DECISION

 

OTF Franchisor, LLC v. Domain Administrator / Fundacion Privacy Services LTD

Claim Number: FA2606002224890

 

PARTIES

Complainant is OTF Franchisor, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Alison W. Jarzyna of Larkin Hoffman Daly & Lindgren Ltd., Minnesota, USA. Respondent is Domain Administrator / Fundacion Privacy Services LTD ("Respondent"), Panama.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <orangtheory.com>, registered with Media Elite Holdings Limited, S.A.

 

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.

 

Nick J. Gardner 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, Media Elite Holdings Limited, S.A. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <orangtheory.com> domain name is registered with Media Elite Holdings Limited, S.A. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Media Elite Holdings Limited, S.A. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Media Elite Holdings Limited, S.A. 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 4, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 24, 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@orangtheory.com. Also on June 4, 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 25, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Nick J. Gardner 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 says it and its predecessors in interest, have continuously used the service marks ORANGETHEORY, ORANGETHEORY FITNESS, ORANGE THEORY, and ORANGETHEORY and design (collectively, the "OTF Marks") in connection with health and fitness club services since at least as early as 2010. Complainant operates over 1,500 Orangetheory Fitness studios serving over 1,000,000 members in 24 countries worldwide.

Complainant owns registrations for the OTF Marks in 46 countries, including United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") Reg. No. 4,037,579 (registered Oct. 11, 2011), Reg. No. 4,091,462 (registered Jan. 24, 2012), Reg. No. 4,746,587 (registered June 2, 2015), and Reg. No. 5,145,461 (registered Feb. 21, 2017), as well as Panama Directorate General of the Industrial Property Registry ("DIGERPI") Reg. No. 231992-01 (registered May 15, 2014). Complainant and its predecessors registered the domain name <orangetheory.com> in 2008 and have operated its commercial website at that address since at least 2010.

Respondent registered the disputed domain name <orangtheory.com> on August 9, 2018 — over four years after the issuance of Complainant's first U.S. trademark registration and approximately eight years after Complainant's first use in commerce of the OTF Marks. The disputed domain name merely omits the letter "e" from the ORANGE portion of Complainant's ORANGETHEORY mark and adds the ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD"), rendering it confusingly similar to the OTF Marks.

Complainant contends that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, is not authorized or licensed to use the OTF Marks, and is not making any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name currently resolves to Complainant's own genuine website, and Complainant contends that merely redirecting to Complainant's own website does not confer rights or legitimate interests on Respondent.

 

Complainant further contends that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith because: (i) Respondent uses the disputed domain name to redirect to Complainant's own website; (ii) Respondent has offered the disputed domain name for sale for $1,299.00, an amount in excess of Respondent's likely out-of-pocket registration costs; and (iii) given the notoriety of the OTF Marks and Respondent's redirection of the disputed domain name to Complainant's own website, Respondent must have had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the OTF Marks at the time of registration. Complainant also notes that Respondent, Fundacion Privacy Services LTD, was found to have registered and used a different domain name in bad faith in Ubiquiti Inc. v. Domain Administrator / Fundacion Privacy Services LTD, FA 2211887 (Forum Apr. 19, 2026).

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

 

FINDINGS

The Panel finds the following facts established by the evidence in the record:

1. Complainant owns valid and subsisting trademark registrations for the OTF Marks in connection with health and fitness club services, including USPTO Reg. No. 4,091,462 (registered Jan. 24, 2012) for the words ORANGE THEORY, among others, and Panama DIGERPI Reg. No. 231992-01 (registered May 15, 2014) for a stylised form of the words ORANGE THEORY.

2. Complainant has used the OTF Marks continuously in commerce since at least 2010 in connection with the provision of health and fitness club services, and its predecessors in interest registered the domain name <orangetheory.com> in 2008.

3. Complainant operates a commercial website at <www.orangetheory.com>, at which it has promoted the OTF Marks since at least 2010.

4. Respondent registered the disputed domain name <orangtheory.com> on August 9, 2018, a typosquatted variation of Complainant's ORANGETHEORY mark, omitting the letter "e."

5. The disputed domain name resolves to Complainant's own genuine website.

6. Respondent has offered the disputed domain name for sale for $1,299.00.

7. Respondent has not been authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted by Complainant to register or use the disputed domain name or any domain name incorporating the OTF Marks.

8. Respondent failed to respond to the Complaint, offering no explanation for its registration or use of the disputed domain name.

 

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 has established rights in the OTF Marks through its extensive use of those marks since at least 2010 and its trademark registrations, including USPTO Reg. No. 4,091,462. The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied the threshold requirement of demonstrating rights in the OTF Marks for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy – see Farmlane Brands, LLC v. Helene Isbell Biggane, FA 1996757 (Forum July 12, 2022) "Ownership of a trademark registration is generally sufficient evidence that a complainant has the requisite rights in a mark for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy." 

 

The disputed domain name omits only the letter "e" from the ORANGE portion of Complainant's ORANGETHEORY mark and adds the ".com" gTLD. This is a classic typosquatting scenario, where the visual similarity creates a confusingly similar domain name. See Nutramax Laboratories, Inc. v. GRUPO SA Ltd Co / Grupo S.A. Ltd. Co., FA 1985605 (Forum Mar. 30, 2022) ("Many panels have held that minor mis-spellings of complainants' marks constitute typosquatting and support a finding of confusing similarity."). Further a change of a single letter does not distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant's mark. See Victoria's Secret v. Zuccarini, FA 95762 (Forum Nov. 18, 2000) (finding that by misspelling words and adding letters to words, respondent does not create a distinct mark but nevertheless renders the domain name confusingly similar to complainant's marks); Intelius, Inc. v. Hyn, FA 703175 (Forum July 5, 2006) (finding <intellus.com> confusingly similar to complainant's INTELIUS mark because the domain name differed by one letter and was visually similar).

 

The addition of the generic top-level domain ".com" is a technical requirement of domain name registration and does not affect the confusing similarity analysis. See Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association v. Shi Lei aka Shilei, FA 1784643 (Forum June 18, 2018) ("A TLD (whether a gTLD, sTLD or ccTLD) is disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax requires TLDs.").

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has established Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; the burden then shifts to Respondent to show that it does have such rights or legitimate interests.

 

The WHOIS record identifies Respondent only as "Domain Administrator" of "Fundacion Privacy Services LTD," which bears no resemblance to the disputed domain name, and there is no evidence that Respondent has ever been commonly known by the disputed domain name. Complainant has not authorized or licensed Respondent to use the OTF Marks in any manner.

 

The disputed domain name resolves to Complainant's own genuine website. Using a disputed domain name merely to redirect to a complainant's own website does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See International Business Machines Corporation v. Admin IBM, FA 2165274 (Forum Aug. 19, 2025) (respondent's use of ibm-tech.us to redirect to IBM's own website did not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services).

 

Complainant has thereby established a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and Respondent, having failed to file a Response, has not rebutted that showing. The Panel may draw appropriate adverse inferences from Respondent's default. See Rule 14(b).

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has established Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

The Panel finds Respondent's conduct falls within Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) and, additionally and independently, Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(i) and 4(b)(ii), for the reasons set out below.

 

First, Respondent uses the disputed domain name — which is confusingly similar to Complainant's OTF Marks — to redirect Internet users to Complainant's own website. Panels have found that such redirection is itself evidence of bad faith registration and use, whether because it creates an implied ongoing threat that the domain name could later be repurposed for a nefarious use, or because it has no plausible legitimate explanation. See Verizon Trademark Servs. LLC v. Boyiko, FA 1382148 (Forum May 12, 2011) (registration and use of a confusingly similar disputed domain name that resolves to complainant's own site is still registration and use in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)). See also McKinsey Holdings, Inc. v. Mgr. Jakub Bystron, FA 1330650 (Forum July 23, 2010) (finding that Respondent's use of the <mckinsey.us> domain name to resolve to Complainant's official website was further evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)); see also MySpace, Inc. v. Mari Gomez, D2007-1231 (WIPO Oct. 17, 2007) (finding bad faith when "Respondent has been using the disputed domain name to link to the Complainant's own website. Inherent in that conduct is the risk that the Respondent may at any time cause Internet traffic to re-direct to a website that is not that of, or associated with, the Complainant.").

 

Second, Respondent has offered the disputed domain name for sale for $1,299.00, an amount well in excess of any likely out-of-pocket costs of registration. A general offer to sell a disputed domain name for an amount in excess of out-of-pocket registration costs is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i). See Arris Enterprises LLC v. Milen Radumilo, FA 2072536 (Forum Dec. 28, 2023).

 

Third, given the notoriety of the OTF Marks — evidenced by Complainant's trademark registrations in 46 countries and its operation of over 1,500 studios serving over 1,000,000 members in 24 countries — together with Respondent's redirection of the disputed domain name to Complainant's own website, the Panel finds it inconceivable that Respondent registered the disputed domain name without actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the OTF Marks. The registration of a domain name obviously connected with a well-known trademark by someone with no connection to the trademark owner suggests bad faith. See Household Int'l, Inc. v. Cyntom Enters., FA 096784 (Forum Nov. 7, 2000) (inferring that respondent registered a well-known business name with hopes of attracting complainant's customers).

 

The Panel does not need to address Complainant's allegation that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of bad faith registrations. The Panel is unsure that the evidence necessarily establishes that is the case but it does not matter given the Panel's reasoning above.

 

The totality of the circumstances compels the conclusion that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.

The Panel finds that Complainant has established 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 <orangtheory.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Nick J. Gardner, Panelist

Dated: July 6, 2026