DECISION

 

SPTC, Inc., SPTC Delaware, LLC, and Sotheby's v. Rafael Gangi

Claim Number: FA2607002230732

 

PARTIES

Complainants are SPTC, Inc., SPTC Delaware, LLC, and Sotheby's ("Complainants"), represented by Robert J. English of Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C., New York, USA. Respondent is Rafael Gangi ("Respondent"), Panama.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES 

The domain names at issue are <panamasothebysrealty.com>, <panamasothebysinternationalrealty.com> and <propiedadespanamasothebysrealty.com>, (the "Domain Names") 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.

 

Alan L. Limbury, as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainants submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on July 2, 2026. Forum received payment on July 2, 2026.

 

On July 6, 2026, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the Domain Names are registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. 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 July 10, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 30, 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@panamasothebysrealty.com, postmaster@panamasothebysinternationalrealty.com, postmaster@propiedadespanamasothebysrealty.com. Also on July 10, 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 formal response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On July 31, 2026, Respondent transmitted an informal Response to Forum.

 

On July 31, 2026, pursuant to Complainants' request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Alan L. Limbury as Panelist.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainants request that the Domain Names be transferred from Respondent to Complainants.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUES: MULTIPLE COMPLAINANTS

In the instant proceedings, there are three Complainants, namely SPTC, Inc., SPTC Delaware, LLC, and Sotheby's. Paragraph 3(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") provides that "[a]ny person or entity may initiate an administrative proceeding by submitting a complaint." Forum's Supplemental Rule 1(e) defines "The Party Initiating a Complaint Concerning a domain name Registration" as a "single person or entity claiming to have rights in the domain name, or multiple persons or entities who have a sufficient nexus who can each claim to have rights to all domain names listed in the Complaint." 

 

SPTC Delaware, LLC, is a subsidiary of SPTC, Inc. The Panel accepts that the parent/subsidiary relationship between SPTC, Inc. and SPTC Delaware, LLC, and Complainants' history of use of the SOTHEBYS mark and marks that incorporate the SOTHEBYS mark constitute a sufficient nexus or link such that each may claim to have rights to the Domain Names listed in the Complaint.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainants

Sotheby's and SPTC Delaware, LLC and their predecessors, through their affiliates and licensees, have been engaged in the business of selling fine real estate properties in a range of locations, prices and distinctive styles for more than 25 years. These services are provided around the world, including in the United States. SPTC Delaware, LLC, is a subsidiary of SPTC, Inc.

 

SPTC Delaware, LLC and Sotheby's own registrations for the SOTHEBY'S, SOTHEBYS and SOTHEBY'S INTERNATIONAL REALTY marks in many countries. The SOTHEBY'S INTERNATIONAL REALTY mark is a world-famous mark.

 

When the Domain Names were first registered, the registrant, Rafael Gangi, through his wholly owned business, Global Realty Enterprises, S.A., was a franchisee of Sotheby's International Realty, Complainants' exclusive licensee. However, importantly, Section 4.13 of the Master Franchise Agreement between Mr. Gangi's company, Global Realty Enterprises, S.A., and Complainants' exclusive licensee expressly prohibits use and/or registration of any domain name that uses the SOTHEBY'S REALTY or SOTHEBY'S INTERNATIONAL REALTY marks without prior consent. Such consent was never given to Mr. Gangi or his company, and therefore Mr. Gangi and/or his company were never authorized to register or use the Domain Names by the express terms of the agreement. The Master Franchise Agreement was terminated in 2014.

 

The Domain Names are confusingly similar to Complainants' marks.

 

Respondent should be considered as having no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Names. Respondent and/or his company were never authorized to register or use the Domain Names by the express terms of the Master Franchise Agreement. As a terminated licensee, Respondent is no longer using the Domain Names in connection with any bona fide offering of goods and services or for any legitimate or fair use. The domain name <panamasothebysrealty.com> resolves to a live website using the SOTHEBY'S INTERNATIONAL REALTY mark without authorization, which is intended to trick consumers into thinking that Respondent has an ongoing relationship with Complainants. Further, the bottom of the site includes a claim that the marks and logos are used with permission when this is not the case. Respondent is falsely claiming an association between the parties, which is not a legitimate offering of services or use of the domain names.

 

The Domain Names should be considered as having been registered and used in bad faith. Respondent is well aware that he does not and never had authorization to register or use the Domain Names. Any prior authorization to use Complainants' marks pursuant to the Master Franchise Agreement did not permit use and registration of Domain Names, and Complainants or their licensee did not consent to such use or registration as required by the agreement. Any prior authorization to use Complainants' marks was expressly revoked years ago, and Respondent was duly notified of this lack of authorization. Respondent's continued use and registration of the Domain Names can only be for the purpose of misleading visitors to the belief that the Domain Names are affiliated with Complainants.

 

The <panamasothebysrealty.com> domain name resolves to a website that offers real estate services, using the actual SOTHEBY'S logo and claiming to be authorized to use the logo, while also competing with Complainants' goods and services.

 

Finally, as a terminated franchisee, Respondent has actual knowledge of Complainants' rights in their marks and is well aware that his continued use of the Domain Names is illegitimate and a violation of Complainants' trademark rights.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a formal Response in this proceeding.

 

C. Additional Submissions

Respondent's informal Response stated:

 

        "Dear Sirs,

 

This information received is a complete lack of respect and crosses legal boundaries. For over two years, I have not used that brand, I have no connection whatsoever with that brand, I do not report any activity to that brand, I am not linked to it in any way, and I have no commercial activities with that brand since the agreement was canceled.

 

I will work with my lawyers in Panama to establish all the rights that protect me against this injustice.

 

We will use all available legal means to challenge this arbitrary and illegal act and seek a court order prohibiting the use of this brand in Panamanian territory.

 

We would appreciate a formal apology.

 

Sincerely,

RG."

 

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 formal response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainants' 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

Complainants have shown that SPTC, Inc., has rights inter alia in the mark SOTHEBYS, namely USPTO Registration No. 2,428,011, registered on February 13, 2001 in International Class 35, and that it has rights in the Panama registered mark SOTHEBY'S INTERNATIONAL REALTY, Registration No. 146682 01, registered on November 9, 2005 in International Class 36.

 

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 <panamasothebysrealty.com>, <panamasothebysinternationalrealty.com> and <propiedadespanamasothebysrealty.com> Domain Names to be confusingly similar to Complainant's SOTHEBYS mark, only differing by the addition of one or more of the descriptive words "panama", "international", "realty" and "propiedades" (Spanish for "properties"), which differences are insufficient to distinguish the Domain Names from Complainants' mark. The <panamasothebysinternationalrealty.com> domain name incorporates the entirety of Complainants' SOTHEBY'S INTERNATIONAL REALTY mark and, for the same reason, is confusingly similar to that 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).

 

Complainants have 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.

 

Complainants have shown that, on July 26, 2013, Respondent, in his capacity as President of Global Realty Enterprises, entered into a Master Franchise Agreement as Master Franchisee, trading as PANAMA SOTHEBY'S INTERNATIONAL REALTY. The agreement provided in Clause 4.13:

 

"You shall not use, license or register any domain name, universal resource locator, or other like means of identifying you or your Business on the Internet that uses a mark or any image or language confusingly similar to a Mark or any abbreviation, acronym, phonetic variation or visual variation of the same without our prior consent."

 

The <panamasothebysrealty.com> and <panamasothebysinternationalrealty.com> domain names were registered on August 6, 2013, many years after the registration of Complainants' SOTHEBYS and SOTHEBY'S INTERNATIONAL REALTY marks and only a few days after Respondent entered into the Master Franchise Agreement, which prohibited their registration.

 

The <propiedadespanamasothebysrealty.com> domain name was registered on October 27, 2020, several years after the termination of that agreement. As shown in Exhibit L to the Amended Complaint, on May 22, 2026 the <panamasothebysrealty.com> domain name resolved to a Spanish language website prominently displaying Complainants' SOTHEBY'S INTERNATIONAL REALTY mark, promoting homes for sale in Southampton, New York and stating in fine print in English:

 

"Sotheby's International Realty® is a registered trademark licensed to Sotheby's International Realty Affiliates LLC. Each Office Is Independently Owned And Operated."

 

Assuming for present purposes that, prior to the termination of the Master Franchise Agreement, Respondent had a legitimate interest in the Domain Names, any such interest clearly ceased when that agreement was terminated. 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 Names on the part of Respondent. The evidentiary burden therefore shifts to Respondent to show that he does have rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names. See JUUL Labs, Inc. v. Dryx Emerson / KMF Events LTD, FA 1849706 (Forum July 17, 2019).

 

Panel is not persuaded by Respondent's informal Response that Respondent has any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names.

Complainants have established this element.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy is expressed in the conjunctive: "the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith" and Paragraph 4(b) sets out four illustrative circumstances, which, though not exclusive, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii), including:

 

(i)                      by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location.

 

The circumstances set out above in relation to the second element satisfy the Panel that Respondent was fully aware of Complainants, their SOTHEBYS and SOTHEBY'S INTERNATIONAL REALTY marks and the prohibition against registering the Domain Names in the Master Franchise Agreement when Respondent registered the Domain Names and did so in bad faith. Further that, despite the termination of the Master Franchise Agreement, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent's website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainants' marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent's website and of the services promoted on that website. This demonstrates registration and use in bad faith to attract users for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).

 

Complainants have established this element.

 

DECISION

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

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <panamasothebysrealty.com>, <panamasothebysinternationalrealty.com> and <propiedadespanamasothebysrealty.com> Domain Names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant SPTC, Inc.

 

 

 

Alan L. Limbury, Panelist

Dated: August 2, 2026.