DECISION

 

Vensette, LLC v. RALPH DUNCAN

Claim Number: FA2607002234248

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Vensette, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Lauren Platt, Florida, USA. Respondent is RALPH DUNCAN ("Respondent"), Poland.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <vensette.com>, registered with URL Solutions, Inc.

 

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

 

Steven M. Levy as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on July 22, 2026; Forum received payment on July 22, 2026.

 

On August 27, 2026, URL Solutions, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <vensette.com> domain name is registered with URL Solutions, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. URL Solutions, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the URL Solutions, Inc. 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 September 8, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 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@vensette.com. Also on September 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.

 

Having received no response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On September 29, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Steven M. Levy 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 states that it provides premium hair and makeup services, delivered to clients at their homes, offices, events and other locations, under the trademark VENSETTE, a term coined by its founder, Lauren Platt. It states that Vensette Inc. was formed in 2010 and began trading under the mark at about that time, using the disputed domain name which it registered in 2010, and that in 2019 the business passed to Complainant, of which Ms. Platt is the sole owner. Complainant claims common law rights in the VENSETTE mark based upon approximately sixteen years of continuous use, unsolicited coverage in such publications as The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, Vanity Fair, Forbes, Fast Company, ABC News and WWD, partnerships with Saks Fifth Avenue, GHD and RéVive, and a roster of corporate clients that includes Amazon, American Express, LVMH, Ralph Lauren, and Gucci. It asserts that it has received more than USD $80 million in unpaid press and marketing exposure and has generated over USD $5 million in sales under the mark. Complainant further states that it held trademark registrations for the mark from 2014 until 2022, when they lapsed without its knowledge after it changed law firms, and that it has recently applied to register the mark in the United States, China, the European Union, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates.

 

The disputed domain name is identical to the VENSETTE mark as it adds only the ".com" TLD. Complainant previously owned the disputed domain name and states that its registration inadvertently expired in or about November 2025 because the credit card associated with its hosting account had expired and renewal notices went unanswered. When it discovered the problem in or about February 2026 it learned that, after approximately sixty days of nonpayment, the domain name had been released and acquired by Respondent.

 

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name where it has never been licensed or authorized to use the VENSETTE mark, has no relationship with Complainant, and is not commonly known by the domain name, and where it uses the domain name not for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use but to send internet users to the website of "It's Beauty", a directly competing beauty services business. Complainant adds that when it sought to repurchase the domain name through a domain brokerage service, Respondent claimed that the domain name was held for "personal use" and was not for sale at any price, a statement that is inconsistent with the commercial use Respondent was making of it.

 

Finally, Complainant contends that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. It states that VENSETTE is a coined and distinctive term with no meaning apart from Complainant's brand, so that there is no plausible reason for Respondent to have selected it other than to exploit Complainant's goodwill; that the opportunistic registration of a complainant's lapsed domain name, followed by its use to compete with that complainant, is recognized as bad faith; that Respondent's use of the domain name to divert consumers to a competing beauty business disrupts Complainant's business and attracts internet users for commercial gain based on a likelihood of confusion in violation of Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv); and that Respondent's misrepresentation that the domain name was held for personal use is further evidence of its bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

−       Complainant has common law rights in its VENSETTE mark and the <vensette.com> domain name is identical to the mark;

−       Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name where it is not commonly known by the domain name, and it uses the domain name for a website that promotes beauty services in competition with those offered by Complainant; and

−       The disputed domain name was registered and is used in bad faith where Respondent, with knowledge of Complainant's mark, acquired it after Complainant's own registration lapsed and uses it to divert internet users seeking Complainant, for commercial gain, to a competing business.

 

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 does not rest its claim upon a subsisting trademark registration. The only official trademark office record submitted for the period before this dispute is a printout from the USPTO's Trademark Electronic Search System ("TESS"), dated June 16, 2015, for Application Serial No. 86163919. That record shows an application for the standard character mark VÊNSETTE filed on January 13, 2014 by Vênsette, Inc. under Section 1(b) of the Lanham Act, as an intent to use application, and published for opposition on November 25, 2014, but it does not show that a registration ever issued. While the record refers to a prior Reg. No. 4093453, no copy or status record of that registration has been submitted and Complainant itself states that its registrations lapsed in 2022. Complainant also submits evidence of recent filings to register the VENSETTE mark, namely United States Application Serial No. 99742219, filed on April 2, 2026, an international application based thereon that designates the European Union, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, and an application filed in China. However, a pending trademark application does not, by itself, establish trademark rights for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See UDRP Perspectives on Recent Jurisprudence, § 1.10 (updated June 2, 2025), available at https://udrpperspectives.org.

 

Registration of a trademark is not required, however, where a complainant can demonstrate established common law rights in its asserted mark. See Klabzuba Oil & Gas, Inc. v. LAKHPAT SINGH BHANDARI, FA 1625750 (Forum July 17, 2015) ("Complainant does not claim to own a trademark registered with a governmental authority. However, Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) does not require such registration if a complainant can demonstrate having common law rights.") To establish common law rights, a complainant generally must show extensive and continuous use of the mark in commerce such that it has developed a secondary meaning identifying the complainant as the source of its goods or services. See Iacocca v. Tex. Int'l Prop. Assocs., FA 1088017 (Forum Nov. 29, 2007) ("In order to garner the benefit of common law trademark rights, Complainant must lay out, not only evidence of extensive and continuous use of the mark in commerce, but also show some strong probability that as a result of such exposure, consumers have come to associate the mark with Complainant, as to the source of the goods.") Relevant considerations include the duration and nature of use of the mark, the amount of sales under it, the nature and extent of advertising, and the degree of actual public recognition, including media coverage. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.1 at ¶ 1.3.

 

Here, Complainant has submitted substantial evidence in support of its claim. A "registration success!" e-mail from its hosting provider, DreamHost, dated November 9, 2010, confirms that the disputed domain name was registered through that provider on that date. Screenshots from the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine, which reports 312 captures of the site between February 27, 2011 and September 25, 2025, show Complainant's website at the disputed domain name offering its services under the mark at regular intervals from July 2011 through May 2025. The earliest captures display the mark in the stylized form VÊNSETTE and invite visitors to "Get fashion's top hair and makeup professionals to your Manhattan doorstep"; captures from 2014 through 2018 display buttons reading "BOOK NOW" and the line "Book a Vênsette hair and makeup artist to your door in three quick steps"; a capture from October 2019, taken while the site was being redesigned, displays the words "Working on Vensette V2 … check back soon!" and directs corporate and group bookings to an e-mail address at the disputed domain name; and captures from November 2020 through May 2025 display the mark as VENSETTE above the words "LUXURY BEAUTY, ON LOCATION." Complainant also submits articles about its business published in The Wall Street Journal in July 2011, The New York Times in December 2011, Vanity Fair, ABC News, Fast Company and Forbes in 2015, and WWD between 2015 and 2018, the latter reporting on Complainant's partnerships with GHD, Saks Fifth Avenue and RéVive, as well as a page of its website headed "CORPORATE CLIENTS" that displays the logos of such companies as LVMH, Gucci, Cartier, Tiffany & Co., Valentino and Givenchy. Although Complainant's assertions regarding its sales figures and the monetary value of its press coverage are not supported by documentary evidence, the long and continuous use of the mark, the extent of unsolicited media coverage, and the coined nature of the term VENSETTE, which has no apparent meaning apart from its use by Complainant, amply demonstrate that the mark has acquired secondary meaning as an identifier of Complainant's services.

 

The Panel notes that Complainant's use of the mark at the disputed domain name ended when that domain name was lost in late 2025. However, the lapse of a registration does not, by itself, extinguish trademark rights that have been built up through years of use. See The Clash Of Trademarks And Domain Names On The Internet, at 5.01-D (Gerald M. Levine, Legal Corner Press, June 1, 2026) ("lapse of trademark registration does not support a loss of trademark rights.") Complainant acted promptly to try to recover the domain name, it has since filed new applications to register the mark, and nothing in the record suggests any intention to abandon it.

 

The Complaint describes the ownership history of the business somewhat inconsistently, stating in one place that its assets passed to Ms. Platt upon the dissolution of Vensette Inc. in 2019 and in another that the company changed its name and status from Vensette Inc. to Vensette, LLC, of which Ms. Platt is the sole owner. The recent United States and international applications are filed in Ms. Platt's own name and the Chinese application is filed by an entity called Beauty Services On Demand LLC which shares Complainant's West Palm Beach address. While a clearer account of the chain of title would have been helpful, the Panel is satisfied, on the present record, that these are related parties under Ms. Platt's common ownership and control and that Complainant, as the entity now conducting the business, has standing to assert the common law rights that have accrued in the VENSETTE mark. The Panel therefore finds that Complainant has rights in the VENSETTE mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Next, Complainant argues that the <vensette.com> domain name is identical to its VENSETTE mark. The addition of a TLD is irrelevant where a mark has been fully incorporated into a disputed domain name. See Tupelo Honey Hospitality Corporation v. King, Reggie, FA 1732247 (Forum July 19, 2017) ("Addition of a gTLD is irrelevant where a mark has been fully incorporated into a domain name and the gTLD is the sole difference."); see also Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association v. Shi Lei aka Shilei, FA 1784643 (Forum June 18, 2018) ("A TLD (whether a gTLD, sTLD or ccTLD) is disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax requires TLDs.") The disputed domain name consists solely of the VENSETTE mark and the ".com" TLD, which is generally disregarded. As such, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical to Complainant's mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Should it succeed in this effort, the burden then shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests. 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 first contends that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <vensette.com> domain name because Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use the VENSETTE mark. It has become well accepted that the information set out in a disputed domain name's WHOIS record may inform consideration of whether a respondent is commonly known by a disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Bittrex, Inc. v. Operi Manaha, FA 1815225 (Forum Dec. 10, 2018) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <appbittrex.com> domain name where the WHOIS information lists Respondent as "Operi Manaha," and nothing else in the record suggested Respondent was authorized to use the BITTREX mark.) In addition, a lack of authorization to use a complainant's mark may indicate that a 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 record for the <vensette.com> domain name, as revealed by the concerned Registrar, identifies the Registrant as "Ralph Duncan", which bears no resemblance to the disputed domain name, and the business promoted on the resolving website operates under the name "It's Beauty". Complainant further states that Respondent "has never been licensed, authorized, or permitted by Complainant to use the VENSETTE mark in any form" and that "[t]here is no business, commercial, or personal relationship between Complainant and Respondent." Respondent has not filed a Response in this case and so it does not dispute Complainant's assertions or supplement the available evidence. Therefore, the Panel finds no ground upon which to conclude that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

Next, Complainant asserts that Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services and that it is also not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name because it uses the domain name to divert internet users to a business that competes with Complainant. Using a domain name to offer goods or services that compete with those of a complainant is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Coryn Group, Inc. v. Media Insight, FA 198959 (Forum Dec. 5, 2003) (finding that the respondent was not using the domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use because the respondent used the names to divert internet users to a website that offered services that competed with those offered by the complainant under its marks); see also Alcon, Inc. v. ARanked, FA 1306493 (Forum Mar. 18, 2010) ("The Panel finds that capitalizing on the well-known marks of Complainant by attracting internet users to its disputed domain names where Respondent sells competing products of Complainant is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).")

 

In support of its contentions Complainant submits screenshots of the website that appears at the disputed domain name, the browser address bar of each showing "vensette.com". The top of the home page displays the logo "it's beauty" together with WhatsApp and Instagram icons and a button bearing a telephone number, above a navigation menu reading "Nails", "Hair", "Brows & Lashes", "Locations", "Prices", "Blog", "About Us" and "Contact" and buttons labelled "Dubai" and "Abu Dhabi". Beneath the line "BUSINESS BAY, DUBAI MARINA, INTERNET CITY, DIFC, ABU DHABI", a large headline reads "GET A DISCOUNT UP TO 50% FOR ALL SERVICES AT OUR BEAUTY SALON IN DUBAI" beside the profile of a woman with long dark hair wearing a green satin top, and a panel headed "Promotion will end in:" counts down the days, hours, minutes and seconds above a "Book now" button and the words "Available for new customers only". Further down the page, a section headed "LADIES BEAUTY SALON IN DUBAI" states that "It's Beauty is a ladies beauty salon in Dubai and Abu Dhabi with six locations and a 4.9★ Google rating! Hair, makeup, nails, brows, and lashes are all in one place …", a gallery headed "OUR WORKS" shows photographs of manicured nails and styled hair and makeup, and a panel headed "SUBSCRIBE TO US ON SOCIAL MEDIA" carries buttons for TikTok, Instagram and YouTube, while a floating "ONLINE BOOKING" button appears at the lower right of each page. Although the name VENSETTE appears nowhere on the site, the Panel notes that the hair and makeup services supposedly offered through this site are the very services that Complainant offered under its mark at the same domain name for some fifteen years. Further, one of the e-mail addresses at which the Forum served the Complaint upon Respondent, itsbeauty.ae@gmail.com, corresponds to the name of the business promoted on the site. Respondent's use of the disputed domain name thus appears designed to capture internet traffic generated by Complainant's long use of its mark at this domain name and to redirect that traffic to a competing beauty business.

 

Complainant also submits a record of its correspondence with the GNAME domain brokerage service, including a March 25, 2026 message reporting that the owner of the disputed domain name had stated "that the domain is for personal use and not for sale, regardless of the price." The use shown in the above screenshots is plainly commercial and so this statement lends no support to any claim of a legitimate noncommercial use.

 

Based upon the submitted evidence, the Panel agrees with Complainant's contention that Respondent uses the disputed domain name to divert internet users to a competing business. Respondent has not participated in these proceedings to offer any explanation for its activities. Thus, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is not being used for a bona fide offering of goods or services or in a legitimate noncommercial or fair manner under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant asserts that Respondent registered the disputed domain name with knowledge of Complainant's rights in its VENSETTE mark. Some attribution of knowledge of a complainant's trademark is inherently prerequisite to a finding of bad faith under the Policy. See The Clash Of Trademarks And Domain Names On The Internet, Id., at 11.02-D.1 ("Targeting presupposes that the mark is of such a quality that a respondent's denial of knowledge of it would be implausible.") Actual knowledge can provide a solid foundation upon which to build an argument of bad faith registration under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) and this can be demonstrated based on the reputation of the mark as well as the use to which a disputed domain name is put. See WordPress Foundation v. mich delorme / mich d dots tlds, FA 1584295 (Forum Nov. 25, 2014) ("Because Respondent here relies on the WORDPRESS mark in the disputed domain name and also makes use of Complainant's services at the resolving page, the Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark, and that such knowledge evidences Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith.") Also UDRP Perspectives on Recent Jurisprudence, Id., at § 3.4 ("For bad faith to be present, the Respondent must have actual knowledge of the existence of the Complainant, the trademark owner.")

 

Complainant's business has been conducted principally in the United States, with the August 2015 WWD article reporting that its artists were working in New York, Los Angeles, Miami and San Francisco, while Respondent is located in Poland and the website at the disputed domain name promotes a salon operating in Dubai and Abu Dhabi. Complainant does not specifically address how a respondent so located would have known of its mark or competed with its services. However, the fact that a respondent is far from a complainant, or that the complainant does not offer its services where the respondent is located, does not, by itself, answer the question of knowledge. See UDRP Perspectives on Recent Jurisprudence, Id., at § 3.10 ("the fact that a Respondent is located geographically far away from a Complainant's location or that a Complainant does not offer its goods and services in a Respondent's location, is not necessarily determinative of a Respondent's lack of awareness of a Complainant's reputation.") The relevant inquiry is the geographic scope of the mark's reputation, and here the evidence shows that it extends well beyond the cities in which Complainant has provided its services. Complainant's business has been the subject of articles in The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, Vanity Fair, Forbes, Fast Company and ABC News, all publications with an international readership whose articles are available online throughout the world, as well as repeated coverage in WWD, a leading trade publication of the fashion and beauty industry. The Wall Street Journal article reports that Complainant's early clients included Charlotte Casiraghi, granddaughter of Princess Grace of Monaco, and Fast Company reports that Complainant's clients range from corporate executives to celebrities such as Kendall Jenner. Complainant's website further identifies as its corporate clients a number of international luxury houses, including LVMH, Gucci, Cartier, Tiffany & Co., Valentino and Givenchy, and it displays a testimonial from an executive of Salvatore Ferragamo. This evidence satisfies the Panel that, by the time the disputed domain name became available in late 2025, the VENSETTE mark had achieved recognition within the international fashion and beauty industry, which is the very field in which Respondent's business operates.

 

The circumstances of Respondent's acquisition of the disputed domain name reinforce this conclusion. Complainant registered the domain name in November 2010 and used it continuously for its business for some fifteen years, until a DreamHost notice dated November 9, 2025 advised that the registration had expired, and by the time Complainant discovered the problem in or about February 2026 the domain name had been acquired by Respondent. The Panel does not regard every acquisition of a lapsed domain name as abusive, particularly where the domain name is composed of dictionary words that may attract a registrant for reasons having nothing to do with any trademark. The analysis is different, however, where the lapsed domain name corresponds to a coined term that has no meaning apart from the complainant's mark and is used in relation to a business that is identical in nature to that of the prior registrant. See The Clash Of Trademarks And Domain Names On The Internet, Id., at 11.02-F.2 (acquisition of a lapsed domain name "may be abusive where the mark is highly distinctive in the market and more probable than not known to the respondent.") Respondent has not appeared to offer any explanation for its selection of the term VENSETTE. Taking into account the international reputation of the mark within the beauty industry, the coined nature of the term, Complainant's fifteen years of prior use of the disputed domain name, and Respondent's prompt use of it to promote a business offering the same hair and makeup services, the Panel finds, by a preponderance of the evidence (i.e., more likely than not), that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant and its mark when it acquired the disputed domain name and that it did so in bad faith.

 

Next, Complainant argues that Respondent uses the <vensette.com> domain name to divert internet users to a competing business and thereby disrupts Complainant's business and attracts users for commercial gain based on a likelihood of confusion with its mark. Such conduct is indicative of bad faith per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). See Kohler Co. v. Ernesto Rodriguez / Power Mower Corp., FA 1659972 (Forum Mar. 18, 2016) ("A respondent's use of a domain name to promote products and/or services that compete directly with a complainant's business constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)."); see also MathForum.com, LLC v. Weiguang Huang, D2000-0743 (WIPO Aug. 17, 2000) (finding bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent registered a domain name confusingly similar to the complainant's mark and the domain name was used to host a commercial website that offered similar services offered by the complainant under its mark). The Panel references the screenshots of the site resolving from the disputed domain name which are described in the previous section. These show that internet users who type Complainant's mark into their browsers, including former clients and others who encountered the mark through Complainant's years of media coverage and partnerships, now arrive at a website that promotes discounted hair, makeup, nail, brow and lash services, with prominent "Book now" and "ONLINE BOOKING" prompts, offered by a competing beauty business. The means of commercial gain is the traffic that the disputed domain name draws, and that traffic exists by reason of Complainant's mark and its long use at this domain name. As such, the Panel finds sufficient ground upon which to conclude that Respondent both registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv) and thus under ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

Finally, Complainant points to Respondent's statement, relayed through the GNAME brokerage service, that the domain name was held for personal use and was not for sale regardless of price. A refusal to sell a domain name is not, in itself, evidence of bad faith. However, this statement cannot be reconciled with the commercial use to which Respondent was putting the domain name at the time and, as such, it does nothing to dispel the inference of bad faith that arises from the evidence discussed above. Further, as Complainant holds no current trademark registration and the Panel has found that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark, the Panel need not address Complainant's alternative assertion that Respondent had constructive knowledge of it.

 

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

 

 

 

Steven M. Levy, Panelist

Dated: October 1, 2026