DECISION

 

Wil Wes Rappaport v. Joseph Todd / Shadow Mountain Holdings, LLC

Claim Number: FA2608002237495

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Wil Wes Rappaport ("Complainant"), represented by John J. O'Malley of Volpe Koenig, Pennsylvania, USA. Respondent is Joseph Todd / Shadow Mountain Holdings, LLC ("Respondent"), represented by Matthew Homyk of Blank Rome LLP, Pennsylvania, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <bvos.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.

 

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.

 

Héctor Ariel Manoff as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on August 5, 2026; Forum received payment on August 5, 2026.

 

On August 6, 2026, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <bvos.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, LLC registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").

 

On August 17, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 8, 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@bvos.com. Also on August 17, 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.

 

A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on September 8, 2026.

 

On September 9, 2026, pursuant to the Parties' requests to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Héctor Ariel Manoff 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

1- Complainant holds trademark rights in the mark BVOS.

2- The disputed domain name <bvos.com> is identical to Complainant's registered "BVOS" word mark and confusingly similar.

3- Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name.

4- The disputed domain name was originally created on October 22, 1997 and acquired by Respondent in 2023.

5- Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith by acquiring it after Complainant established trademark rights on May 19, 2023.

6- Respondent is holding the domain name for commercial gain, offering it for sale at a $29,875 asking price on Sedo and generating PPC revenue via unrelated advertising links.

 

B. Respondent

1- Respondent acquired the domain name on April 27, 2023, prior to Complainant's earliest trademark application (May 19, 2023) and claimed first-use date (2025), precluding a finding of bad faith registration.

2- Respondent has rights and legitimate interests under Policy 4(c)(i) based on demonstrable preparations to use the domain for "Business Valuation and Online Services" in support of Shadow Mountain Holdings, LLC's active M&A operations.

3- "BVOS" is a generic four-letter acronym susceptible to numerous interpretations and is not inherently distinctive or uniquely associated with Complainant.

4- The price for sale published on Sedo was set high to discourage purchase offers.

5- Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH) sanctions should be issued because Complainant filed the proceeding despite knowing its trademark rights postdated Respondent's acquisition.

 

C. Additional Submissions

Complainant

1- Respondent failed to prove that it completed the acquisition and obtained control of the domain name on April 27, 2023, as the initial exhibit was only a Sedo payment request.

2- The continuous $29,875 sale listing (from October 2023 to 2026) refutes Respondent's claim that it intended to retain the domain solely for an operating platform.

3- Respondent provided no contemporaneous business plans, filings, or domain-specific preparations connecting "BVOS" to "Business Valuation and Online Services" prior to the dispute.

4- RDNH should be denied because Respondent's pre-complaint disclosures were private, incomplete, and provided only after the Complaint was filed.

 

Respondent

1- The documentary chain (Sedo transfer email, GoDaddy order confirmation, and GoDaddy payment receipt dated April 28, 2023) conclusively proves completed acquisition prior to Complainant's trademark application.

2- Policy 4(c)(i) does not require formal trade name filings or domain-specific business plans to establish demonstrable preparations for a bona fide business.

3- The February 2026 NDA validly corroborates Respondent's ongoing M&A business operations.

4- RDNH is further justified because Complainant maintained the proceeding and manufactured factual doubts after receiving definitive pre-rights acquisition records.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant, Wil Wes Rappaport v. Joseph Todd / Shadow Mountain Holdings, LLC holds trademark rights in the mark BVOS but Respondent acquired the domain name <bvos.com> in April 2023, prior to Complainant's earliest trademark application (May 2023) and claimed first-use dates (2025). Complainant failed to prove Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name <bvos.com> in bad faith. The Panel declines to reach a finding as to rights or legitimate interests.

 

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.

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

There is no dispute as to the first element as Respondent concedes that for purposes of the first element, which is essentially a standing requirement, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's BVOS mark (Annexes 1 and 2).

 

The Panel concludes the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's marks under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

In light of the Panel's findings on the third element, the Panel declines to address the question of rights or legitimate interests.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

The Panel firstly points out that the disputed domain name was originally created on October 22, 1997 (Annex 3). Respondent acquired the domain name on April 27, 2023 (Annexes A and B), and it is before Complainant filed its trademark application on May 19, 2023 (Annex 1 and 2) and it started being used (2025).

 

Thus, it was not proved bad faith in the registration of the disputed domain name. EBSCO Industries, Inc. v. WebMagic Staff / WebMagic Ventures, LLC, FA 1722095 (Forum May 25, 2017) ("It is well established that a domain name predating a complainant's registration and first use of a trademark can be used to evince a good faith registration"). Consensys Software Inc. v. Justin Pietroni, Netymology Ltd., D2021-3337 (WIPO Dec. 9, 2021) ("panels will not normally find bad faith on the part of the respondent where a respondent registers a domain name before the complainant's trade mark rights accrue"). 

 

In addition, the Panel considers that Respondent's grounds stating that "BVOS" is a common four-letter acronym susceptible to numerous interpretations, not only "Best Version of Self" as suggested by Complainant but also "Business Valuation and Online Services" as chosen by Respondent is possible and reasonable.

 

Respondent claims to have selected the disputed domain name <bvos.com> because it is an acronym that corresponds to "Business Valuation and Online Services," to develop an online platform for SMH's business valuation and M&A advisory services, and to have been unaware of Complainant at that time. The Panel considers these claims to be plausible and consistent with the evidence submitted before the Panel.

 

It does not appear to the Panel that Respondent acquired the disputed domain name in relation to Complainant's products or its marks.

 

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has failed to prove that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith.

 

As regards the use, Complainant has not filed evidence to prove that the domain name was used in bad faith, by mimicking its trademark, or that Respondent has used Complainant's design or any fact to disrupt its business or to attract for commercial gain.

 

As regards the offer for sale, Respondent argues that it was listed on Sedo with a high price to discourage purchase offers—not to sell it.

 

The Panel finds that, even though his intention had been an offer to sell, it is not necessary a bad faith sign. Prior Panels have decided that "As to bad faith use, the resale of descriptive, generic domain names does not prove bad faith. So long as there is no intended targeting of the mark owner, or some level of abuse directed specifically toward that victim, bad faith cannot be found from an offer to sell such a domain name" (Technologies Sensopia Inc. v. BLUE NOVA INC., FA 1725217). See Also HP Hood LLC v. hood.com, FA 313566 (Forum Nov. 9, 2004) ("Complainant alleges that Respondent engaged in bad faith because Respondent registered the <hood.com> domain name with the intent to resell them. As noted above in the legitimate interest section, the mere offer for sale of a descriptive term domain name does not establish bad faith under the Policy but, rather, may be taken as proof of Respondent's legitimate interest. It is only the registration with the "purpose of selling ... the domain name registration to Complainant" that establishes bad faith under the Policy.").

 

According to the grounds and evidence submitted, the Panel finds that Complainant has not proved the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKING

Respondent requests a finding under Paragraph 15(e) of the Rules that the Complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding. The Panel declines to make that finding.

 

If the Panel finds that a complaint was brought in bad faith, the Panel shall declare that the complaint constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding.

 

However, Reverse Domain Name Hijacking requires that the Complainant knew or should have known that the claim could not be successful under any fair interpretation of the facts reasonably available to it, or otherwise abused the Policy, and that is not this case. 

 

Complainant owns registered rights in the BVOS and the disputed domain name is identical to that mark. Complainant did not find current use of the domain name and these circumstances gave Complainant a reasonable, although ultimately unsuccessful, basis for challenging Respondent's registration.

 

The complaint fails for insufficient proof of the three elements, not because it was brought in bad faith. 

 

The Panel disagrees with Complainant's arguments about Respondent's rights or legitimate interests and bad faith. However, it does not establish that the Complaint was brought in bad faith. See BISSELL Inc. v. Art Rodriguez, FA 2227526 (Forum July 21, 2026) (declining to find RDNH where the complaint ultimately failed for insufficient evidence of bad faith registration, but the circumstances nevertheless gave rise to legitimate concerns under the Policy).

 

The Panel is not persuaded that, when the Complaint was filed, Complainant knew or should have known that the claim could not succeed. Thus, the Panel declines to find that Complainant engaged in RDNH.

 

DECISION

Having not established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <bvos.com> domain name REMAIN WITH Respondent.

 

 

 

Héctor Ariel Manoff, Panelist

Dated: September 18, 2026