DECISION

 

SLS Group Licensing Holdco LLC v. jason eibinder

Claim Number: FA2606002224496

 

PARTIES

Complainant is SLS Group Licensing Holdco LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC, Florida, USA. Respondent is jason eibinder ("Respondent"), Florida, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <hydebeachpoolparty.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.

 

Richard Hill as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 1, 2026; Forum received payment on June 1, 2026.

 

On June 2, 2026, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <hydebeachpoolparty.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 June 5, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 25, 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@hydebeachpoolparty.com. Also on June 5, 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 26, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Richard Hill 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 states that it offers hotel, bar, and restaurant services at hotel locations across the globe. SLS Group's hotels in the United States, Latin America and the Caribbean, the Middle East, and Europe offer a luxury hotel experience with amenities like high-end restaurants, over-the-top pool parties, and a captivating social scene. Complainant, as well as its parent companies, use its HYDE and HYDE BEACH trademarks to promote its nightclub, bar, restaurant, hotel, resort, and other hospitality services through the websites at the following domains: <hydehotels.com>, <group.accor.com/en/brands-and-experiences/our-hotel-brands/hyde-hotels>, <ennismore.com/brands/lifestyle-collective/hyde>, <sbe.com/nightlife/hyde/>. Complainant has licensed the HYDE and HYDE BEACH trademarks to the SLS South Beach hotel and its Hyde Beach poolside club venue. This Hyde Beach venue has become known as one of the top poolside venues in the Miami area, hosts events with world-class music artists, and is regularly featured in the media. On August 24, 2024, "Hyde Beach at SLS South Beach" was recognized as one of the "10 Best Pool Party Spots in Miami" by Miami New Times. Hyde Beach at SLS South Beach made similar lists published by Modern Luxury on May 30, 2024, and Time Out Miami on June 21, 2024 (ranking Hyde Beach as number one). The Google page for the Hyde Beach venue has a 4.3 star rating over more than 800 Google reviews. In March 2025, SLS South Beach hotel and its Hyde Beach poolside club venue collaborated with Wynn Nightlife for a five-day, world-class electronic music event. Complainant asserts rights in the mark HYDE through its registration in the United States in 2016; it also asserts common law rights in the mark HYDE BEACH.

 

Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its HYDE mark as it incorporates the mark in its entirety, merely adding the generic/descriptive terms "beach pool party", together with the generic top-level domain ("gTLD") ".com". Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.

 

According to Complainant, Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant's mark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the resolving website offers services that compete with those of Complainant, displaying Complainant's marks and referring to Complainant. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.

 

Prior to June 2025, the disputed domain name was utilized by promoters who were previously associated with Complainant. By no later than June 2025, the Complainant terminated its relationship with these promoters. According to the WHOIS lookup for the disputed domain name, the registration information was updated on July 7, 2025. It is believed that as of that date, the disputed domain name was transferred to another entity who has never had any relationship with Complainant or any authorization from Complainant to use the HYDE and HYDE BEACH marks. Subsequent to June 2025, the resolving website displays Complainant's marks without authorization and, as stated above, offers competing services.

 

Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name to offer competing services. Respondent used a privacy service. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant owns the mark HYDE and uses it to provide hotel, bar, and restaurant services, including in particular beach pool parties.

 

Complainant's rights in its mark date back to 2016.

 

The disputed domain name was registered in 2022.

 

Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.

 

The resolving website displays Complainant's marks, refer to Complainant, and offers services that compete with those of Complainant.

 

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 disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's HYDE mark in its entirety, merely adding the generic/descriptive terms "beach pool party", together with the ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD"). Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), such changes are generally insufficient in differentiating a disputed domain name from the mark it incorporates. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognisable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element."); see also Vanguard Group Inc. v. Proven Fin. Solutions, FA 572937 (Forum Nov. 18, 2005) (holding that the addition of both the word "advisors" and the gTLD ".com" did not sufficiently alter the disputed domain name to negate a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). Therefore the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its mark. Under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), the Panel may look to the WHOIS information to determine whether Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Fred Wallace, FA 1626022 (Forum July 27, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <chevron-europe.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), as the WHOIS information named "Fred Wallace" as registrant of the disputed domain name). The WHOIS information on record lists "jason eibinder" as the registrant name. Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name.

 

Complainant presents evidence showing that the resolving website offers services that compete with those of Complainant. The use of a domain name to sell products or services that compete directly with a complainant's business does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See General Motors LLC v. MIKE LEE, FA 1659965 (Forum Mar. 10, 2016) (finding that "use of a domain to sell products and/or services that compete directly with a complainant's business does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)."); see also Glaxo Group Ltd. v. WWW Zban, FA 203164 (Forum Dec. 1, 2003) (finding that the respondent was not using the domain name within the parameters of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii) because the respondent used the domain name to take advantage of the complainant's mark by diverting Internet users to a competing commercial site). As such, the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). And the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant's contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant's mark. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent's failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain name.

 

Indeed, as already noted, the resolving website offers services that compete with those of Complainant. The use of a disputed domain name to offer products or services similar to a complainant's evinces an intent to attract internet users for commercial gain per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Xylem Inc. and Xylem IP Holdings LLC v. YinSi BaoHu YiKaiQi, FA 1612750 (Forum May 13, 2015) ("The Panel agrees that Respondent's use of the website to display products similar to Complainant's, imputes intent to attract Internet users for commercial gain, and finds bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)."); see also Citadel LLC and its related entity, KCG IP Holdings, LLC v. Joel Lespinasse / Radius Group, FA 1579141 (Forum Oct. 15, 2014) ("Here, the Panel finds evidence of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) bad faith as Respondent has used the confusingly similar domain name to promote its own financial management and consulting services in competition with Complainant."). As such, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).

 

Further, Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant's mark: the resolving website displays Complainant's marks and refers to Complainant. While constructive notice is insufficient to demonstrate bad faith, actual knowledge of a complainant's rights in a mark prior to registration may be evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Custom Modular Direct LLC v. Custom Modular Homes Inc., FA 1140580 (Forum Apr. 8, 2008) ("There is no place for constructive notice under the Policy."); see also Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014) ("The Panel notes that although the UDRP does not recognize 'constructive notice' as sufficient grounds for finding Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith, the Panel here finds actual knowledge through the name used for the domain and the use made of it."); see also Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name). The Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the mark prior to Respondent's registration of the disputed domain name and that this constitutes 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 <hydebeachpoolparty.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Richard Hill, Panelist

Dated: June 26, 2026