DECISION

 

Sena Technologies Co., Ltd. v. Kathleen Covington / burunson jack

Claim Number: FA2607002236264

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Sena Technologies Co., Ltd. ("Complainant"), represented by Youngsoo Lee of Verion Law PC, California, USA. Respondent is Kathleen Covington / burunson jack ("Respondent"), Multiple Locations.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES

The domain names at issue are <senascanada.com> and <sena-canadasale.com>, registered with Dynadot Inc and TuringSign Inc. d/b/a Cosmotown.

 

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 30, 2026; Forum received payment on July 30, 2026.

 

On August 3, 2026, Dynadot Inc and TuringSign Inc. d/b/a Cosmotown confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <senascanada.com> and <sena-canadasale.com> domain names are registered with Dynadot Inc and TuringSign Inc. d/b/a Cosmotown and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Dynadot Inc and TuringSign Inc. d/b/a Cosmotown have verified that Respondent is bound by the Dynadot Inc and TuringSign Inc. d/b/a Cosmotown registration agreements 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 August 10, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 31, 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@senascanada.com and postmaster@sena-canadasale.com. Also on August 10, 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 1, 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE RESPONDENTS

In the instant proceeding, there are 2 domain names in dispute and they have 2 purportedly different registrants. That raises the question whether the Complaint can deal with both of the domain names. The reason why that issue arises is that UDRP Rule 3(c) which governs this proceeding provides that "(t)he complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain-name holder." The question therefore is whether the 2 named registrants of the domain names are in fact "the same domain name holder".

 

It is also necessary in that regard to have regard to Forum Supplemental Rule 1(d) which provides that "(t)he Holder of a Domain Name Registration, . . . means the single person or entity listed in the registration information, as verified by the Registrar, at the time of commencement." Forum Supplemental Rules 1(d)(i) and 4(c), however, jointly provide that a complainant may argue that various listed registrants, as in the present case, are actually a single respondent/holder using multiple aliases making them in effect "the same domain name holder." If so, the Complainant may proceed with a single, joint proceeding. The Complainant has so argued in the present proceeding.

 

In deciding whether that conclusion may be reached in any given case, UDRP Panels that have adjudicated on this issue have looked at a variety of factors when determining whether multiple domain names are owned by a single holder standing behind one or more aliases. Some of those factors have included similarities in the structure of the domain names, similarities in registration information, identical or similar website content or uses, and the use of the same registrar, among other factors. See Chevron Intellectual Property LLC, FA 1907869 (Forum Sept. 16, 2020).

 

In undertaking that exercise, regard must also be given to Forum Supplemental Rule 4(c) that provides: "(c) Any arguments alleging Respondent aliases must be included in the Complaint for Panel consideration." 

 

Pursuant to Rule 4(c), the Complainant has submitted that in this proceeding and for several reasons a single Respondent is using multiple aliases. Those reasons are as follows:

 

(a)       the registration data is unreliable and does nothing to show that the 2 named registrants are independent actors, but rather that they are in cahoots with each other and are probably engaging in a misleading and deceptive enterprise;

(b)       the two websites to which the domain names resolve are overlapping and identical;

(c)       the chronology and sequence of events shows that when the first domain name, <senascanada.com>, was suspended, as it was, someone registered the second domain name, <sena-canadasale.com> and caused it to resolve to a website with the same content as its predecessor website;

(d)       the construction of the two domain names follows the same pattern of including "sena" as its first and dominant feature followed inter alia by, the words "canada" and "sale";

(e)       both domain names use Cloudfare nameservers; and

(f)       it is fair and equitable that claims for the two domain names should be dealt with in the one proceeding.

 

All of those contentions are supported and made out by the evidence, particularly the helpful Declaration of Richard Lee made on August 10, 2026.

 

The Panel agrees with each of the foregoing contentions.

 

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names should be considered as being owned by and under the control of a single registrant operating under multiple aliases who are therefore, as a matter of fact, "the same domain name holder".

 

The proceeding may therefore go forward on that basis. The Panel will henceforth refer to the nominal registrants of the 2 domain names as "the Respondent."

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

    Complainant made the following contentions.

1.       The Complainant is a Republic of Korea company engaged in the provision of wireless cellular phone headsets and headsets for use in a variety of industries and related goods and services and has been so engaged since at least 2012.

2.       The Complainant provides its aforesaid goods and services under the trademark for SENA.

3.       The Complainant acquired its trademark rights in SENA by virtue of the registration of that mark in the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO"), Reg. No 4,566,245 registered by the Complainant on July 15, 2014 and several other registered trademarks for SENA registered in the United States of America and internationally  ("the SENA trademark").

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

5.       The Complainant has also registered the domain name <sena.com> and other domain names which it uses in its business and to promote its SENA goods and services on its official websites.

6.       The Respondent registered:

(a)       the <senascanada.com> domain name on January 12, 2026; and

(b)       the <sena-canadasale.com> domain name on June 5, 2026;

         ("the disputed domain names").

7.       The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the SENA trademark.

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

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

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

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

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

(e)                      the Respondent registered the disputed domain names many years after the Complainant acquired its trademark rights in the SENA trademark;

(f)                      the Respondent intended to and has caused actual harm to the Complainant and internet users by impersonating and holding itself out as the Complainant and seeking to induce internet users to buy goods and services from it and purporting them to be genuine products of the Complainant which they were not; and

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

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

(a)        the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain names and the websites to which they resolve to give the false impression that they are those of the Complainant or authorized by it and hence to generate confusion within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv);

(b)       the Respondent had actual knowledge of the Complainant and its aforesaid trademarks when it, the Respondent, registered the disputed domain names;

(c)       the Respondent's evasive conduct, apparent use of false registration data and repeated use of the domain names and the websites to which they resolve, show bad faith registration and use and fraudulent intent; 

(d)       the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain names and the websites to which they resolve to disrupt the business of the Complainant within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii); and

(e)        there is no plausible circumstance tending to suggest that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain names otherwise than in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

    Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

1.       The Complainant is a Republic of Korea company engaged in the provision of wireless cellular phone headsets and headsets for use in a variety of industries and related goods and services and has been so engaged since at least 2012.

2.       The Complainant provides its aforesaid goods and services under the trademark for SENA.

3.       The Complainant acquired its trademark rights in SENA by virtue of the registration of that mark in the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO"), Reg. No 4,566,245 registered by the Complainant on July 15, 2014 and several other registered trademarks for SENA registered in the United States of America and internationally  ("the SENA trademark").

4.       The Respondent registered the <senascanada.com> domain name on January 12, 2026 and the <sena-canadasale.com> domain name on June 5, 2026 ("the disputed domain names").

5.       The Respondent has registered and used the domain names to infringe the Complainant's trademark, pass itself off as and impersonate the Complainant, purport to offer the Complainant's products for sale, disrupt the Complainant's business, generate confusion and make money by improper means.

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

7.       Accordingly, the disputed domain names 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 is that the Complainant provides its aforesaid goods and services under the trademark for SENA. The evidence is also that the Complainant acquired its trademark rights in SENA by virtue of the registration of that mark in the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO"), Reg. No 4,566,245 registered by the Complainant on July 15, 2014 and several other registered trademarks for SENA registered in the United States of America and internationally  ("the SENA trademark").

All of the aforesaid facts have been established by documentary evidence that the Panel has inspected and finds to be in order and that the trademark is current and registered in the name of the Complainant.

It is also clear from the evidence that the Complainant acquired its aforesaid trademark many years before the Respondent registered the disputed domain names.

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 names are identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's SENA trademark.

The Panel finds that each of the disputed domain names is confusingly similar to the trademark. That is so because each of the domain names includes the SENA trademark in its entirety and as the first and dominant feature of the respective domain names. Internet users would therefore clearly take each of the domain names to be invoking the SENA trademark and as being a domain name of the Complainant or one that has been authorized by it.

 

The <senascanada.com> domain name also includes the word "canada", signifying the country Canada. It is well-established in this jurisdiction and supported by countless prior UDRP decisions that when the name of a country is included in a domain name with a trademark that is clearly indentifiable, the presence of any such country name does not override the dominant presence of the trademark. Internet users would simply take the domain name to be a domain name invoking the goods and services relating to the trademark and being offered in Canada by the Complainant under its aforesaid trademark and for which it is well-known. The addition of the letter "s" after "sena" would merely be taken by internet users to mean that the domain name relates to a plural version of the trademark.

 

The <sena-canadasale.com> domain name also includes the word "canada" and the foregoing comments with respect to country names apply equally to this domain name. This domain name also includes the word "sale" and internet users would clearly take the domain name to be a domain name invoking the goods and services relating to the trademark and being offered in Canada for sale by the Complainant under its aforesaid trademark and for which it is well-known. It also includes a hyphen, but it is well established that the use of a hyphen is too minor to influence the interpretation of the domain name when the relevant trademark is clearly identifiable.

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

Accordingly, the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the SENA 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 names 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 names on all of the grounds relied on by the Complainant, namely:

(a)                      the evidence shows that the Respondent has not used either of the disputed domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i); that has been established by Annexes 2-a and 2-b to the Complaint which show the websites to which the domain names have resolved; the Panel has inspected them and finds that they carry repeated uses of the SENA trademark which the evidence has established are unauthorized and which are clearly intended to give the false impression to internet users that they are either being used by the Complainant or with its consent, which they are not; the websites have also carried representations of the Complainant's products to pretend that they are genuine products of the Complainant that can lawfully be sold by the Respondent; the websites also use what are clearly copyright images taken from the Complainant's official website; moreover, as the Complainant has established, when the website to which the <senascanada.com> resolved was taken down at the instigation of the Complainant, the Respondent brazenly registered the <sena-canadasale.com> domain name and caused it to resolve to the same website as its predecessor; none of this conduct could possibly give rise to a right or legitimate interest in the very domain names used to perpetrate this subterfuge; none of this conduct is remotely bona fide;

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

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

(d)                      the 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 trademarks in any of the domain names and no ground for concluding that the domain names had been registered with any sort of consent of the Complainant;

(e)                      the Respondent registered the disputed domain names many years after the Complainant acquired its trademark rights in the SENA trademark; the Respondent thus carried out its designs on a trademark which was registered and which prevented the Respondent from carrying out the subterfuges in which it has engaged;

(f)                      the Respondent intended to and has caused actual harm to the Complainant and internet users by impersonating and holding itself out as the Complainant and seeking to induce internet users to buy goods and services from it, purporting them to be genuine products of the Complainant which they were not; it is clear from registering the domain names and then using them to make false claims about the Respondent's entitlement and particularly its pretence to be authorized to sell the Complainant's genuine products, that the Respondent intended to divert possible customers away from the Complainant and to the Respondent which would inevitably cause financial loss to the Complainant; indeed, the evidence is of at least one case where the Respondent's subterfuges were successful;

(g)                      the entire conduct of the Respondent, as revealed by the evidence, shows that it registered two domain names confusingly similar to the SENA trademark, used them to pretend that it was the Complainant or was authorized by it and caused actual financial harm; in those circumstances it would be a contradiction in terms to suggest that the Respondent had a right or legitimate interest in the domain names;  and

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

 

All of these matters make out a strong 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 names were 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, particularly Annexes 2-a and 2-b, 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 names, which it clearly did without any consent of the Complainant and to mislead and deceive internet users and it has continued in that conduct after their registration, showing bad faith use. Thus, the Complainant has established that the registrations were in bad faith and also that they are being used in bad faith, thereby satisfying the foregoing requirement. The registration of the domain names was in bad faith because they gave the false impression to internet users that they were domain names of or associated with the Complainant, which they were not and that they had been registered by the Complainant or were authorised by it, which they also were 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 names as set out above. The evidence in that regard has already been shown to establish that the Respondent has used the domain names to purport to sell the Complainant's genuine SENA goods and services to potential customers and to make money by that means. The Respondent therefore acted dishonestly and misleadingly in both its registration and use of the domain names.

It is therefore clear from the evidence that, as the Complainant has submitted:

(a)       the evidence shows that Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain names and the websites to which they resolve to give the false impression that they are those of the Complainant or authorized by it and hence to generate confusion within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv); by copying the Complainant's trademark and by helping itself to the Complainant's trademark and images, the Respondent clearly wanted to confuse internet users into believing that it was the Complainant or was authorized by it and that the products on display were genuine products of the Complainant, which they were not, even if they existed at all; this was clearly designed to confuse internet users which is an act of bad faith;

(b)       the Respondent had actual knowledge of the Complainant and its aforesaid trademarks when it, the Respondent, registered the disputed domain names; the evidence shows that the Respondent must have had such actual knowledge in view of the fame and goodwill of the SENA trademark and could not have attempted to carry out its subterfuge without having had that actual knowledge;

(c)       the evidence shows that the Respondent's evasive conduct, apparent use of false registration data and repeated use of the domain names and the websites to which they resolve, show bad faith registration and use and fraudulent intent;

(d)       the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain names and the websites to which they resolve to disrupt the business of the Complainant within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii); that is because the Respondent clearly wanted internet users to buy their cellular phone headsets and related goods and services from the Respondent and not from the Complainant, which must have disrupted the Complainant's business; and

(e)       the evidence shows that there is no plausible circumstance tending to suggest that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain names otherwise 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 names were registered and are 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 names.

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 <senascanada.com> and <sena-canadasale.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

The Honorable Neil Anthony Brown KC,

Panelist

Dated: September 2, 2026