DECISION

 

Andersen Corporation v. Domain Administrator / Fundacion Privacy Services LTD

Claim Number: FA2607002232095

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Andersen Corporation ("Complainant"), represented by Gregory Golla of Merchant & Gould P.C., Minnesota, USA. Respondent is Domain Administrator / Fundacion Privacy Services LTD ("Respondent"), Panama.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <renewablyandersen.com>, registered with Media Elite Holdings Limited, S.A.

 

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.

 

Petter Rindforth as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on July 10, 2026; Forum received payment on July 10, 2026.

 

On July 15, 2026, Media Elite Holdings Limited, S.A. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <renewablyandersen.com> domain name is registered with Media Elite Holdings Limited, S.A. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Media Elite Holdings Limited, S.A. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Media Elite Holdings Limited, S.A. 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 16, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 5, 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@renewablyandersen.com. Also on July 16, 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 August 6, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Petter Rindforth 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

 

The Complainant is the owner of the RENEWAL BY ANDERSEN, RENEWAL, ANDERSEN, and ANDERSEN WINDOWS trademarks for window and door products and associated manufacturing and installation services, among other things. In addition to the foregoing registrations, Complainant owns numerous foreign registrations and has extensive common law rights in the trademarks, as displayed on the websites <andersenwindows.com> and <renewalbyandersen.com>.

 

Complainant was founded in 1903 and is today the largest window and door manufacturer in North America. The ANDERSEN trademark was created in 1937 and has been used consistently since that date.

 

Respondent registered the domain name on or about May 21, 2021. Respondent utilizes a Privacy Protection service for its registration. The domain name appears to be used with Complainant's RENEWAL BY ANDERSEN trademarks for a links page, and is a typo of Complainant's domain name <renewalbyandersen.com>.    

 

Respondent has no statutory or common law trademark rights or any other right or legitimate interest in or to the RENEWAL BY ANDERSEN trademarks. Complainant has not authorized or licensed Respondent to use the RENEWAL BY ANDERSEN trademarks, and there is no evidence that the domain name was registered for legitimate reasons. Rather, the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of bad faith through the registration and use of a domain name that is confusingly similar to the RENEWAL BY ANDERSEN trademarks.

 

Respondent does not have any right or legitimate interest in the domain name. Respondent's use of the domain name for the purpose of typosquatting is not a bona fide offering of goods pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i). Unsuspecting consumers attempting to visit Complainant's Andersen's <renewalbyandersen.com> website inadvertently visit Respondent's site because the domain name uses a typo of the RENEWAL BY ANDERSEN trademarks. The domain name is not connected to a bona fide non-infringing offering of goods or services and is not a legitimate use.

 

Respondent's registration of the domain name with the constructive and actual knowledge of Complainant's trademark rights in that name and for typo squatting shows bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The Complainant is the owner of several U.S. trademark registrations, for example:

 

No. 2,077,925 RENEWAL BY ANDERSEN (word), registered on July 8, 1997 for services in Intl Classes 37 and 42;

No. 2,332,422 RENEWAL BY ANDERSEN (word), registered on March 21, 2000 for services in Intl Class 19; and

No. 992,296 ANDERSEN (word), registered on September 3, 1974 for goods in Intl Class 19.

 

The disputed domain name <renewablyandersen.com> was registered on May 21, 2021.

 

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

The Complainant claims rights to the RENEWAL BY ANDERSEN trademark based upon registration with the USPTO. Registration with USPTO sufficiently establishes rights in a trademark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Haas Automation, Inc. v. Jim Fraser, FA 1627211 (Forum Aug. 4, 2015) (finding that Complainant's USPTO registrations for the HAAS mark sufficiently demonstrate its rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). Complainant provides a copy of its USPTO registration for the RENEWAL BY ANDERSEN trademark (e.g., Reg. No. 2,077,925, registered on July 8, 1997).

 

Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the RENEWAL BY ANDERSEN trademark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

The Complainant further states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's trademark, being an intentional misspelling of the same by switching the letters "b" and "l" of the RENEWAL BY ANDERSEN trademark.

 

Misspelling of a complainant's trademark, either by adding, removing or misplacing letters may not sufficiently mitigate any confusing similarity between a disputed domain name and trademark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Am. Online, Inc. v. David, FA 104980 (Forum Apr. 10, 2002) ("The misspelling of a famous mark does not diminish the confusingly similar nature between the marks and the disputed domain names.").

 

Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent's <renewablyandersen.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's RENEWAL BY ANDERSEN trademark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Once the Complainant makes a prima facie case in support of its allegations in respect of the second element of the Policy, the burden shifts to the Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) ("Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests.").

 

Complainant contends that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <renewablyandersen.com> domain name. Specifically, Complainant states that Complainant has not licensed, authorized, or associated itself with the Respondent in any way which would give Respondent the right to use the RENEWAL BY ANDERSEN trademark in the disputed domain name.

 

Where a response is absent, the WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA 1574905 (Forum Sept. 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark). Additionally, lack of authorization to use a complainant's trademark may indicate that the respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) ("lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant's mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)"). The WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as "Domain Administrator / Fundacion Privacy Services LTD" and there is no other evidence to suggest that Respondent was authorized to use the RENEWAL BY ANDERSEN trademark. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

Next, Complainant states – as further evidence of lack of rights or legitimate interests – that the disputed domain name appears to be used with Complainant's RENEWAL BY ANDERSEN trademarks for a links page.    

 

The Panel notes that the evidence of the said links page shows an inactive web page, with no obvious links, but visually prepared for adding traditional pay-per-click links. Such preparation cannot be considered as a base for rights or legitimate interests.

 

The Panel therefore finds that Respondent fails to make a bona fide offering of goods or services per Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

The Complainant has shown that the RENEWAL BY ANDERSEN trademark is distinctive and well-known. Considering the fact that the disputed domain name is an obvious mis-spelled version of Complainant's trademark, the Panel find that the disputed domain name is registered in bad faith.

 

The fact that <renewablyandersen.com> is linked to an in-active web site makes no difference when it comes to bad faith use. Also obvious preparations for bad faith use can be considered. In the present case, the in-active site is clearly prepared for pay-per-click activities, with upcoming marketing links, based on the obvious risk that Complainant's customers by mistake may reach Respondent's web site.

 

The Panel find that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith.

 

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

 

 

 

Petter Rindforth, Panelist

Dated: August 18, 2026