DECISION

 

GreatStreet Realty Partners, LLC v. FRANK WATSON / WebSlingers

Claim Number: FA2605002222679

 

PARTIES

Complainant is GreatStreet Realty Partners, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Christopher J. Verstrate of McGuireWoods LLP, Illinois, USA. Respondent is FRANK WATSON / WebSlingers ("Respondent"), Nevada, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <greatstreettimmiller.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.

 

Steven M. Levy as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on May 21, 2026; Forum received payment on May 21, 2026.

 

On May 22, 2026, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <greatstreettimmiller.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 May 28, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 17, 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@greatstreettimmiller.com. Also on May 28, 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 June 18, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Steven M. Levy as Panelist.

 

Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

For over two decades, Complainant has been a well-respected leader in the Chicago-based commercial real estate market, with a national reach and reputation. Complainant is made up of 13 employees, 7 of which are principals, and it is well known for being a premier brokerage firm and delivering the level of service expected from smaller teams with the experience, performance and reach of firms many times its size. At all times since at least 2003, Complainant, operating under the GreatStreet brand name (hereafter, the "GREATSTREET mark"), has partnered with both retail brands and property owners on a nationwide basis to help retail brands find and secure locations where they can extend and deepen their relationships with their customers, on the one hand, and to assist principals with curating the right mix of tenants to create the most desirable retail destinations, on the other hand. Both retail tenants and landlords alike have come to know and trust the GREATSTREET mark and the high quality of commercial real estate services Complainant has consistently offered under that mark. Complainant uses the GREATSTREET-formative domain name <greatstreetrealty.com>, which hosts its legitimate webpages. As a result of Complainant's extensive advertising and promotion of its services using the GREATSTREET mark, and through favorable industry acceptance and recognition, the relevant consuming public and trade have come to recognize and identify Complainant as the source of the top-quality commercial real estate services offered in connection with the GREATSTREET mark, in which Complainant has rights under the common law.

 

The <greatstreettimmiller.com> domain name, registered on April 16, 2026, is confusingly similar to the GREATSTREET mark as it incorporates the entirety of the mark and adds only a generic word and/or abbreviation, which are relevant to the complainant's goods or services, and the ".com" TLD.

 

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name where it is not commonly known by the domain name and its use, for a website that disparages or defames Complainant is not a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of Complainant's mark.

 

The disputed domain name was registered and is used in bad faith where Respondent knew of Complainant's mark and based on its hosting of a website that disparages or defames Complainant and seeks to profit from confusion with the mark.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

-       Complainant has not demonstrated, with evidence, that it owns common law trademark rights in the term GREATSTREET; and

-       Complainant has not shown, by a preponderance of the presented evidence, that Respondent is improperly disparaging or defaming Complainant such that it has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name or that it has registered or uses the domain name in bad faith for commercial gain.

 

DISCUSSION

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."

 

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:

 

(1)       the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and

(2)       Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

(3)       the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules.  The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.1 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) ("Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint").

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

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

 

Here, Complainant claims that it "has consistently used the GREATSTREET Mark for at least over two decades, and the mark has acquired secondary meaning such that consumers strongly associate the GREATSTREET Mark with the high-quality commercial real estate services GreatStreet provides." It continues by claiming that it has conducted "extensive advertising and promotion of its services using the GREATSTREET Mark", that it has received "favorable industry acceptance and recognition", and that "[t]he GREATSTREET Mark has therefore acquired distinctiveness, and it carries significant consumer recognition and embodies significant goodwill as a source identifier of GreatStreet and its high-quality commercial real estate services." In support, it submits into evidence what it claims to be a screenshot from its <greatstreetrealty.com> website showing the term GREATSTREET at the top and the message "GreatStreet is the premier brokerage firm at delivering the level of service expected from smaller teams with the experience, performance and reach of firms many times its size." It also submits a second screenshot that is asserted to be from its website and appears to be a profile page for one of its Principals named Tim Miller which offers a very brief list of Mr. Miller's experience, education, and personal interests. Neither of these screenshots show the address bar of the asserted website but the Panel has visited the site and confirmed that the submitted images are, in fact, from the <greatstreetrealty.com> site.

 

Nevertheless, having reviewed Complainant's very limited evidence, the Panel finds it insufficient to support the claim that the term GREATSTREET has developed secondary meaning or common law trademark rights. In prior UDRP decisions, findings of common law rights have been supported by documentary evidence such as examples of advertising, website and social media pages (including consumer comments), unsolicited news articles, sponsorships, trade show participation, awards and recognition, consumer surveys, and the like. These can show the nature and scope of a name's use as well as how it is perceived by the relevant consumer group. Here, the text of the Complaint asserts that the claimed mark has been used "for at least over two decades", that Complainant has conducted "extensive advertising and promotion" and is a "well-respected leader in the Chicago-based commercial real estate market with a national reach and reputation", and is "well known for being a premier brokerage firm". But these are unsupported allegations. In Young Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Xiaopeng Zhou, D2024-1699 (WIPO July 11, 2024), the Panel noted that "[a]n asserting party needs to establish that it is more likely than not that the claimed fact is true. An asserting party cannot meet its burden by simply making conclusory statements unsupported by evidence. To allow a party to merely make factual claims without any supporting evidence would essentially eviscerate the requirements of the Policy as both complainants and respondents could simply claim anything without any proof. For this reason, UDRP panels have generally dismissed factual allegations that are not supported by any bona fide documentary or other credible evidence." Here, the two submitted screenshots from Complainant's <greatstreetrealty.com> website simply do not provide evidence by which the Panel can accept the above-mentioned claims. In sum, the Panel is unable to conclude, based on the record before it, that the asserted mark has acquired secondary meaning and common law trademark rights.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

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

 

Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and that it registered and is using the domain name in bad faith where "[t]he Domain resolves to a website featuring the words 'Warning About Tim Miller of Great Street Realty' written prominently at the top of the landing page, as well as a large photo of one of GreatStreet's principals, Tim Miller, that appears to have been taken directly from GreatStreet's legitimate website. Respondent's website also features a large graphic at the bottom of the landing page featuring the word 'GreatStreet' in the middle of a red circle with a line struck through it." With respect to Respondent's use of the disputed domain name, the Complaint asserts that "Respondent both intends to use it to disparage or defame one of its principal, who is strongly associated with GreatStreet in the eyes of the consuming public, as well as GreatStreet itself, and profit from the confusion created by the Domain and content included on the website it hosts."

 

While Complainant asserts defamation and disparagement, the Panel finds that its evidence falls short of showing, prima facie, that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name or that it has acted in bad faith. The <greatstreettimmiller.com> website displays, at its top, the message "Welcome" followed by "!!!!Warning!!!! Warning About Tim Miller of Great Street Realty" in red letters. The remainder of the page contains what appear to be complaints about Mr. Miller including sections titled "Manipulative Behavior", "Zero Integrity", "No Moral Compass", and "Avoid Tim Miller and Great Street Realty". It concludes with the message: "This site is an opinion-based consumer warning. Everything stated herein is based on personal experience and shared for public awareness." The page does, as claimed by Complainant, display a photo of Mr. Miller that is identical to that appearing on the <greatstreetrealty.com> website as well as a copy of the term GreatStreet overlayed with a red circle and diagonal line. 

 

Policy ¶ 4(c) states that:

 

Any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate your rights or legitimate interests to the domain name for purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(ii):

 

* * *

 

(iii) you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.

 

It has been noted that "Par. 4 (c)(iii) of the Policy does not restrict the safe harbour afforded to domain names legitimately used for free expression or criticism; it applies to all domain names, whether they are identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark." UDRP Perspectives on Recent Jurisprudence, § 2.10 (updated June 2, 2025), available at https://udrpperspectives.org). Furthermore, "UDRP panels should not evaluate the nature of criticism, whether it is correct or incorrect, whether it is defamatory, or whether it is reasonable or outrageous. Rather, panels should determine if the domain name was registered and used as a mere sham or 'pretextual' rather than being a legitimate exercise of freedom of expression." Id. See also The Clash Of Trademarks And Domain Names On The Internet, at 10.02-B.5.iii.b (Gerald M. Levine, Legal Corner Press, 2025) ("The general rule is that critical speech if not pretextual and properly conveyed is protected. Alleged claims of defamation or invasion of privacy are outside the scope of the Policy.") Here, the <greatstreettimmiller.com> website contains what appears to the Panel to be criticism of one of Complainant's Principals. It also contains a statement expressly identifying itself as an opinion site. Further, Complainant vaguely claims, without explanation or evidence, that Respondent intends to "profit from the confusion created by the Domain and content included on the website it hosts" and the Panel is unable to discern any commercial activity or motivation on the site. And while the site displays a photo of Mr. Miller and the term GreatStreet, both seem to be used in furtherance of its critical message. Finally, while Complainant asserts that it has "never granted Respondent any license or other rights to use the GREATSTREET Mark", it has not disclaimed nor provided details of any history it may have with Respondent that could have resulted in such criticism. In any event, the Panel is not in a position to evaluate the legitimacy or sincerity of the site's content.

 

Based on the above, the Panel finds that Respondent appears to be making a noncommercial fair use of the disputed domain name and that Complainant has not met its burden of proof on Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(ii) or (iii).

 

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 <greatstreettimmiller.com> domain name REMAIN WITH Respondent.

 

 

 

 

Steven M. Levy, Panelist

Dated: June 19, 2026