DECISION

 

Inyo, Inc. v. Domain Management / Blue Nova Inc

Claim Number: FA2604002216806

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Inyo, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Benjamin P. Harbuck of Dentons US LLP, Illinois, USA. Respondent is Domain Management / Blue Nova Inc ("Respondent"), represented by Jason Schaeffer of ESQwire.com, P.C. The Domain Name Law Firm, New Jersey, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <inyo.com>, registered with GoDaddy Online Services Cayman Islands Ltd.

 

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.

 

David L. Kreider and Steven M. Levy as Panelists and Georges Nahitchevansky as Chair.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

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

 

On April 20, 2026, GoDaddy Online Services Cayman Islands Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <inyo.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy Online Services Cayman Islands Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy Online Services Cayman Islands Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy Online Services Cayman Islands Ltd. 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 21, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 15, 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@inyo.com. Also on April 21, 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 May 15, 2026.

 

On May 28, 2026, pursuant to Respondent's request to have the dispute decided by a three-member Panel, Forum appointed David L. Kreider and Steve Levy as Panelists and Georges Nahitchevansky as Chair.

 

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, a company based in Florida, asserts that it is a leading financial services company providing high-quality financial services around the world. Complainant further asserts that as a result of its use of the INYO mark for its financial services since as early as 2015, the INYO mark "has become well-known and has accrued immense goodwill globally." Complainant notes that it owns the domain names <inyoglobal.com> and <inyopay.com> as well as social media pages that use the identifier "InyoPay."

 

Complainant owns a trademark registration in the United States for its INYO mark in connection with its payment and related services (Registration No. 7,671,597) which issued to registration on January 28, 2025 with a claim of first use in commerce of June 15, 2016 (and a claim of first use of 00-00-2015).

 

Complainant argues that the disputed domain name currently, and since 2019, has featured a web page that shows the name and logo for an entity called "Venture" and which offers the disputed domain name for lease or rent. Complainant further argues that content at the disputed domain name was quite different in 2015 and consisted of a page with a picture of sandals and click through links for various general categories. Based on this claimed difference of use, Complainant maintains that the current owner of the disputed domain name was not the owner of the disputed domain name at the time Complainant began its use of the INYO mark.

 

Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its INYO mark because it fully incorporates Complainant's INYO mark with the non-distinguishing .com extension.

 

Complainant maintains that Respondent does not have a legitimate interest in the disputed domain name as Complainant's use of the INYO mark appears to predate Respondent's registration and use of the disputed domain name.  Complainant also maintains that Respondent lacks a legitimate interest as Respondent (i) is not a licensee or subsidiary of Complainant, (ii)  is not authorized by Complainant to use the INYO mark, and (iii) has registered and used the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting or otherwise transferring the disputed domain name for Respondent's profit.

 

Lastly, Complainant asserts that Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith as Respondent has attempted to "capitalize unfairly on the goodwill of Complainant's well-known INYO Mark" by trying to lease or rent the disputed domain name for Respondent's profit. Complainant further asserts that given its widespread use and registration of the INYO mark, and Respondent's use of INYO in the disputed domain name, Respondent had actual notice of Complainant's ownership of the INYO mark prior to registering the disputed domain name. Complainant concludes by arguing that Respondent appears to have acquired the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of renting or otherwise transferring the disputed domain name to Complainant or a competitor of Complainant for Respondent's profit.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent rejects Complainant's contentions.

 

Respondent asserts that for many years it has operated a large domain name portfolio that has included many short form domain names such as the disputed domain name. Respondent further asserts that it was previously known by the name Vertical Axis, Inc. and that it changed its name to Blue Nova, Inc. on June 1, 2015.

 

Respondent explains that it acquired the disputed domain name from an entity called Domain Deluxe on or around November 1, 2005. Respondent maintains that it purchased the disputed domain name because it was inherently valuable as a short four letter combination that is brandable and did so well before Complainant acquired its claimed trademark rights in the INYO mark. Respondent notes that over the past twenty-five years it has registered as part of its domain name investing business tens of thousands of generic dictionary common word domain names as well as short two to four letter domain names.

 

Respondent asserts that historically it has hosted underdeveloped domain names, such as the disputed domain name at one point, with a domain name parking service and that the pay per click links on the parking pages have always been related to general interest topics or the dictionary key words in the given domain names.

 

Respondent notes that it changed its business model in 2015 and points out that for the last seven years the disputed domain name has been showcased with other valuable domain names on the Venture.com platform, which allows interested parties to lease the domain names for personal or business use. Respondent further asserts that that it has never approached Complainant to sell the disputed domain name and that over the past 16 years it "has logged many inquiries and offers to purchase the disputed domain name."

 

Respondent argues that there is much third party use of "inyo" and that such term is not exclusively connected to Complainant. In that regard, Respondent provides evidence that "inyo" is the name of a county in California and the name of a national forest also in California. Respondent also provides evidence that a Google search reveals many third parties that use "inyo" and that a USPTO database search reveals a number of third party registrations that include "inyo."

 

Respondent concedes that for purpose of the first element Complainant has standing by virtue of its recent trademark registration for INYO.

 

Respondent contends that it has rights and a legitimate interest in the disputed domain name as Complainant does not possess exclusive rights in "inyo" and there is no evidence of Respondent targeting Complainant. Respondent also contends that it is engaged in the legitimate business of investing in commercially valuable domain names, including short-form and generic four letter domain names such as the disputed domain name. Respondent again asserts that because there is no evidence of trademark targeting the reselling or leasing of the disputed domain name is legitimate.

 

Respondent argues that the disputed domain name was not registered in bad faith as Respondent has established clear title of continuous ownership of the disputed domain going back to 2005 which was a decade before Complainant developed trademark rights in its INYO mark. Respondent further argues that Complainant's argument that the change of use of the disputed domain name constitutes a change of ownership is misplaced given the unbroken chain of possession of the disputed domain name by Respondent.

 

Respondent also contends that there is no bad faith registration or use of the disputed domain name in view of (i) Respondent's legitimate business practice of purchasing "tens of thousands of generic, descriptive, and LLL and LLLL.com domain names," (ii) Respondent's acquisition of the disputed domain name before Complainant's first use date of its INYO mark and (iii) the lack of evidence establishing that Respondent was targeting Complainant and its INYO mark.

 

Lastly, Respondent asks the Panel to make a finding of reverse domain name hijacking given that Complainant knew or should have known, after the identity of Respondent was disclosed, that the registration of the disputed domain predated Complainant's claimed rights. Respondent also argues that even if Complainant's sophisticated counsel could not determine whether or not there had been an actual change of ownership it should have known Complainant's claim would fail given "an aged acronym domain name, clearly for investment purposes, no evidence of targeting and lack of client fame and association with the generic letters."

 

FINDINGS

Complainant holds trademark rights in the INYO mark. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's INYO mark. However, Complainant has not established that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. Finally, reverse domain name hijacking has occurred.

 

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

There is no real dispute as to the first element as Respondent essentially concedes that for purposes of the first element, which is essentially a standing requirement, Complainant has shown rights in the INYO mark. As the disputed domain name fully and solely consists of the INYO mark, plus the non-distinctive ".com" TLD, the disputed domain is identical for purposes of the Policy.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

In the light of the Panel's finding as to the third element, the Panel does not need to address the second element of rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.  However, as explained further below, the Panel notes that because (i) Respondent acquired the disputed domain name for legitimate investment purposes some ten years before Complainant acquired any rights in the INYO mark, (ii) the term "inyo" is not exclusive to Complainant, and (iii) there is an absence of evidence that Respondent targeted Complainant, it is unlikely that Respondent could establish that Respondent lacks rights or a legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Under Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, a complainant must establish the conjunctive requirement that the respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. The question of whether a disputed domain name was registered in bad faith has to be assessed at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name by the respondent.

 

As the evidence before the Panel establishes that Respondent registered the disputed domain name in 2005, in order for Complainant to prevail it needs to establish that it had rights in INYO as a trademark prior to 2005.¹  Here, Complainant admits that its first use of the INYO mark was in 2015 and thus it is obvious that Respondent could not have registered or acquired the disputed domain name in bad faith some ten years earlier when Complainant had no rights in the INYO mark. Consequently, Complainant has failed to meet its burden of showing that Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith.

 

Complainant attempts to argue that a change of ownership of the disputed domain name "appear[s] to" have occurred in 2019 based on a change of use of the disputed domain. That argument is flimsy at best as a change of use of the disputed domain name (from a domain name parking page with PPC links to a page offering to lease the disputed domain name) in and of itself does not establish a change of ownership. What is needed and glaringly missing is evidence showing that an actual ownership change more likely than not occurred.

 

But even assuming arguendo that Complainant is right and an ownership change had occurred after 2015 (when Complainant first started using the INYO mark), Complainant's complaint nevertheless fails for failing to prove bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name.

 

First, while Complainant claims that its INYO mark is well known, Complainant has failed to substantiate that claim with evidence beyond screenshots of its Facebook and X social media pages (with 3.5K and 21 followers, respectively). To be sure, conclusory statements unsupported by evidence are entitled to little weight. See, e.g., Budge Industries, LLC v. Joe Carrero, WIPO Case No. D2010-0392 ("unsupported factual allegations, even if not denied, are of no moment, and unsworn statements of counsel as to factual matters easily verifiable with documentary evidence or of which counsel has no personal knowledge are not evidence and carry little or no weight in a Policy proceeding"). It was incumbent on Complainant to prove its allegations and it failed to do so.

 

Second, Respondent provided much evidence showing that there is third party use of "inyo" and that as a result "inyo" is not exclusive to Complainant. This is telling, as the third party use of "inyo" not only further undermines Complainant's unsubstantiated assertion that its INYO mark is well-known, it underscores that Respondent, a legitimate domain name investor, likely did not register the disputed domain name based on its significance in relation to Complainant and/or its INYO mark.

 

Lastly, Complainant did not provide any evidence that Respondent was targeting Complainant either when it registered the disputed domain name or when it offered it for lease on the Venture.com website. The mere fact that Respondent offered the domain name for lease, given the lack of notoriety of Complainant's INYO mark and the widespread use of "inyo" by third parties, does not in and of itself prove targeting of Complainant as opposed to further showing that Respondent legitimately attempted to sell or lease a premium short-form domain name that it legitimately acquired some ten years before Complainant acquired any trademark rights in its INYO mark.

 

In all, the Complainant has failed to establish the third element under the policy and the Complaint must be dismissed.

 

REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKING

Paragraph 15(e) of the Rules provides that, 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 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 mere lack of success of the complaint is not, on its own, sufficient to constitute reverse domain name hijacking. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 4.16.

 

Here, Complainant, who was represented by counsel, should have known that its claim could not succeed under the Policy. Complainant brought this case claiming its mark was well-known, but provided no evidence supporting that claim. Complainant similarly provided no evidence that Respondent was in fact more likely than not targeting Complainant and registered the disputed domain name on account of its significance in relation to Complainant's INYO mark. Even if there were challenges in ascertaining the date on which Respondent acquired the domain name, such lack of evidence further underscores that there was no bad faith registration or use of the disputed domain name by Respondent and that Complainant's complaint was doomed to fail.

 

But there is more. Complainant could have readily found after receiving the registrar's disclosure concerning the disputed domain name that (i) the registrant was a domain name investor and (ii) Respondent had changed its name in 2015 in a rebrand. A simple Google search would have revealed Respondent's website at <bluenova.com> along with prior UDRP decisions in which Respondent had prevailed. Complainant could have also ascertained that Respondent had likely acquired the disputed domain name in 2005, some ten years before Complainant began using the INYO mark for its financial services and that Complainant's claimed change of ownership based on a change of use of the disputed domain name in 2019 was an unsupportable argument. Complainant, however, proceeded with its Complaint (and the same arguments).

 

The Panel thus finds that Complaint has been brought in bad faith and that Complainant has engaged in reverse domain name hijacking.

 

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 <inyo.com> domain name REMAIN WITH Respondent.

 

 

 

Georges Nahitchevansky, David L. Kreider and Steven M. Levy, Panelists

Dated: June 9, 2026