DECISION

 

Acrisure, LLC v. Marvin Anderson

Claim Number: FA2607002230751

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Acrisure, LLC ("Complainant"), United States, represented by Leonard Searcy of Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, United States. Respondent is Marvin Anderson ("Respondent"), United States.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <aurismheart.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.

 

David E. Sorkin as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

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

 

On July 6, 2026, HOSTINGER operations, UAB confirmed by email to Forum that the <aurismheart.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 July 8, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 28, 2026 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@aurismheart.com. Also on July 8, 2026, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email 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 29, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed David E. Sorkin 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 is a financial technology and insurance company headquartered in Grand Rapids, Michigan. On October 1, 2025, Complainant acquired Heartland Payroll Solutions, a leading payroll and human capital management company with an estimated $250 million to $300 million in annual revenue, for $1.1 billion. Complainant rebranded the Heartland business as Auris, transitioning Heartland's 50,000 clients and other clients of Complainant to <auris.io> for payroll, HR, and technology solutions. Complainant states that it has extensively advertised its payroll, HR, and technology goods and services under the AURIS mark. Complainant asserts common law trademark rights in AURIS and has a pending application for a corresponding United States trademark registration.

 

The disputed domain name <aurismheart.com> was registered in June 2026. The name is registered to Respondent, although Respondent's identity is redacted from the public domain name registration record. The disputed domain name does not resolve to a website. Until recently it was used for a website containing placeholder "lorem ipsum" text and blog entries relating to Heartland Payroll services. Complainant alleges, with supporting evidence, that this website directed users to a separate site that spoofed Complainant's website and prompted users for login credentials. Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name and is not authorized to use Complainant's mark.

 

Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <aurismheart.com> is confusingly similar to its AURIS mark; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

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 of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions, § 4.3 (version 3.1, 2026), available at https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview; UDRP Perspectives on Recent Jurisprudence, §§ 0.2, 0.8 (updated June 2, 2025), available at https://udrpperspectives.org/; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (dismissing complaint where complainant failed to "produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations").

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

To prevail under the Policy, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights. A pending trademark application does not establish the rights required for paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. See Valeris, Inc. v. Mayra Guerra, FA 2205224 (Forum Mar. 20, 2026); WIPO Overview, supra, § 1.1.4. Where a claim relies upon common law rights, Complainant must present evidence that the mark has acquired secondary meaning — i.e., that it has become a distinctive identifier associated with Complainant or its goods or services. See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. chao du, FA 2167371 (Forum July 31, 2025); WIPO Overview, supra, § 1.3; UDRP Perspectives, supra, §§ 1.1, 1.2, 1.3.

 

Complainant relies upon common law rights arising from its use and promotion of AURIS in connection with payroll, HR, and technology services provided to some 50,000 clients. The evidence provided by Complainant, at least in the absence of any challenge by Respondent, is sufficient in the view of this Panel to demonstrate common law trademark rights in AURIS for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

 

The disputed domain name <aurismheart.com> incorporates the AURIS mark, adding the letter "m," the word "heart" (a shortened form of the former name under which Complainant's business was conducted), and the ".com" top-level domain. These alterations do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., Google LLC v. Domain Administrator / Fundacion Privacy Services LTD, FA 2014579 (Forum Nov. 17, 2022) (finding <heartgoogle.com> confusingly similar to GOOGLE); Kohl's, Inc. v. Domains by Proxy, LLC / Chloe Black, blackchloe, D2019-1454 (WIPO Aug. 30, 2019) (finding <kohlsheart.com> confusingly similar to KOHL'S); Docker, Inc. v. Steve Singh / Docker, Inc., FA 1846947 (Forum July 15, 2019) (finding <dockerheart.com> confusingly similar to DOCKER). The Panel considers the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Under the Policy, the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc. v. Entertainment Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).

 

The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's registered mark without authorization. Its sole apparent use has been for a misleading website that attempted to pass off as Complainant for fraudulent purposes. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., AWGI, LLC v. Brume Egbagba, FA 2228942 (Forum July 21, 2026) (finding lack of rights or interests in similar circumstances); Docker, Inc. v. Steve Singh / Docker, Inc., supra (same).

 

Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of such rights or interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered the disputed domain name "primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor." Under paragraph 4(b)(iv), bad faith may be shown by evidence that "by using the domain name, [Respondent] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent's] 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 [Respondent's] web site or location or of a product or service on [Respondent's] web site or location."

 

Respondent registered a domain name incorporating Complainant's mark and has used it for a misleading website that attempted to pass off as Complainant for fraudulent purposes. Such circumstances are indicative of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See, e.g., AWGI, LLC v. Brume Egbagba, supra (finding bad faith registration and use in similar circumstances); Docker, Inc. v. Steve Singh / Docker, Inc., supra (same). The Panel so finds.

 

DECISION

Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

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

 

 

 

David E. Sorkin, Panelist

Dated: July 29, 2026