About Intellectual Property IP Training IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Industrial Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgements IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Industrial Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars World IP Day WIPO Magazine Raising Awareness Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Economics Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Enforcement Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions COVID-19 Support National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO ALERT Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Job Vacancies Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Lennar Pacific Properties Management, Inc. and Lennar Corporation v. Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot

Case No. D2019-2737

1. The Parties

Complainant (collectively) is Lennar Pacific Properties Management, Inc. (“LPPM”) and Lennar Corporation (“Lennar”), United States of America (“United States”), represented by Slates Harwell LLP, United States.

Respondent is Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot, United States.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <lennarmortgagefinance.com> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Dynadot, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 7, 2019. On November 8, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On November 8, 2019, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.

The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on November 15, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 5, 2019. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on December 6, 2019.

The Center appointed Harrie R. Samaras as the sole panelist in this matter on December 11, 2019. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.

4. Factual Background

Complainant LPPM is the owner/licensor and Complainant Lennar is the licensee of the LENNAR trademark (“LENNAR Mark”) (United States Registrations No. 3108401 and No. 3477143, respectively registered on June 27, 2006, and July 29, 2008). Those registrations relate to services in the field of real estate, generally, including financing and mortgage services. On September 18, 2019, LPPM filed a new application with the United States Patent and Trademark Office to register the mark LMF LENNAR MORTGAGE FINANCE for various financial services related to the field of real estate.

Complainant maintains it has offered real estate management, brokerage, development, construction and financial services under the LENNAR Mark and the LMF LENNAR MORTGAGE FINANCE mark since at least as early as 1973. Complainant Lennar has been one of America’s leading homebuilders since 1954, building and selling homes in 21 states in the United States. It also owns and operates a website utilizing the LENNAR Mark and the LMF LENNAR MORTGAGE FINANCE mark in connection with its registered services, located at the domain name <lennar.com>.

On September 21, 2019 – only three days after Complainant Lennar filed the aforementioned trademark application to register LMF LENNAR MORTGAGE FINANCE – Respondent registered the Domain Name <lennarmortgagefinance.com>. The website associated with the Domain Name provides a list of pay‑per‑click links to other websites related to: “Home Warranty,” “Business Funding,” “Mortgage Refinance,” “Business Loans,” “Owner Financing Homes,” “Mortgage Loans Refinancing,” “New Business Loans,” “Business Loan,” “Business Credit,” and “Lennar Homes.”

On October 23, 2019, Complainant Lennar sent Respondent a cease and desist letter. To date, Respondent has failed to acknowledge or respond to that letter.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

Respondent’s registration of the Domain Name is identical to and confusingly similar with the LENNAR Mark and LMF LENNAR MORTGAGE FINANCE mark.

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the Domain Name. Upon initial investigation, information, and belief, Complainant alleges: (1) it has not located any evidence of Respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Domain Name or a name corresponding to the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; (2) Respondent has not been commonly known by the Domain Name and has acquired no trademark or service mark rights in the LENNAR Mark or the LMF LENNAR MORTGAGE FINANCE mark; and (3) Respondent is not making any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name. Respondent’s failure to respond to Complainant Lennar’s October 23, 2019, letter also reflects Respondent’s lack of legitimate interest or rights in the Domain Name.

The Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith by Respondent, including registration primarily for the purpose of disrupting Complainants’ business and for selling it to Complainant or a competitor for more than the documented out-of-pocket expenses related to the name, as evidenced by the Domain Name registration occurring a mere three days after Complainant Lennar filed a new trademark application for its LENNAR MORTGAGE FINANCE mark. Further bad faith is Respondent’s failure to respond to Complainant Lennar’s cease and desist letter and to provide any evidence or rebuttal to allegations of its bad faith registration of the Domain Name.

B. Respondent

Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Panel concludes that Complainant has rights in the LENNAR Mark by virtue of the United States trademark registrations cited above.

The Domain Name <lennarmortgagefinance.com> incorporates in its entirety Complainant’s LENNAR Mark. Where a domain name incorporates complainant’s mark, this is sufficient to establish that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar for purposes of the Policy. See Kabushiki Kaisha Hitachi Seisakusho (d/b/a Hitachi Ltd) v. Arthur Wrangle, WIPO Case No. D2005-1105. Adding the dictionary terms “mortgage” and “finance” to Complainant’s Lennar Mark does not alleviate the confusion. The LENNAR Mark is clearly recognizable within the Domain Name. See section 1.8 of WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”).

For the foregoing reasons, the Panel finds that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. It is undisputed that Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted Respondent to use the LENNAR Mark in any manner, including as a domain name. The record evidence indicates that Respondent registered the Domain Name well after Complainant had registered rights in the Domain Name and just three days after Complainant Lennar filed its application to register LMF LENNAR MORTGAGE FINANCE.

Respondent has not provided any evidence establishing it has been commonly known by the Domain Name. Furthermore, there is no evidence Respondent is making a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name insofar as Respondent is using the Domain Name in connection with a website that has links to the competing services of others.

Complainant has raised a prima facie presumption of Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests, and Respondent has failed to rebut that presumption.

For the foregoing reasons, the Panel finds that paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy has been satisfied.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

With regard to bad faith registration, Complainant’s rights in the LENNAR Mark are uncontroverted, as is the fact that Respondent registered the Domain Name after Complainant established its rights in the Mark. Furthermore, as indicated above, Respondent has not presented any evidence upon which the Panel can find that it has rights or legitimate interests in the LENNAR Mark, which it chose to use in conjunction with a webpage having links to services that compete with those offered by Complainant. That Respondent knew of Complainant and the LENNAR Mark is further evidenced by the fact that one of those links is to Complainant Lennar, and Respondent registered the Domain Name three days after Complainant Lennar filed its application to register the LMF LENNAR MORTGAGE FINANCE mark. Thus, the Panel concludes Respondent registered the Domain Name in bad faith.

Respondent’s use of the Domain Name also constitutes bad faith under the Policy. The Domain Name resolves to a webpage with pay-per-click links intended to attract Internet users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the LENNAR Mark.

The Panel therefore holds that Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.

7. Decision

For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the Domain Name <lennarmortgagefinance.com> be transferred to Complainant.

Harrie R. Samaras
Sole Panelist
Date: December 19, 2019

https://www3.wipo.int/contact/en/area.jsp?area=arbitration https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/disclaim.html https://www.wipo.int/en/web/privacy-policy/ https://www.wipo.int/en/web/accessibility/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/sitemap.html https://www3.wipo.int/newsletters/en/ https://www.wipo.int/podcasts/en/ https://www.wipo.int/news/en/