DECISION
Suncast Corporation v. joen cena
Claim Number: FA2607002231073
PARTIES
Complainant is Suncast Corporation ("Complainant"), represented by Maria Jose Rivera of McHale & Slavin, P.A., Florida, USA. Respondent is joen cena ("Respondent"), New York, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <samsale.top>, registered with NameSilo, LLC.
PANEL
Alan L. Limbury, as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on July 6, 2026. Forum received payment on July 6, 2026.
On July 6, 2026, NameSilo, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <samsale.top> domain name is registered with NameSilo, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameSilo, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameSilo, 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 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 e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@samsale.top. Also on July 8, 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.
On July 8, 2026, Complainant sent an additional written submission to Forum by email, without proof of service on Respondent as required by Supplemental Rule 7.
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 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
Since at least as early as December 4, 1984, Complainant has been continuously using the mark SUNCAST in connection with the manufacture and sale of commercial and residential products in the home and industrial markets. In addition to sales from its own website "www.suncast.com", the SUNCAST brand is prevalent in "big box" stores such as Wal-Mart, Home Depot, Lowes, and Target, in at least 37 countries.
The <samsale.top> domain name is not identical in the disputed domain name. <samsale.top> is abbreviating "Suncast American Made" and the term "sale" is generic. However, the domain name resolves to an identical website displaying Complainant's SUNCAST trademark in its entirety. The domain name's content and the SUNCAST trademark are so confusingly similar to each other that Internet users believing they are searching for a website where they can find a store with genuine SUNCAST products, which is owned by or affiliated with Complainant, could inadvertently be led to Respondent's domain.
Further, Respondent has sought to take advantage of Internet users typing an incorrect address when seeking to access Complainant's website, a practice known as "typosquatting" and Respondent's domain name leads to a website associated with Complainant and its extensive scope of home patio products or services.
Given the foregoing, the <samsale.top> domain name and Complainant's SUNCAST trademark are confusingly similar.
Respondent should be considered as having no rights or legitimate interests in respect to the <samsale.top> domain name, which was registered on June 9, 2026. It resolves to a website displaying Complainant's SUNCAST trademark, suggesting sponsorship or endorsement by Complainant. The domain name suggests that it relates to sales of Complainant's products. The website uses misappropriated copyrighted images and audiovisual content from Complainant's website. Respondent's use of the trademark in the website may therefore be understood by Internet users as impersonating the trademark owner.
Respondent's <samsale.top> domain should be considered as having been registered in bad faith with actual knowledge of Complainant's trademark. It resolves to a webpage displaying and reproducing Complainant's incontestable and famous SUNCAST trademark to create confusion for Internet users and suggest sponsorship or endorsement by Complainant, promoting sales of Complainant's products and disrupting the business of Complainant.
This appears to be the efforts of Hanli, using the same video in the Suncaststore.com (Case No 53017997) and Suncastclub.com (Case No. 53084332), Hanli realizing that the use of the registered name as part of the domain name will not be permitted and resorting to a term known to be associated with Suncast sales.
There is no conceivable good faith motive that can be gleaned from Respondent's registration of the domain name.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
C. Additional Submissions
The Panel has not considered Complainant's additional unsolicited submission, which would not in any event have altered the result.
FINDINGS
Complainant has not 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 SUNCAST word mark, including USPTO Registration No. 2,085,417, registered on August 5, 1997, in International Classes 8 and 20. It also has rights in the SUNCAST word and design mark, including USPTO Registration No. 2,232,821, registered on March 16, 1999, in International Classes 8, 19 and 20.
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.
Complainant accepts that the <samsale.top> domain name is not identical to its SUNCAST mark but contends that it is confusingly similar thereto, claiming that <samsale.top> is abbreviating "Suncast American Made" and the term "sale" is generic. The Complaint annexes two screenshots of Complainant's website at "www.suncast.com", dated May 11, 2015 (Annex 2) and December 8, 2022 (Annex 4). Annex 2 displays the stylized logo "Suncast Commercial". Annex 4 displays the same stylized logo close to the stylized words "made in the USA". Neither Annex displays the combined expression "Suncast American Made" and the record contains no evidence that "SAM" is understood by Complainant's customers as an abbreviation of that expression, nor that "samsale" is a term known to be associated with Suncast sales.
Accordingly, the Panel is not satisfied, on the basis of a straightforward comparison between Complainant's SUNCAST trademark and the <samsale.top> domain name, that the domain name is confusingly similar to the SUNCAST mark.
Complainant submits that when content of a website associated with a domain seeks to target a trademark through the disputed domain name, panels have taken note of the content to confirm confusing similarity, particularly where the respondent registered the domain name precisely because it believed that the domain name was confusingly similar to a mark held by the Complainant.
The Panel notes in this regard that section 1.7 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions ("WIPO Overview 3.1") provides (in part):
"Although each case is judged on its own merits, in cases where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark, or where at least a dominant feature of the relevant mark is recognizable in the domain name, the domain name will normally be considered confusingly similar to that mark.
In some cases, in assessing the first element a panel may find that the broader case context (such as website content or fraudulent (phishing) emails trading off the complainant's reputation (in particular in the case of unregistered marks), or a pattern of multiple respondent domain names targeting the complainant's mark within the same proceeding), supports a finding of confusing similarity with the complainant's mark."
The Panel finds that the <samsale.top> domain name incorporates neither the entirety nor a dominant feature of Complainant's SUNCAST mark, and that the domain name is not a typosquatted version of the mark, since it is highly unlikely that Internet users seeking to type SUNCAST would inadvertently type SAMSALE.
As to the broader case context, it is clear that Respondent's website displays Complainant's stylized SUNCAST mark and content copied from Complainant's website, designed to masquerade as Complainant, in keeping with Respondent's conduct in the two cases mentioned by Complainant, Suncast Corporation v. hanli, FA 2218275 (Forum May 21, 2016) <suncaststore.com> and Suncast Corporation v. tianhu / N/A, FA 2226702 (Forum July 9, 2026) <suncastclub.com>.
Although the <samsale.top> domain name resolves to a website mimicking that of Complainant, the Panel is not satisfied that the domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's SUNCAST mark. See Vivid Seats LLC v. Peter Smith / Domain Administrator, Domains by Proxy, LLC (WIPO Case No. D2016-1784), in which the panelist rejected the argument that the domain name <ticketsmofo.com> was confusingly similar to the trademark VIVID SEATS, despite the domain name resolving to a "mirror" of the complainant's website.
Complainant has failed to establish this element.
Rights or Legitimate Interests and Registration and Use in Bad Faith
In light of the Panel's decision above, it is unnecessary to consider these elements.
DECISION
Complainant having not established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <samsale.top> domain name REMAIN WITH Respondent.
Alan L. Limbury, Panelist
Dated: July 30, 2026
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page