DECISION

 

SCIGV, Inc. v. Pantojanefr Brant

Claim Number: FA2606002224734

 

PARTIES

Complainant is SCIGV, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Mark L. Seigel, Georgia, USA. Respondent is Pantojanefr Brant ("Respondent"), Nevada, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <globalviewshome.com>, registered with Gname.com Pte. 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.

 

Héctor Ariel Manoff as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 2, 2026; Forum received payment on June 2, 2026.

 

On June 2, 2026, Gname.com Pte. Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <globalviewshome.com> domain name is registered with Gname.com Pte. Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Gname.com Pte. Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Gname.com Pte. 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 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@globalviewshome.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 Héctor Ariel Manoff 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

1- Complainant, SCIGV, Inc., owns U.S. trademark registration No. 3629339 for the mark GLOBAL VIEWS for a wide variety of furniture and home furnishings, and U.S. trademark registration No. 3650317 for beds and headboards.

2- Complainant advertises its furniture and home furnishings at the website https://www.globalviews.surya.com.

3- The disputed domain name, <globalviewshome.com>, contains the entirety of Complainant's Mark and adds the descriptive term "home".

4- The website at www.globalviewshome offers furniture and home furnishings for sale, under the mark GLOBAL VIEWS.

5- Respondent has neither rights nor legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

6- Respondent is using the domain name to intentionally attract users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship or affiliation.

7- Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant, SCIGV, Inc., owns trademark registrations for GLOBAL VIEWS for many years, which are used in connection with furniture and home furnishings and advertised on https://www.globalviews.surya.com. Respondent registered and is using the domain name <globalviewshome.com> in bad faith.

 

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 finds that the disputed domain name, <globalviewshome.com>, is nearly identical and confusingly similar to Complainant's GLOBAL VIEWS trademark (Exhibit A).

 

The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's GLOBAL VIEWS mark and adds the generic term "home" (which is related to the goods sold by Complainant with the trademark GLOBAL VIEWS) along with the generic top-level domain ("gTLD") ".COM".

 

The Panel finds that the term GLOBAL VIEWS is a fanciful and arbitrary term in relation to Complainant's activities and that it is clear that Respondent knew it belonged to Complainant. Respondent has just added a generic word, which is related to Complainant's activities. The Panel finds that the domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark since the additional elements are not sufficiently distinctive. See Microsoft Corporation v. Thong Tran Thanh, FA 1653187 (Forum Jan. 21, 2016) (determining that confusing similarity exists where [a disputed domain name] contains Complainant's entire mark and differs only by the addition of a generic or descriptive phrase and top-level domain, the differences between the domain name and its contained trademark are insufficient to differentiate one from the other for the purposes of the Policy); see also, Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognizable 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.").

 

The Panel finds that the domain name is almost identical and confusingly similar to Complainant mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant argues Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and Complainant has never licensed rights to or authorized Respondent to use the GLOBAL VIEWS mark.

 

The Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the <globalviewshome.com> domain name. Under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), relevant WHOIS information, among other evidence, may demonstrate that Respondent is not 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).

 

In this case, according to the information provided, Respondent is mentioned as Pantojanefr Brant. Thus, the Panel concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

Further, there is no evidence to suggest Respondent was authorized, licensed rights to, or otherwise permitted to use the GLOBAL VIEWS mark.

 

Respondent has neither refuted nor submitted evidence on the contrary.

 

According to the evidence submitted (Exhibit D), Respondent's use of the <globalviewshome.com> domain is not a bona fide offering of goods. The website includes Complainant's trademark and products.

 

This Panel finds that the purpose of the disputed domain name is to try to show that the disputed domain name is associated with Complainant and that Respondent is not using the domain name in connection with a legitimate noncommercial use or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).

 

Therefore, the Panel agrees that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name does not have legitimate interest under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

The domain name registration by Respondent was done after Complainant's domain name and trademarks had been registered and used more than 10 years ago (Exhibit A).

 

The domain name was registered on October 2025 (Exhibit C).

 

Taking it into account, as well as the use on Respondent's website (Exhibit D), it is clear for this Panel that the registration of the domain name was done with Complainant's marks in mind. Registration was done in bad faith.

 

As regards the use, since the disputed domain name <globalviewshome.com> includes Complainant's trademark along with a generic term (which is also related to Complainant's activities) and the site shows Complainant's trademark with the same type of letter by creating association with it (Exhibit D), the Panel finds that the use of the domain name was done in bad faith.

 

Respondent has not challenged any of the cited grounds or submitted evidence on the contrary.

 

The Panel concludes that Respondent has the intention of creating an association with Complainant and its products.

 

This Panel concludes that Respondent has registered the domain name with the intent to attract and divert Internet users to the corresponding websites for its own benefit. See Carey Int'l, Inc. v. Kogan, FA 486191 (Forum July 29, 2005) ("[T]he Panel finds that Respondent is capitalizing on the confusing similarity of its domain names to benefit from the valuable goodwill that Complainant has established in its marks. Consequently, it is found that Respondent registered and used the domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)."). 

 

The Panel determines that Respondent registered and used 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 <globalviewshome.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Héctor Ariel Manoff, Panelist

Dated: July 7, 2026