DECISION

 

Valley Strong Credit Union v. Michael Roper

Claim Number: FA2606002224892

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Valley Strong Credit Union ("Complainant"), represented by Brandon Kleinschmidt, California, USA. Respondent is Michael Roper ("Respondent"), North Carolina, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <solanofirst.com> (the "Disputed Domain Name"), registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.

 

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

 

David L. Kreider, Chartered Arbitrator (UK), as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

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

 

Complainant submitted an Amended Complaint on June 9, 2026, following the Registrar's disclosure of the underlying registrant information.

 

On June 3, 2026, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <solanofirst.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 9, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 29, 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@solanofirst.com. Also on June 9, 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 30, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed David L. Kreider 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 Disputed Domain Name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant alleges:

 

That it is a California-based credit union and that, effective July 1, 2021, Solano First Federal Credit Union merged into Complainant pursuant to a plan of merger approved by the members of Solano First Federal Credit Union and by the National Credit Union Administration. By operation of that merger, all assets, liabilities, contracts, and legal interests of Solano First Federal Credit Union, including the goodwill and rights in the SOLANO FIRST FEDERAL CREDIT UNION and SOLANO FIRST names and marks (the "SOLANO FIRST Mark"), vested in and became the responsibility of Complainant as the continuing credit union.

 

That Complainant does not rely on a trademark registration but, as successor in interest to Solano First Federal Credit Union, holds common law rights in the SOLANO FIRST Mark, which Solano First Federal Credit Union used continuously and prominently in connection with credit-union and financial services, including at the domain name <solanofirst.com>, and which thereby acquired goodwill and public recognition as a means by which the public identified the source of those services.

 

That the Disputed Domain Name <solanofirst.com> is identical or confusingly similar to the SOLANO FIRST Mark because it consists of the SOLANO FIRST designation in its entirety and merely adds the generic top-level domain ".com," which does not distinguish the Disputed Domain Name from the mark.

 

That Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. Respondent is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name, is not affiliated with Complainant, and has not been licensed or otherwise authorized to use the SOLANO FIRST Mark or any domain name incorporating it. The Disputed Domain Name was registered on October 8, 2022, after Complainant assumed legal ownership of the assets of Solano First Federal Credit Union.

 

That Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name. The website resolving from the Disputed Domain Name presents pages that are a clone of the former website of Solano First Federal Credit Union, displaying that credit union's name, contact information, address, and banking products, as a result of which Complainant's members and the general public may be misled into believing that Solano First Federal Credit Union remains in operation.

 

That Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith. Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name after Complainant acquired ownership of the assets and goodwill of Solano First Federal Credit Union; Respondent has used a privacy registration service to obscure its identity; Complainant's attempts to contact the domain holder through the Registrar's "Contact Domain Holder" facility on March 17, 2026, March 24, 2026, and June 1, 2026 went unanswered; and Respondent has directed the Disputed Domain Name to a website that purports to represent Solano First Federal Credit Union, which Complainant does not control.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The Panel finds the following:

 

Effective July 1, 2021, Solano First Federal Credit Union merged into Complainant, and by operation of that merger all assets, liabilities, contracts, and legal interests of Solano First Federal Credit Union, including the goodwill and common law rights in the SOLANO FIRST Mark, vested in Complainant as the continuing credit union. Solano First Federal Credit Union used the SOLANO FIRST Mark continuously and prominently in connection with credit-union and financial services, including at the domain name <solanofirst.com>, and the mark thereby acquired a secondary meaning identifying the source of those services. Complainant has thereby established common law rights in the SOLANO FIRST Mark.

 

Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name <solanofirst.com> on October 8, 2022, after the merger and after Complainant succeeded to the rights and goodwill in the SOLANO FIRST Mark. The domain name <solanofirst.com> was formerly used by Solano First Federal Credit Union itself.

 

The Registrar-supplied WHOIS information identifies Respondent as "Michael Roper." There is no evidence that Respondent is commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name or by the SOLANO FIRST or SOLANO FIRST FEDERAL CREDIT UNION names, and Respondent is neither affiliated with Complainant nor licensed or authorized to use the SOLANO FIRST Mark.

 

The Disputed Domain Name resolves to a website (the "Respondent's Website") that reproduces the content of the former website of Solano First Federal Credit Union, displaying that credit union's name, contact information, address, and banking products, together with an ABA routing number that is an asset of Complainant. Respondent's Website conveys the false impression, without qualification, that Solano First Federal Credit Union remains in operation as an independent institution. This use is likely to confuse and mislead Complainant's members and the public as to the source of, or Complainant's affiliation with, Respondent's Website and the services it purports to offer.

 

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 Overview 3.1 at paragraph 4.3; eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003).

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The Policy does not require a complainant to own a registered trademark; common law rights in a mark are sufficient to satisfy Policy paragraph 4(a)(i), provided the complainant demonstrates that the mark has become a distinctive identifier associated with the complainant or its goods or services. See WIPO Overview 3.1 at paragraph 1.3.

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has established common law rights in the SOLANO FIRST Mark. Solano First Federal Credit Union used the SOLANO FIRST name and mark continuously and prominently in connection with its credit-union and financial services, including at the domain name <solanofirst.com>, and the mark thereby acquired a secondary meaning that identified Solano First Federal Credit Union as the source of those services. By operation of the July 1, 2021 merger, those common law rights, together with all of the goodwill of Solano First Federal Credit Union, vested in Complainant as the continuing credit union and successor in interest.

 

The Disputed Domain Name <solanofirst.com> consists of the SOLANO FIRST designation in its entirety, adding only the generic top-level domain ".com." The generic top-level domain is disregarded when assessing confusing similarity under Policy paragraph 4(a)(i), as it is a technical requirement of registration. See WIPO Overview 3.1 at paragraph 1.11.1.

 

The Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's SOLANO FIRST Mark under Policy paragraph 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name, at which point the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests.

 

The WHOIS information identifies Respondent as "Michael Roper," and there is no evidence that Respondent has been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name under Policy paragraph 4(c)(ii). Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and is not licensed or authorized to use the SOLANO FIRST Mark. See Beacon Capital Partners, LLC v. C/O Private Ranger Limited / Registrant of beaconcapitals.com, FA 2075845 (Forum Feb. 1, 2024) (where the WHOIS information identifies a registrant whose name does not correspond to the disputed domain name and the complainant has not authorized the use of its mark, the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name under Policy paragraph 4(c)(ii)).

 

Respondent's Website reproduces the content of the former website of Solano First Federal Credit Union and holds itself out as that credit union, displaying its name, contact information, address, and banking products, with no indication that the site is not that of Complainant or its predecessor. Respondent is thereby passing itself off as Complainant's predecessor and purporting to offer its services. Using a domain name to mimic the look and feel of a complainant's website and to pass off in this manner is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy paragraph 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy paragraph 4(c)(iii). See Netflix, Inc. v. Irpan Panjul / 3corp.inc, FA 1741976 (Forum Aug. 22, 2017) (use of a disputed domain name to mimic the look and feel of a complainant's official website is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use).

 

Respondent has not submitted a Response or provided any evidence of rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name under Policy paragraph 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name on October 8, 2022, after the merger by which Complainant succeeded to the rights and goodwill in the SOLANO FIRST Mark, and the Disputed Domain Name was formerly used by Solano First Federal Credit Union itself. Respondent's Website reproduces that credit union's name, contact information, address, banking products, and an ABA routing number belonging to Complainant, and holds itself out as the credit union. On this record, the Panel finds that Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name with actual knowledge of the SOLANO FIRST Mark and of Complainant's rights.

 

By using the Disputed Domain Name to pass itself off as Complainant's predecessor and to convey the false impression that Solano First Federal Credit Union remains in operation, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to Respondent's Website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the SOLANO FIRST Mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website and the services it purports to offer, and has acted to disrupt Complainant's business. Respondent's conduct constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy paragraphs 4(b)(iii) and 4(b)(iv). See Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum Dec. 27, 2017) (bad faith under Policy paragraph 4(b)(iv) where the respondent used the disputed domain name to direct Internet users to a website that mimics the complainant's own website so as to confuse users into believing that the respondent is the complainant or is otherwise affiliated or associated with the complainant).

 

The Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith under Policy paragraph 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 <solanofirst.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

 

David L. Kreider, Panelist

Dated: June 30, 2026