DECISION

 

We Buy Houses Arizona LLC v. James Heartquist

Claim Number: FA2604002216599

 

PARTIES

Complainant is We Buy Houses Arizona LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Cindy A. Villanueva, Esq. of Dickinson Wright PLLC, Arizona, USA. Respondent is James Heartquist ("Respondent"), Massachusetts, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <webuyhousesarizona.net>, 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.

 

Jeffrey J. Neuman as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on April 17, 2026; Forum received payment on April 17, 2026.

 

On April 17, 2026, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <webuyhousesarizona.net> 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 20, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 11, 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@webuyhousesarizona.net. Also on April 20, 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 May 12, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Jeffrey J. Neuman 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 asserts common law rights in the WE BUY HOUSES ARIZONA and WEBUYHOUSESARIZONA.COM marks arising from longstanding use in connection with real estate acquisition services in Arizona since at least 1999. Complainant contends that it has continuously used the <webuyhousesarizona.com> domain name since 2004 and has extensively promoted its services through its website, social media, signage, and related advertising materials.

Complainant asserts that through decades of use, its marks have become associated with Complainant and its business in the Arizona real estate market. Complainant further contends that it has completed more than 2,000 real estate transactions under the asserted marks and has developed substantial goodwill and consumer recognition, including an A+ Better Business Bureau ("BBB") rating and positive online reviews.

Complainant argues that Respondent's <webuyhousesarizona.net> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's marks because it incorporates the entirety of the WE BUY HOUSES ARIZONA mark and differs only by the ".net" generic top-level domain ("gTLD").

Complainant further contends that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, was never authorized to use Complainant's mark, and is using the domain name to impersonate and pass itself off as Complainant.

According to Complainant, Respondent copied Complainant's branding, logo style, website structure, purple-and-white color scheme, and overall commercial presentation in order to confuse consumers and divert Internet traffic for commercial gain. Complainant provided screenshots of both parties' websites which, according to Complainant, demonstrate that Respondent adopted a highly similar visual appearance and layout designed to imitate Complainant's website and business identity.

Complainant further alleges that Respondent prominently displayed an A+ BBB rating on Respondent's website even though Complainant asserts that it is the only "We Buy Houses Arizona" business with such BBB accreditation.

Complainant additionally contends that Respondent's website falsely creates the impression that Respondent is associated with Complainant despite there allegedly being no other registered Arizona business operating under the name "We Buy Houses Arizona."

Complainant further asserts that actual consumer confusion has occurred, including communications from individuals who mistakenly believed Respondent's business was associated with Complainant.

Finally, Complainant argues that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith by intentionally creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's marks and business for commercial gain.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

1.       The Panel finds that Complainant has established sufficient common law rights in the WE BUY HOUSES ARIZONA mark to satisfy the standing requirement of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). The Panel emphasizes that this is a close case given the highly descriptive nature of the asserted mark and that this finding is narrowly limited to the particular facts and evidentiary record presented in this proceeding, including the evidence of Respondent's apparent targeting and imitation of Complainant's business and branding. The Panel does not find that Complainant possesses broad exclusive rights in the descriptive phrase "We Buy Houses Arizona" generally, but only that Complainant has demonstrated sufficient acquired distinctiveness under the circumstances of this case for purposes of standing under the Policy.

2.       The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's mark.

3.       Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name.

4.       Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.

5.       Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name to target Complainant and create confusion with Complainant's business and asserted mark.

6.       Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

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

The Panel first considers whether Complainant has established rights in a trademark or service mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

Complainant does not rely upon a trademark registration but instead asserts common law rights in the WE BUY HOUSES ARIZONA and WEBUYHOUSESARIZONA.COM marks. To establish unregistered or common law rights for purposes of the Policy, a complainant must demonstrate that the asserted mark has become a distinctive identifier associated with the complainant's goods or services. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Overview 3.1"), section 1.3.

The WIPO Overview further provides that [r]elevant evidence demonstrating such acquired distinctiveness (also referred to as secondary meaning) includes a range of factors such as (i) the duration and nature of use of the mark, (ii) the amount of sales under the mark, (iii) the nature and extent of advertising using the mark, (iv) the degree of actual public (e.g., consumer, industry, media) recognition, and (v) consumer surveys. Id. The Overview further notes that "[i]n cases involving unregistered or common law marks that are comprised solely of descriptive terms which are not inherently distinctive, there is a greater onus on the complainant to present evidence of acquired distinctiveness/secondary meaning." Id.

The Panel recognizes that the asserted WE BUY HOUSES ARIZONA mark is highly descriptive of Complainant's services and geographic market. The phrase directly describes the business of purchasing houses in Arizona and is therefore inherently weak absent sufficient evidence of acquired distinctiveness. The Panel further notes that similar formulations have been treated by the United States Patent and Trademark Office as descriptive and subject to disclaimer requirements apart from associated design elements.

The Panel finds the decision in Family Policy Foundation v. Privacy Administrator / Anonymize, Inc., D2024-0098 (WIPO March 27, 2024), to be particularly instructive. In that case, the panel carefully analyzed the extent to which a complainant asserting rights in a descriptive or weak common law mark must demonstrate acquired distinctiveness and source-identifying significance under WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.3. The panel emphasized that conclusory allegations alone are insufficient and that panels should exercise caution before effectively granting broad exclusivity in descriptive terminology.

The Panel adopts that cautious approach here. Complainant's evidence of secondary meaning is not overwhelming. The Complaint does not include extensive evidence regarding advertising expenditures, consumer surveys, or substantial media recognition. Nevertheless, the record contains sufficient evidence to establish the requisite foundation for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), including Complainant's longstanding and continuous use of the asserted mark in connection with its Arizona real estate acquisition business, operation of the corresponding domain name for approximately two decades, evidence of consumer recognition within the relevant localized market, archived website and social media use, customer reviews, and evidence of actual consumer confusion. The Panel finds that such lengthy and continuous use in a localized Arizona real estate market is a relevant factor in assessing whether the asserted mark has acquired source-identifying significance. See Wilkes-Barre Rugby Football Club, Inc. v. ZULKIFLI ZULKIFLI, FA 2061054 (Forum Oct. 18, 2023) (recognizing common law rights based upon longstanding use in a localized market); see also Invest St. Louis LLC v. Femby Femby, CAC-UDRP-106459 (2024) (recognizing that longstanding use, Internet presence, and consumer association may support common law rights in a localized market context).

The Panel further finds that the present case is distinguishable from Family Policy Foundation. In that case, the panel ultimately concluded that the complainant had failed to demonstrate sufficient evidence that the asserted phrase had acquired source-identifying significance for purposes of the Policy.

Here, by contrast, the record contains substantial evidence that Respondent deliberately targeted Complainant specifically rather than merely using descriptive terminology. Complainant submitted screenshots of the parties' respective websites which, according to Complainant, demonstrate that Respondent used a confusingly similar commercial presentation, including similar trust-oriented branding elements, similar commercial messaging, and a similar purple-and-white color scheme while offering substantially identical services in the same geographic market under an identical business name and nearly identical domain name. The Panel also notes that Respondent's own FAQ materials appear to reference the existence of "other house-buying compan[ies] that [have] the same name," further supporting an inference that Respondent was aware of and anticipated confusion with another existing business operating under the same name in the Arizona market. Complainant also alleges that Respondent displayed BBB accreditation references associated with Complainant's business. Under WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.3, such targeting and impersonation-related conduct may further support a complainant's showing that an asserted mark has achieved source-identifying significance.

The Panel further finds significant the evidence that Respondent deliberately targeted Complainant specifically rather than merely using descriptive terminology in a generic manner. Most significantly, the Panel finds persuasive the evidence that Respondent adopted highly similar branding, website presentation, logo styling, and a similar purple-and-white color scheme. Complainant submitted screenshots of the parties' respective websites which, according to Complainant, demonstrate that Respondent adopted a highly similar visual appearance and overall commercial impression designed to imitate Complainant's business identity. Complainant also alleges that Respondent displayed BBB accreditation references associated with Complainant's business. Under WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.3, such targeting and impersonation-related conduct may further support a complainant's showing that an asserted mark has achieved source-identifying significance.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that this is a close case under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). However, under the particular facts and evidentiary record presented here, and especially in light of the evidence of Respondent's deliberate targeting and imitation of Complainant's business and branding, the Panel finds that Complainant has established sufficient common law rights and secondary meaning in the WE BUY HOUSES ARIZONA mark for purposes of standing under the Policy. The Panel emphasizes that this finding is narrowly limited to the specific facts of this proceeding and should not be interpreted as granting Complainant broad exclusive rights in the descriptive phrase "We Buy Houses Arizona" generally.

The disputed domain name <webuyhousesarizona.net> incorporates the entirety of Complainant's asserted mark and differs only by the ".net" generic top-level domain ("gTLD"), which is generally insufficient to distinguish a domain name from a mark under the Policy. See Innomed Techs., Inc. v. DRP Servs., FA 221171 (Forum Feb. 18, 2004).

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant has made a prima facie showing that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and Respondent has failed to rebut that showing.

There is no evidence that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). The WHOIS information identifies Respondent as "James Heartquist," and nothing in the record suggests that Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name.

Further, the Panel finds that Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).

Although the phrase "we buy houses arizona" is descriptive in nature, the evidence demonstrates that Respondent's use went beyond fair descriptive use and instead sought to create confusion with Complainant and its business. The record reflects that Respondent used a confusingly similar commercial presentation, including similar trust-oriented branding elements and a similar purple-and-white color scheme, in connection with services directly competing with those of Complainant in the same Arizona market.

The Panel also notes evidence of actual confusion in the record, including communications from individuals who believed Respondent's business was associated with Complainant.

Such impersonation and confusion-based conduct is inconsistent with rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See Bittrex, Inc. v. Caroline Alves Maia, FA 1796113 (Forum Aug. 6, 2018) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where respondent used the disputed domain name to pass itself off as complainant); see also Caterpillar Inc. v. ruth weinstein, FA 1770352 (Forum Mar. 7, 2018) (finding no bona fide offering or legitimate fair use where respondent used the disputed domain name to imitate complainant and create confusion regarding affiliation).

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

The Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

The evidence demonstrates that Respondent was aware of Complainant and intentionally targeted Complainant's business and asserted mark when registering and using the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name is nearly identical to Complainant's asserted mark and long-used domain name, and the associated website employed branding and presentation elements closely resembling those used by Complainant.

The Panel finds that Respondent intentionally attempted to attract Internet users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant as to source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Printingforless.com v. Reno Printing for Less, FA 1336600 (Forum Sept. 7, 2010) (finding bad faith where respondent used a confusingly similar domain name to compete with and create confusion regarding complainant's business).

The Panel further notes that Respondent's own FAQ materials appear to acknowledge the existence of another house-buying company using the same name, supporting an inference that Respondent was aware of likely marketplace confusion when using the disputed domain name.

The evidence of actual consumer confusion further supports a finding of bad faith.

The Panel acknowledges that Complainant's asserted mark is descriptive and inherently weak. However, even weak marks may receive protection under the Policy where the evidence demonstrates deliberate targeting, impersonation, or efforts to trade upon a complainant's goodwill. Here, the totality of the circumstances demonstrates that Respondent did not merely engage in descriptive use of common wording, but instead intentionally sought to capitalize upon the goodwill and consumer recognition associated with Complainant's established Arizona real estate acquisition business by using an identical business name and nearly identical domain name in the same localized market together with a confusingly similar commercial presentation.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

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 <webuyhousesarizona.net> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Jeffrey J. Neuman, Panelist

Dated: May 27, 2026