr. 17, 2017) (finding that because the complainant must prove all three elements under the Policy, the complainant's failure to prove one of the elements makes further inquiry into the remaining elements unnecessary).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

In view of the Panel's determinations under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) and (iii), it finds that it is unnecessary consider the issue of rights or legitimate interests.  That issue, as further discussed below, is better left to a court of competent jurisdiction.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

The Panel finds that Complainant has failed to meet its burden of proof of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Tristar Products, Inc. v. Domain Administrator / Telebrands, Corp., FA 1597388 (Forum Feb. 16, 2015) ("Complainant makes conclusory allegations of bad faith but has adduced no specific evidence that warrants a holding that Respondent proceeded in bad faith at the time it registered the disputed domain name. Mere assertions of bad faith, even when made on multiple grounds, do not prove bad faith."); see also Chris Pearson v. Domain Admin / Automattic, Inc., FA 1613723 (Forum Jul. 3, 2015) (finding that the complainant could not establish the respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith because it failed to present evidence that would support such a holding).

 

Respondent gives uncontested evidence that he registered the Domain Name on October 26, 2021, in his capacity as manager of the Tri-State Communities LLC in order to promote the Chain Bridge Estates development that he was involved in on a day-to-day basis.  Complainant does not contest that Respondent was the manager of the Tri-State Communities LLC or that the Domain Name has been used for any purpose other than the operation and promotion of the Chain Bridge Estates development. In addition, Complainant does not contest that the Domain Name was registered prior to any potential mark rights arising in CHAIN BRIDGE ESTATES.¹

 

Rather, Complainant submits that Respondent's renewal, or other administrative changes to the Domain Name, amount to re-registration and that re-registration was made in bad faith. This position, as noted by Respondent, is unsupported by case law under the Policy, and Complainant, who is legally represented and cites at total of 15 UDRP cases in support of its various contentions², should well be aware of this fact.  See WIPO Overview 3.1 at ¶ 3.9 which states "Also, irrespective of registrant representations undertaken further to UDRP paragraph 2, panels have found that the mere renewal of a domain name registration by the same registrant is insufficient to support a finding of registration in bad faith."  Finally, the Panel does not accept Complainant's assertion, supported by a single e-mail that could easily be misconstrued, that the Domain Name was transferred between entities in 2024. This assertion is denied by Respondent who clearly states that "There has been no transfer of the Domain Name at any time. Complainant does not identify any change in registrant, nor could it. Instead, it points to changes in DNS settings and website hosting configuration. Those are operational adjustments affecting how the website resolves, not who owns or controls the domain name registration."  

 

Complainant's primary submission is that Respondent has used the Domain Name in bad faith as it is holding the Domain Name hostage or hijacking the Domain Name as leverage in his commercial dispute with Complainant. Complainant, in its supplemental submission, refers to and attaches various pieces of correspondence from Respondent and his lawyer regarding the Domain Name to this effect.

 

The Panel notes that even if the Panel were to accept Complainant's submissions that Respondent is holding the Domain Name hostage or hijacking, such a finding only goes to the use of the Domain Name and not the registration and hence Complainant has failed to meet its burden of proof of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii); see Platterz v. Andrew Melcher, FA 1729887 (Forum June 19, 2017) ("Whatever the merits of Complainant's arguments that Respondent is using the Domain Name in bad faith, those arguments are irrelevant, as a complainant must prove both bad faith registration and bad faith use in order to prevail.").

 

Moreover, the Panel finds that the additional material supports Respondent's submissions that the present proceeding is not a case of cybersquatting, rather it is a business dispute arising out of the ownership of a common enterprise, and hence outside the scope of the Policy; see Everingham Bros. Bait Co. v. Contigo Visual, FA 0440219 (Forum Apr. 27, 2005) ("The Panel finds that this matter is outside the scope of the Policy because it involves a business dispute between two parties.  The UDRP was implemented to address abusive cybersquatting, not contractual or legitimate business disputes."); see also Fuze Beverage, LLC v. CGEYE, Inc., FA 0844252 (Forum Jan. 8, 2007) ("The Complaint before us describes what appears to be a common-form claim of breach of contract or breach of fiduciary duty.  It is not the kind of controversy, grounded exclusively in abusive cyber-squatting, that the Policy was designed to address."); see also Patrick Shawn O'Grady v. Sam McKinley / CTI Ind., Inc., FA 1790052 (Forum June 22, 2018).

 

The Policy is designed to deal with clear cases of cybersquatting, see IAFT International LLC v. MANAGING DIRECTOR / EUTOPIAN HOLDINGS, FA 1577032 (Forum Oct. 9, 2014) ("The objectives of the Policy are limited -- designed to obviate the need for time-consuming and costly litigation in relatively clear cases of cyber-squatting -- and not intended to thwart every sort of questionable business practice imaginable. ").  See also Courtney Love v. Brooke Barnett, FA 0944826 (Forum May 14, 2007) ("the purpose of the Policy is not to resolve disputes between parties who might each have legitimate rights in a domain name.  The purpose of the Policy is to protect trademark owners from cybersquatters, that is, from people who abuse the domain name system in a very specific way, which specific way is outlined in Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.").  The Panel acknowledges that Respondent may no longer have any connection to the Chain Bridge Estates project, and the Panel wishes to make it clear that other remedies may be available to Complainant in a different forum, and that nothing in this decision should be understood as providing a definitive finding on the respective rights of the parties, beyond the narrow question determined under this proceeding. However, this is not a case of cybersquatting and the Complainant has not established the right to the remedy it seeks under the Policy.

 

REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKING

Reverse Domain Name Hijacking ("RDNH") is defined in Rule 1 as "using the Policy in bad faith to attempt to deprive a registered domain-name holder of a domain name". Rule 15(e) provides, in part:

 

"If after considering the submissions the Panel finds that the complaint was brought in bad faith, for example in an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking or was brought primarily to harass the domain-name holder, the Panel shall declare in its decision that the complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding."

 

The WIPO Overview 3.1 at ¶ 4.16, states in respect of RDNH:

 

"Panels have consistently found that the mere lack of success of a complaint is not itself sufficient for a finding of RDNH...

 

Reasons articulated by panels for finding RDNH include: (i) facts which demonstrate that the complainant knew it could not succeed as to any of the required three elements – such as the complainant's lack of relevant trademark rights, clear knowledge of respondent rights or legitimate interests, or clear knowledge of a lack of respondent bad faith (see generally section 3.8) such as registration of the disputed domain name well before the complainant acquired trademark rights, (ii) facts which demonstrate that the complainant clearly ought to have known it could not succeed under any fair interpretation of facts reasonably available prior to the filing of the complaint, including relevant facts on the website at the disputed domain name or readily available public sources such as the WhoIs database, (iii) unreasonably ignoring established Policy precedent notably as captured in this WIPO Overview – except in limited circumstances which prima facie justify advancing an alternative legal argument, (iv) the provision of false evidence, or otherwise attempting to mislead the panel, (v) the provision of intentionally incomplete material evidence – often clarified by the respondent, (vi) the complainant's failure to disclose that a case is a UDRP refiling, (vii) filing the complaint after an unsuccessful attempt to acquire the disputed domain name from the respondent without a plausible legal basis, (viii) basing a complaint on only the barest of allegations without any supporting evidence."

 

The Panel considers that, at a minimum, items (i), (iii), and (v) exist in the present proceeding. Specifically:

 

·       The Complaint is brought in circumstances where the only evidence in support of trademark rights in the CHAIN BRIDGE ESTATES mark appears to be a minor social media presence. Notwithstanding the clear precedent under the Policy as to what is required to establish common law rights, Complainant has chosen to file the Complaint which it should have known lacked evidence of trademark rights.

·       Complainant is legally represented by sophisticated counsel that have cited 15 UDRP cases in support of its various contentions. Notwithstanding this, its submissions rely on the theory that renewal of a domain name amounts to re-registration for the purposes of finding bad faith registration. This is contrary to well-settled case law reflected in the WIPO Overview 3.1 at ¶ 3.9. Complainant does not address this case law in its submissions, rather it cherry-picks a single case from 2013 without acknowledging the overwhelming precedent to the contrary.

·       While the Panel accepts that the Complaint does refer to a connection between Respondent and Tri-State Communities LLC the Complaint omits significant material relevant to this dispute. In particular it omits to mention that Respondent was the founder and former manager of Tri-State Communities LLC, that he registered the Domain Name while he was the manager, that Respondent previously (through Bloomsbury) held an ownership share in Tri-State Communities LLC, and that Complainant and Respondent are presently in an ongoing business dispute over the ownership of various assets in connection with the Chain Bridge Estates development. This evidence was only addressed by Complainant in its supplemental filing, following the Response which outlined the historical relationship between the parties. Complainant certified that the information contained in its Complaint was to the best of Complainant's knowledge complete and accurate. The Panel finds that this was not the case.

 

The Panel concludes that the Complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding.

 

DECISION

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

 

The Panel further finds that the Complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.

 

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

 

 

 

 

Alan L. Limbury and Ho-Hyun Nahm as Panelists

Nicholas J.T. Smith, as Chair

Dated: May 10, 2026