DECISION

 

Absolute Dental Services, Inc. v. Justin Malonson

Claim Number: FA2607002233288

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Absolute Dental Services, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Rachel Hofstatter of Honigman LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Justin Malonson ("Respondent"), South Carolina, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <absolutedentalservice.com>, registered with IONOS SE.

 

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.

 

The Honorable Neil Anthony Brown KC as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on July 17, 2026; Forum received payment on July 17, 2026.

 

On July 20, 2026, IONOS SE confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <absolutedentalservice.com> domain name is registered with IONOS SE and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name.  IONOS SE has verified that Respondent is bound by the IONOS SE 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 24, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 13, 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@absolutedentalservice.com. Also on July 24, 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 14, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed The Honorable Neil Anthony Brown KC 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 made the following contentions:

1.       The Complainant is a United States company engaged in the provision of top-quality dental laboratory services and has been so engaged since 1994.

2.       The Complainant provides its aforesaid services under the common law trademark for ABSOLUTE DENTAL SERVICES.

3.       The Complainant acquired its common law  trademark rights in ABSOLUTE DENTAL SERVICES by extensive and continuous use of  ABSOLUTE DENTAL SERVICES in its business and on its website, packaging, social media and elsewhere since 1994 ("the ABSOLUTE DENTAL SERVICES trademark").

4.       The ABSOLUTE DENTAL SERVICES trademark has attracted substantial goodwill and is uniquely associated with the Complainant's services and with the Complainant as its owner.

5.       The Complainant also registered the domain name <absolutedentalservices.com>  in 2007 and has continuously used that domain name since then in its business and to promote its ABSOLUTE DENTAL SERVICES  goods and services on its website at www.absolutedentalservices.com.

6.       The Respondent registered the <absolutedentalservice.com> domain name on June 16, 2026 ("the disputed domain name").

7.       The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the ABSOLUTE DENTAL SERVICES trademark.

8.       The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as:

(a)                      it has registered the disputed domain name which is virtually identical to the ABSOLUTE DENTAL SERVICES trademark except that it has deleted the second letter "S" from the word "SERVICES";

(b)                      the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to resolve to a website which adopts a copy of the Complainant's official and genuine website at www.absolutedentalservices.com;

(c)                      in enabling the aforesaid offending website, the Respondent has contrived to confuse internet users into believing that they have arrived at the official website of the Complainant and to that end has copied the ABSOLUTE DENTAL SERVICES trademark, the Complainant's color schemes, drop-down menus, information tabs, videos and photographs of the Complainant's genuine products;

(d)                      by reason of the matters aforesaid, the Respondent has impersonated and passed itself off as the Complainant;

(e)                      by reason of the matters aforesaid, the Respondent has sought to disrupt the Complainant's business;

(f)                      in the course of the Respondent's aforesaid conduct it has also engaged in phishing;

(g)                      the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii); 

(h)                      the Respondent has not used the domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i);

(i)                      the Respondent is not a licensee, authorized retailer, associate or distributor of the Complainant;

(j)                      the Respondent has not used the disputed domain name for a legitimate, noncommercial or fair use within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii);and

(k)                      there is no other ground on which it could conceivably be contended that the Respondent has a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.

9.       The Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith as:

(a)       the Respondent's aforesaid conduct shows that it has engaged in the registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith;

(b)       the disputed domain name has been used to pass the Respondent off as, and to impersonate, the Complainant;

(c)       the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to disrupt the Complainant's business within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii);

(d)       the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to generate confusion within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv);

(e)       the Respondent had actual knowledge of the Complainant and its aforesaid trademark when it, the Respondent, registered the disputed domain name;

(f)       the Respondent has not used the disputed domain name for a legitimate purpose;

(g)       the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name as part of a concerted plan to use it for fraudulent purposes; and

(h)       there is no plausible circumstance tending to suggest that the Respondent could have registered and used the disputed domain name other than in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

    Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

1.       The Complainant is a United States company engaged in the provision of top-quality dental laboratory services and has been so engaged since 1994.

2.       The Complainant provides its aforesaid services under the common law trademark for ABSOLUTE DENTAL SERVICES.

3.       The Complainant acquired its common law trademark rights in ABSOLUTE DENTAL SERVICES by extensive and continuous use of ABSOLUTE DENTAL SERVICES in its business and on its website, packaging, social media and elsewhere since 1994 ("the ABSOLUTE DENTAL SERVICES trademark").

4.       The Respondent registered the <absolutedentalservice.com> domain name on June 16, 2026 ("the disputed domain name").

5.       The Respondent has used the domain name to pass itself off as and impersonate the Complainant, to purport to offer the Complainant's products for sale, to disrupt the Complainant's business, generate confusion and engage in phishing, most likely for fraudulent purposes.

6.       By reason of the matters aforesaid, and as established by the evidence, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's ABSOLUTE DENTAL SERVICES trademark, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

7.       Accordingly, the disputed domain name should be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.

 

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 first question that arises is whether the Complainant has rights in a trademark or service mark on which it may rely. The evidence shows that the Complainant provides its aforesaid services under the common law trademark for ABSOLUTE DENTAL SERVICES. In that regard, the evidence shows that the Complainant acquired its common law trademark rights in ABSOLUTE DENTAL SERVICES by extensive and continuous use of ABSOLUTE DENTAL SERVICES in its business and on its website, packaging, social media and elsewhere since 1994 ("the ABSOLUTE DENTAL SERVICES trademark").The evidence also shows that the ABSOLUTE DENTAL SERVICES trademark has attracted substantial goodwill and is uniquely associated with the Complainant's services and with the Complainant as its owner.

 

All of the aforesaid facts have been established by evidence that the Panel accepts as establishing the common law trademark for which the Complainant contends. In particular, the evidence is that the Complainant registered the domain name <absolutedentalservices.com> in 2007 and that it has widely and continuously used that domain name since then in its business and to promote its ABSOLUTE DENTAL SERVICES goods and services on its website at www.absolutedentalservices.com. Exhibit D shows the Complainant's website which uses ABSOLUTE DENTAL SERVICES with a legitimate address, that it has been used for 30 years, provides its extensive and distinctive goods and services to consumers, testimonials under that name from relevant professional and business entities, the locale of its premises, its recognition by professional groups and the means of communicating with it under its name; Exhibit E is to the same effect as it shows extracts from the Complainant's You Tube channel; likewise Exhibit F shows a screen capture of Absolute Dental Service's Instagram account, Exhibit G shows a screen capture of  the Complainant's Facebook account; Exhibit H shows a printout of the Dental Technician Leadership Award; and Exhibit I is a press release regarding the Complainant's Dental Lifeline Network Recognition; all of which use the ABSOLUTE DENTAL SERVICES name and trademark.

 

Taking this evidence as a whole and also the Complainant's own evidence in the Complaint that ABSOLUTE DENTAL SERVICES has been used by the Complainant in every aspect of its business and that it is widely recognised, there can be no doubt that the Complainant has a common law trademark for ABSOLUTE DENTAL SERVICES which is recognized by consumers and the likely market for its goods and services.

 

It is also clear from the evidence that the Complainant acquired the trademark many years before the Respondent registered the disputed domain name and that it is current.

 

The Complainant has therefore established its trademark rights and hence its standing to institute this proceeding.

 

The next question that arises is whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's ABSOLUTE DENTAL SERVICES trademark. The Panel finds that the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark. That is so, as the domain name incorporates the trademark in its entirety, with the exception that the Respondent has deleted the second letter "S" of the trademark. Internet users would therefore naturally assume that it is probably a domain name reflecting the trademark and therefore a domain name of the Complainant or one authorized by it, and that it can be used to acquire the genuine goods and services of the Complainant.

 

It is also well-established that in considering the issue of confusing similarity, the Panel should not have regard to a domain name having been registered in a Top level Domain, such as ".com" in the present case, as all domain names must have some such extension.

 

Accordingly, the domain name is similar to the ABSOLUTE DENTAL SERVICES trademark and confusingly so.

 

Thus, applying these well-accepted principles, which are supported by the prior UDRP decisions which the Complainant has helpfully cited, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's ABSOLUTE DENTAL SERVICES trademark.

 

The Complainant has thus made out the first of the three elements that it must establish as provided in Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

It is now well established that the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) and that, if the prima facie case is made out, the burden then shifts to the Respondent to show that it does have such rights or legitimate interests.

 

The Panel finds on the evidence that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case that arises from the following considerations. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name on all of the grounds relied on by the Complainant, namely:

 

(a)       the evidence has established that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name which is virtually identical to the ABSOLUTE DENTAL SERVICES trademark except that it has deleted the second letter "S" from the word "SERVICES"; thus, as the Respondent has simply stolen the Complainant's trademark, deceptively altered it in a minor way and thereby created a domain name that looks as if it is the Complainant's domain name, such dishonest conduct could not possibly give rise to a right or legitimate interest in the domain name;

(b)       the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to resolve to a website which adopts a copy of the Complainant's official and genuine website at www.absolutedentalservices.com; this has been shown by Exhibit D which is the front page of Complainant's official website and Exhibit J which is a capture of the infringing website; thus it can be seen that the Respondent has simply helped itself to the Complainant's trademark and used it and even retained the final letter "S" to be even more deceptive than it was in constructing the domain name; the offending website makes an extensive effort to pretend that the products on display are the products of the Complainant; it copies products and even testimonials of the Complainant and uses what are obviously the images of the Complainant which must be copyright; the Respondent's website is therefore simply a virtual copy of the Complainant's website;

(c)       the evidence therefore shows that in enabling its website, the Respondent has contrived to confuse internet users into believing that they have arrived at the official website of the Complainant and to that end has copied the ABSOLUTE DENTAL SERVICES trademark, the Complainant's color schemes, drop-down menus, information tabs, videos and photographs of the Complainant's genuine products as is alleged;

(d)       by reason of the matters aforesaid, the Respondent has clearly impersonated and passed itself off as the Complainant;

(e)       by reason of the matters aforesaid, the Respondent has clearly sought to disrupt the Complainant's business;

(f)       in the course of the Respondent's aforesaid conduct it has also engaged in phishing; there are numerous solicitations on the Respondent's website to induce consumers to contact it and there can be no doubt that this has been done to collect personal and financial information; it would stretch credulity to breaking point to think that this was being done for any reason than for some further impropriety;

(g)       the evidence shows that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii); there is no evidence that the Respondent is known by the domain name and there is no evidence that the Respondent is known by any name other than its own;

(h)       the Respondent has not used the domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i); there is nothing bona fide about the Respondent's machinations and it would be more appropriate to describe them as mala fide;

(i)       the evidence is that Respondent is not a licensee, authorized retailer, associate or distributor of the Complainant; thus, there is no way in which the Respondent could claim that it had any right to use the Complainant's trademark and no ground for concluding that the domain name had been registered with any sort of consent of the Complainant;

(j)       the Respondent has not used the disputed domain name for a legitimate, noncommercial or fair use within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii); there is no evidence to suggest that the domain name has been used legitimately, as it uses the Complainant's trademark, which is an illegitimate use; there is no evidence that the domain name is used for a non-commercial purpose and there is no evidence that constructing a domain name based on another party's trademark could possibly be fair, either to the Complainant or internet users in general; and

(k)       there is no other ground on which it could conceivably be contended that the Respondent has a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.

 

All of these matters make out the prima facie case against the Respondent. The Respondent is in default and has not advanced any evidence or submissions to show that it could rebut the Complainant's contentions.

 

The Complainant has therefore made out the second of the three elements it must establish under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

It is clear that to establish bad faith for the purposes of the Policy, the Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith. It is also clear that the criteria set out in Policy ¶  4(b), described in that provision as being "without limitation", are not exclusive but that domain name proceedings may also rely on conduct that is bad faith within the generally accepted meaning of that expression.

 

In view of the evidence discussed above, which evidence is equally as applicable to bad faith as it is to rights and legitimate interests and which it is not necessary to repeat, it is clear that the Complainant has made out all of the grounds relied on. The Respondent has clearly been motivated by bad faith in the registration of the domain name, which it clearly did to mislead and deceive internet users and it has continued in that conduct after its registration, showing bad faith use. Thus, the Complainant has established that the registration was in bad faith and also that it is being used in bad faith, thereby satisfying the foregoing requirement. The registration of the domain name was in bad faith because it gave the false impression to internet users that it was a domain name of or associated with the Complainant, which it was not and that it had been registered by the Complainant or was authorised by it, which it also was not; the evidence also shows that the Respondent was intending to pass itself off as and impersonate the Complainant, an intention that was subsequently borne out by the evidence of the way in which the Respondent has used the domain name. The evidence in that regard has already been shown to establish that the Respondent has used the domain name to purport to sell the Complainant's genuine ABSOLUTE DENTAL SERVICES products to potential customers. The Respondent therefore acted dishonestly and misleadingly in both its registration and use of the domain name. It is therefore clear from the evidence that, as the Complainant has submitted:

 

(a)       the totality of the evidence, particularly Exhibit D which is the front page of Complainant's official website and Exhibit J which is a capture of the Infringing website, shows that the Respondent has engaged in the registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith;

(b)       the disputed domain name has been used to pass the Respondent off as, and to impersonate, the Complainant; clearly, the essence of the Respondent's subterfuge was to give the false impression it was the Complainant and that it was offering the Complainant's genuine goods and services for sale;

(c)       the evidence shows that the Respondent has also used the disputed domain name to disrupt the Complainant's business within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) as it wanted internet users to buy the promoted goods and services from the Respondent and not from the Complainant;

(d)       likewise, the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to generate confusion within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) as it wanted to confuse internet users into thinking that it was the Complainant;

(e)        the Respondent had actual knowledge of the Complainant and its aforesaid trademark when it, the Respondent, registered the disputed domain name; the evidence shows that the Respondent must have had such actual knowledge and could not have attempted to carry out its subterfuge without having had that actual knowledge;

(f)       the Respondent has not used the disputed domain name for a legitimate purpose as has already been established;

(g)       the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name as part of a concerted plan to use it for fraudulent purposes, which is the only inference that can be drawn from the evidence; and

(h)       there is no plausible circumstance tending to suggest that the Respondent could have registered and used the disputed domain name other than in bad faith.

 

The Complainant has thus made out the third of the three elements that it must establish under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii), namely that the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

The Complainant has presented a detailed and persuasive case consisting of evidence that has established all of the constituent elements that must be proved under the Policy and has cited prior UDRP decisions that support all of its contentions. It is therefore entitled to the relief it seeks, namely transfer of the disputed domain name.

 

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

 

 

 

The Honorable Neil Anthony Brown KC, Panelist

Dated: August 15, 2026