DECISION

 

Bestway Inflatables & Material Corp. v. Maymunah Maymunah

Claim Number: FA2609002245168

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Bestway Inflatables & Material Corp. ("Complainant"), represented by Jenny Slocum of Dickinson Wright PLLC, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Maymunah Maymunah ("Respondent"), Ukraine.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <thesleeplux.com>, registered with Dynadot Inc.

 

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.

 

Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on September 14, 2026; Forum received payment on September 14, 2026.

 

On September 15, 2026, Dynadot Inc confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <thesleeplux.com> domain name is registered with Dynadot Inc and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Dynadot Inc has verified that Respondent is bound by the Dynadot 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 18, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 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@thesleeplux.com. Also on September 18, 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 October 9, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. 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

i) For over 30 years, Complainant and its affiliates have manufactured and sold various inflatable products. As part of its product line, Complainant offers a SLEEPLUX line of air mattresses. Complainant has been using the SLEEPLUX mark since as early as 2019. Complainant is the owner of the trademark SLEEPLUX for use in connection with air mattresses through registrations with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 6,009,712, registered March 10, 2020, in Class 20). The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the SLEEPLUX mark, as it fully incorporates the mark, merely adding "the" at the beginning and the ".com" gTLD.

 

ii) Respondent lacks any legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services, or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to resolve to a website that purports to be owned and controlled by Complainant. As acknowledged on the website, Respondent obtains advertising fees from Amazon.com by holding itself out as Complainant.

 

iii) There is no colorable rationale for the use and registration of the disputed domain name other than to (i) disrupt the business of Complainant by causing Internet users to think they are accessing Complainant's own website, or (ii) attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent's website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's SLEEPLUX mark. Respondent has registered a disputed domain name that wholly incorporates Complainant's SLEEPLUX mark. Moreover, the content on the resolving website, which refers to Complainant's SLEEPLUX product line, strongly implies that the website is sponsored by Complainant, when it is not. The fact that Respondent registered the disputed domain name using Complainant's SLEEPLUX mark, and maintains a webpage that refers to products offered by Complainant, strongly suggests that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark and has registered, and is using, the disputed domain name in bad faith. Forum recently decided a similar case concerning the diversion of business for purposes of advertising revenue.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

1. The disputed domain name was registered on October 29, 2025.

 

2. Complainant has demonstrated rights in the mark SLEEPLUX for use in connection with air mattresses through registrations with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 6,009,712, registered March 10, 2020, in Class 20).

 

3. The disputed domain name currently resolves to a website that purports to be owned and controlled by Complainant. The webpage content associated with the disputed domain name directly references Complainant's SLEEPLUX product line.

 

4. The footer of the website operated at the disputed domain name states: "SleepLux (thesleeplux.com) is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to amazon.com."

 

5. The site associated with the disputed domain name displays a copyright notice incorporating the SLEEPLUX mark.

 

6. There is no explicit disclaimer on the website hosted at the disputed domain name regarding any relationship with 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 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 asserts rights in the mark SLEEPLUX for use in connection with air mattresses through registrations with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 6,009,712, registered March 10, 2020, in Class 20). Registration of a mark with the USPTO constitutes valid evidence of trademark rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), and Complainant has submitted supporting documentation of its SLEEPLUX registration. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in the SLEEPLUX mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Complainant contends that the disputed domain name, <thesleeplux.com>, is confusingly similar to the SLEEPLUX mark, as it fully incorporates the mark, merely adding "the" at the beginning and the ".com" gTLD. The Panel finds that the addition of such a generic or descriptive term and the gTLD extension does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. The disputed domain name is therefore confusingly similar to Complainant's SLEEPLUX 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), then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Section 2.1, WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.1 ("Where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element.").

 

Complainant argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Respondent been authorized by Complainant to use Complainant's mark, and Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant. Relevant information, such as WHOIS information, can be used as evidence to show a respondent is or is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). The Panel notes that the unmasked WHOIS data lists "Maymunah Maymunah" as the registrant, and there is no evidence in the record to suggest Respondent was authorized to use the mark. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

Complainant contends that Respondent does not use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, because Respondent employs the disputed domain name to pass itself off as Complainant. When a respondent uses a disputed domain name to impersonate a complainant, the Panel may find that the respondent has failed to make a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Ripple Labs Inc. v. Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund, FA 1790949 (Forum July 9, 2018) (holding that the respondent's use of the domain name to feature the complainant's mark and related content did not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)).

 

On the basis of the screenshots of the website hosted at the disputed domain name and Complainant's own website, the Panel notes the following:

 

(i) The disputed domain name currently resolves to a website that purports to be owned and controlled by Complainant. The webpage content associated with the disputed domain name directly references Complainant's SLEEPLUX product line.

 

(ii) The footer of the website operated at the disputed domain name states: "SleepLux (thesleeplux.com) is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to amazon.com."

 

(iii) The site associated with the disputed domain name displays a copyright notice incorporating the SLEEPLUX mark.

 

(iv) There is no explicit disclaimer on the website hosted at the disputed domain name regarding any relationship with Complainant.

 

While the authenticity of the products is unknown, even if the products offered for sale on the website hosted at the disputed domain name are Complainant's genuine products, the Panel finds that Respondent is impersonating Complainant and fraudulently using the disputed domain name by taking Complainant's trade dress and brand imagery from Complainant's website. The Panel finds that Respondent's activities associated with the disputed domain name are fraudulent, create a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark, and are likely to mislead or disrupt Internet users. Furthermore, the website hosted at the disputed domain name displays a notice that the site is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to amazon.com. This implies that Respondent is presumably gaining advertising fees by using the disputed domain name.

 

The Panel finds that Respondent is impersonating Complainant and fraudulently using the disputed domain name by taking Complainant's trade dress and brand imagery from Complainant's website. The Panel finds that Respondent's activities associated with the disputed domain name are fraudulent, create a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark, and are likely to mislead or disrupt Internet users to presumably gain advertising or pay-per-click fees. Such conduct does not constitute a use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor is it a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case that arises from the considerations above. All of these matters go to establish the prima facie case against Respondent. As Respondent has not filed a Response or otherwise attempted to rebut the prima facie case, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant asserts that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name to (i) disrupt the business of Complainant by causing Internet users to think they are accessing Complainant's own website, or (ii) attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent's website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's SLEEPLUX mark.

 

The Panel observes that when a respondent uses a disputed domain name to impersonate Complainant, this may constitute a bad faith disruption of Complainant's business under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii), and an attempt to attract users for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum Dec. 27, 2017) (finding bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where "Respondent registered and uses the <lbittrex.com> domain name in bad faith by directing Internet users to a website that mimics Complainant's own website to confuse users into believing that Respondent is Complainant, or is otherwise affiliated or associated with Complainant.").

 

As previously noted, the disputed domain name resolves to a website that purports to be owned and controlled by Complainant. The webpage content associated with the disputed domain name directly references Complainant's SLEEPLUX product line. The footer of the website operated at the disputed domain name states: "SleepLux (thesleeplux.com) is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to amazon.com." The site associated with the disputed domain name displays a copyright notice incorporating the SLEEPLUX mark. Furthermore, there is no explicit disclaimer on the website hosted at the disputed domain name regarding any relationship with Complainant.

 

The Panel finds that Respondent's use of the disputed domain name disrupts Complainant's business and yields commercial benefits, such as advertising fees or pay-per-click fees, by diverting Internet users to Respondent's website, thereby creating confusion and falsely suggesting an affiliation with Complainant. Accordingly, the Panel concludes that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith under paragraphs 4(b)(iii) and (iv) of the Policy.

 

Additionally, Complainant argues that Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge in light of the fact that Respondent registered the disputed domain name using Complainant's SLEEPLUX mark, and maintains a webpage that refers to products offered by Complainant.

 

The Panel notes that Complainant began to use its SLEEPLUX mark in commerce in 2019, as indicated in the trademark registration, and in consideration of the general contents of Complainant's website, the mark was known as the source identifier of Complainant's products many years before the registration of the disputed domain name.

 

The Panel infers that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's trademark rights at the time of registration of the disputed domain name, given the longstanding use of the SLEEPLUX mark, and Respondent's passing itself off as Complainant by using Complainant's SLEEPLUX mark on the website hosted at the disputed domain name, alongside images of Complainant's products. Accordingly, the Panel concludes that Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

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

 

 

 

Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist

Dated: October 10, 2026