DECISION

 

Drink LMNT, Inc. v. Alex Lee

Claim Number: FA2606002228310

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Drink LMNT, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Emma K. Morehart of Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP, Ohio, USA. Respondent is Alex Lee ("Respondent"), Texas, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <lmntwholesale.com>, registered with HOSTINGER operations, UAB.

 

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.

 

Alan L. Limbury, as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 19, 2026. Forum received payment on June 19, 2026.

 

On June 22, 2026, HOSTINGER operations, UAB confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <lmntwholesale.com> domain name is registered with HOSTINGER operations, UAB and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. HOSTINGER operations, UAB has verified that Respondent is bound by the HOSTINGER operations, UAB 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 29, 2026, Forum served the 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@lmntwholesale.com. Also on June 29, 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 Alan L. Limbury 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 has continuously and actively used the LMNT® trademark since at least as early as 2018 in connection with the marketing and sale of dietary supplement drink mixes and related products. It uses the domain name "drinklmnt.com" to market its products and services under its trademarks.

 

The domain name <lmntwholesale.com> is identical to the LMNT® trademark.

 

Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in the domain name <lmntwholesale.com>. Respondent has no relationship, affiliation, connection, endorsement or association with Complainant. Respondent has never requested or received any authorization, permission or license from Complainant to use any of Complainant's trademarks in any way. Respondent is not known by the domain name, is not using the domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services and is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name.

 

Respondent's <lmntwholesale.com> domain name is currently down, but redirected to Complainant's own website at "www.drinklmnt.com". Respondent thus intentionally impersonated Complainant and tricked consumers and others into believing Respondent and its website are affiliated with Complainant. Respondent is not an authorized distributor or reseller of Complainant's products. Nonetheless, Respondent falsely held itself out as a distributor of Complainant's products on the third-party website "www.rangeme.com" ("RangeMe") by using the domain name. RangeMe is a service that connects product distributors with resellers for various product brands.

 

Complainant does not use RangeMe to conduct business and does not authorize anyone else to do so. Respondent uses RangeMe to advertise itself as an authorized distributor of Complainant and to solicit resellers to whom Respondent can sell Complainant's products and with whom Respondent can do business. In doing so, Respondent uses the domain name in its solicitations and redirects the domain name to Complainant's own website in order to falsely represent that Respondent is authorized by and affiliated with Complainant. Indeed, Complainant received a complaint from a reseller on RangeMe who had been misled by Respondent, who sent an invoice for 13,000 units of Complainant's products to the customer from the email address <info@lmntwholesale.com>.

 

Because Respondent is impersonating Complainant, advertising products bearing Complainant's trademarks without authorization, purporting to be affiliated with Complainant, and otherwise misleading consumers as to its affiliation with Complainant, all for its own financial gain, Respondent registered and is using the domain name <lmntwholesale.com> in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has established all the elements entitling it to relief.

 

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 shown that it has rights in the mark LMNT, including USPTO Registration No. 7,196,436, registered on October 17, 2023 for inter alia dietary beverage supplements for human consumption in liquid and dry mix form for therapeutic purposes, in International Class 5.

 

It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the complainant's trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview 3.1, ¶ 1.7.

 

The Panel finds Respondent's <lmntwholesale.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to Complainant's LMNT mark, only differing by the addition of the descriptive word "wholesale", which is insufficient to distinguish the domain name from Complainant's mark. The inconsequential ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD") may be ignored under this element. See Rollerblade, Inc. v. Chris McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000).

 

Complainant has established this element.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides that any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate Respondent's rights or legitimate interests to a domain name for purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(ii):

 

(i)                      before any notice to Respondent of the dispute, the use by Respondent of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or

 

(ii)                      Respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or

 

(iii)        Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert customers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.

 

The <lmntwholesale.com> domain name was registered on February 9, 2026, more than two years after the registration of Complainant's LMNT mark. It does not currently resolve to an active website. Complainant has shown that one of its customers, an authorized reseller of Complainant's

products, contacted Complainant's Director of Wholesale about a listing on RangeMe, stating that he actively corresponded with the person behind the listing, and that he received an invoice from <info@lmntwholesale.com> for 13,000 units of Complainant's products. The person operating the email address requested payment from the customer via wire.

 

These circumstances, together with Complainant's assertions, are sufficient to constitute a prima facie showing of absence of rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name on the part of Respondent. The evidentiary burden therefore shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the <lmntwholesale.com> domain name. See JUUL Labs, Inc. v. Dryx Emerson / KMF Events LTD, FA 1849706 (Forum July 17, 2019). Respondent has made no attempt to do so.

 

The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name.

 

Complainant has established this element.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

The four illustrative circumstances set out in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy as evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) are not exclusive.

 

The circumstances set out above in relation to the second element satisfy the Panel that Respondent was fully aware of Complainant and its LMNT mark when Respondent registered the <lmntwholesale.com> domain name and that Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith for the purpose of fraudulently impersonating Complainant and phishing for money.

 

Complainant has established this element.

 

DECISION

Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <lmntwholesale.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Alan L. Limbury, Panelist

Dated: July 22, 2026