DECISION

 

LUMLIQ2, LLC v. javierd javierd

Claim Number: FA2606002228153

 

PARTIES

Complainant is LUMLIQ2, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Gina Carrillo of Corsearch, Inc.  Respondent is javierd javierd ("Respondent"), Massachusetts, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <lumberliquidatorsfloor.com> (the "Disputed Domain Name"), registered with TuringSign Inc. d/b/a Cosmotown.

 

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 18, 2026; Forum received payment on June 18, 2026.

 

Complainant submitted an Amended Complaint following the Registrar's disclosure of the underlying registrant information.

 

On June 23, 2026, TuringSign Inc. d/b/a Cosmotown confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <lumberliquidatorsfloor.com> domain name is registered with TuringSign Inc. d/b/a Cosmotown and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. TuringSign Inc. d/b/a Cosmotown has verified that Respondent is bound by the TuringSign Inc. d/b/a Cosmotown 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 30, 2026, Forum served the Amended Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 20, 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@lumberliquidatorsfloor.com. Also on June 30, 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 July 21, 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 domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant alleges:

 

That it is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business in Lawrenceburg, Tennessee, operating as a premier specialty retailer of hard-surface flooring, including hardwood, vinyl, and laminate, under the famous brand name LUMBER LIQUIDATORS. Complainant offers hundreds of distinct product options across six primary flooring categories and operates a retail footprint of more than 200 storefronts throughout the United States. Through extensive marketing, nationwide retail locations, its presence on multiple social media platforms, and its primary web presence at <lumberliquidators.com>, Complainant has built immense goodwill, and the LUMBER LIQUIDATORS mark is widely recognized by consumers and the industry as exclusively identifying Complainant's flooring products and services.

 

That it owns United States Trademark Registration No. 2,726,656 for LUMBER LIQUIDATORS, registered on June 17, 2003, for retail and wholesale store services and distributorship services featuring hardwood flooring products, with a first use in commerce of May 1, 1993.

 

That the Disputed Domain Name <lumberliquidatorsfloor.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant's LUMBER LIQUIDATORS mark because it incorporates the mark in its entirety, deletes the space between the words of the mark, and adds the descriptive term "floor" together with the ".com" gTLD, none of which distinguishes the Disputed Domain Name from the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

That Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. Respondent is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name; per the Registrar's verification, the registrant is "javierd javierd." Complainant is not affiliated with Respondent, has not licensed the LUMBER LIQUIDATORS mark to Respondent, and has not granted Respondent any right, authorization, or permission to use Complainant's mark in a domain name or in any other capacity. The Disputed Domain Name resolves to a commercial website that prominently features Complainant's trademark, offers flooring products, and prominently uses the same yellow and black color scheme as Complainant, appearing to impersonate or pass itself off as Complainant. The website contains a checkout function through which users can enter their personal and payment information, and it nowhere accurately and prominently discloses the relationship, or absence of any relationship, between Respondent and Complainant. Such use is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).

 

That Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith. Respondent is attempting to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its own website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the content thereon, within Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), and is diverting Internet customers from Complainant's website and disrupting Complainant's business by operating a copycat website competing with Complainant in the promotion of the same or similar flooring products, within Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name on April 18, 2026, long after Complainant's first use of its mark in 1993, the registration of its mark in 2003, and the registration of Complainant's <lumberliquidators.com> domain name on June 5, 1997, and Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the mark at the time of registration, as evidenced by Respondent's use of the LUMBER LIQUIDATORS trademark in the Disputed Domain Name and on the resolving website.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant, LUMLIQ2, LLC, is a Delaware limited liability company and a specialty retailer of hard-surface flooring, including hardwood, vinyl, and laminate flooring, operating under the brand name LUMBER LIQUIDATORS through more than 200 retail storefronts throughout the United States. Complainant is the owner of United States Trademark Registration No. 2,726,656 for the mark LUMBER LIQUIDATORS (the "LUMBER LIQUIDATORS Mark"), registered on the Principal Register on June 17, 2003, for retail and wholesale store services and distributorship services featuring hardwood flooring products, reflecting a first use in commerce of May 1, 1993. The registration has been renewed and remains live and active. Complainant promotes and sells its products through its official website at <lumberliquidators.com>, a domain name registered on June 5, 1997.

 

Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name <lumberliquidatorsfloor.com> on April 18, 2026. The publicly available WHOIS record for the Disputed Domain Name discloses no registrant identity. Following Forum's verification request, the Registrar, TuringSign Inc. d/b/a Cosmotown, disclosed the underlying registrant as "javierd javierd" of Woburn, Massachusetts, USA, a name bearing no resemblance to the Disputed Domain Name. Nothing in the record suggests that Respondent is commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name or by any name incorporating LUMBER LIQUIDATORS, and Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use the LUMBER LIQUIDATORS Mark.

 

The Disputed Domain Name resolves to a commercial online storefront (the "Respondent's Website") that holds itself out as a source of Complainant's flooring products. The Respondent's Website prominently displays the LUMBER LIQUIDATORS Mark and Complainant's distinctive yellow and black logo, offers hardwood, vinyl, and laminate flooring products of the kinds sold by Complainant, and adopts the same yellow and black color scheme that Complainant uses in its own branding. The Respondent's Website incorporates a checkout function through which visitors can place orders and enter their personal and payment information. Nowhere does the Respondent's Website identify its true operator or accurately and prominently disclose that it has no relationship with Complainant.

 

The Panel finds that Respondent has used the Disputed Domain Name to impersonate Complainant and to pass the Respondent's Website off as an official LUMBER LIQUIDATORS online store, deceiving Internet users into transacting, and entrusting their personal and payment information, on the mistaken belief that they are dealing with 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 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 its rights in the LUMBER LIQUIDATORS Mark for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its registration of the mark on the Principal Register of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, U.S. Registration No. 2,726,656, registered on June 17, 2003. A nationally registered trademark prima facie satisfies the threshold requirement of trademark rights under the first element. See WIPO Overview 3.1 at ¶ 1.2.1.

 

The Disputed Domain Name <lumberliquidatorsfloor.com> incorporates the LUMBER LIQUIDATORS Mark in its entirety, the only differences being the omission of the space between the words of the mark, the appended descriptive term "floor," and the ".com" gTLD. None of these differences prevents a finding of confusing similarity. 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."); The Toronto-Dominion Bank v. George Whitehead, FA 1784412 (Forum June 11, 2018) ("[S]light differences between domain names and registered marks, such as the addition of words that describe the goods or services in connection with the mark and gTLDs, do not distinguish the domain name from the mark incorporated therein per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)."). If anything, the term "floor" describes the very goods in which Complainant deals under the LUMBER LIQUIDATORS Mark, reinforcing rather than dispelling the association with Complainant.

 

The ".com" gTLD is a technical requirement of registration and is disregarded for purposes of the confusing similarity analysis under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See WIPO Overview 3.1 at ¶ 1.11.1.

 

The Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the LUMBER LIQUIDATORS Mark and that the first element at Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) is satisfied.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name, at which point the burden shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of such rights or interests. See WIPO Overview 3.1 at ¶ 2.1.

 

Nothing in the record indicates that Respondent has been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). The Registrar's verification identifies the registrant as "javierd javierd," a name with no resemblance to the Disputed Domain Name, and Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use the LUMBER LIQUIDATORS Mark. See Braun Corp. v. Loney, FA 699652 (Forum July 7, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain names where the WHOIS information, as well as all other information in the record, gave no indication that the respondent was commonly known by the domain names, and the complainant had not authorized the respondent to register a domain name containing its registered mark).

 

Nor does Respondent's use of the Disputed Domain Name give rise to rights or legitimate interests. The Respondent's Website impersonates Complainant: it displays the LUMBER LIQUIDATORS Mark and Complainant's yellow and black logo, offers flooring products of the kinds sold by Complainant, adopts Complainant's yellow and black color scheme, and solicits orders and consumers' personal and payment information through its checkout function, all without identifying its true operator or disclaiming any connection with Complainant. Passing oneself off as the trademark owner in this fashion is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Ripple Labs Inc. v. Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund, FA 1790949 (Forum July 9, 2018) (finding the respondent did not use the domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services per Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) where the website resolving from the disputed domain name featured the complainant's mark and various photographs related to the complainant's business); 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 the complainant's official website, while offering unauthorized content under the complainant's mark, is not a bona fide offering of goods or services and is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use). The absence from the Respondent's Website of any accurate and prominent disclosure of Respondent's relationship, or lack of relationship, with Complainant further undercuts any claim of legitimate use. See YETI Coolers, LLC v. Asbille, Tony / Global Star Medical, FA 1677837 (Forum July 5, 2016) (finding no legitimate interests where the respondent's website did not present a disclaimer of its association with the complainant).

 

Complainant has made a prima facie showing that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name, and Respondent, having defaulted, has come forward with no evidence to rebut that showing. The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name and that the second element at Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) is satisfied.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name on April 18, 2026, more than two decades after Complainant's U.S. registration of the LUMBER LIQUIDATORS Mark issued in 2003, more than three decades after Complainant's first use of the mark in commerce in 1993, and nearly three decades after Complainant registered its own <lumberliquidators.com> domain name in 1997. The very composition of the Disputed Domain Name, joining the LUMBER LIQUIDATORS Mark to the term "floor," which describes Complainant's core products, together with the content of the Respondent's Website, which reproduces Complainant's mark, product categories, and distinctive yellow and black color scheme, forecloses any suggestion that Respondent was unaware of Complainant. The Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant and of its rights in the LUMBER LIQUIDATORS Mark when it registered the Disputed Domain Name, which, given the non-exclusive nature of Policy ¶ 4(b), is evidence of bad faith registration and use for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See 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).

 

Respondent's use of the Disputed Domain Name falls squarely within Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). By operating a copycat storefront that mimics Complainant's branding and holds itself out as Complainant, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent's Website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the LUMBER LIQUIDATORS Mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of that website and of the products offered on it. See Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum Dec. 27, 2017) (finding bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where "Respondent registered and uses the <lbittrex.com> domain name in bad faith by directing Internet users to a website that mimics Complainant's own website in order to confuse users into believing that Respondent is Complainant, or is otherwise affiliated or associated with Complainant."); 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).").

 

Respondent's conduct likewise disrupts Complainant's business within Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). The Respondent's Website competes with Complainant by purporting to offer the same or similar flooring products, diverting to Respondent Internet customers who are searching for Complainant. See DatingDirect.com Ltd. v. Aston, FA 593977 (Forum Dec. 28, 2005) ("Respondent is appropriating Complainant's mark to divert Complainant's customers to Respondent's competing business. The Panel finds this diversion is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)."). Moreover, the Respondent's Website solicits orders and consumers' personal and payment information from Internet users who have been deceived into believing that they are dealing with Complainant, conduct that can only damage Complainant's goodwill and its relationship with its customers, and that further evidences Respondent's bad faith.

 

The Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith and that the third element at Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) is satisfied.

 

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 <lumberliquidatorsfloor.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

David L. Kreider, Panelist

Dated: July 21, 2026