Belmont Village, L.P. v Luis Bohorquez, Agropecuaria Los Potreros C.A

WIPO Case No. D2024-2551

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Belmont Village, L.P. v. Luis Bohorquez, Agropecuaria Los Potreros C.A.

Case No. D2024-2551

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Belmont Village, L.P., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Smith,

Gambrell & Russell, LLP, United States.

The Respondent is Luis Bohorquez, Agropecuaria Los Potreros C.A., Lebanon.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <belmontvillagefinancial.com> is registered with FastDomain, Inc. (the

“Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 21, 2024.
On June 24, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in
connection with the disputed domain name. On June 24, 2024, the Registrar transmitted by email to the
Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name
which differed from the named Respondent (Perfect Privacy, LLC) and contact information in the Complaint.
The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on June 26, 2024, providing the registrant and
contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the

Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on June 26, 2024.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on July 2, 2024. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 22, 2024. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 2, 2024.

page 2

The Center appointed Fabrizio Bedarida as the sole panelist in this matter on August 7, 2024. 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

The Complainant in this administrative proceeding is Belmont Village, L.P, a Maryland limited partnership.

The Complainant owns the trademarks BELMONT VILLAGE and BELMONT VILLAGE SENIOR LIVING which are used in connection with the provision of assisted living facilities. The Complainant also provides financial planning services.

The Complainant is, inter alia, the owner of:

- United States Trademark BELMONT VILLAGE, registration number 2,265,492, registered on July 27, 1999;

- United States Trademark BELMONT VILLAGE (device), registration number 2,651,928, registered on

November 19, 2002.

The Complainant is also the owner of the domain names, <belmontvillage.com> and

<belmontvillageassistedliving.com.com>.

The disputed domain name was registered on May 31, 2024.

The disputed domain name is currently inactive.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name.

Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and particularly that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name, which consists of the terms “belmont” and “village”, which are the same as the Complainant’s registered trademarks, along with the generic term “financial” in order to attract Internet users for commercial gain to the Respondent’s website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark. The Complainant further claims that there is a risk that the disputed domain name could be used for fraudulent emails from scammers impersonating the Complainant.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that each of the three following elements is satisfied:

page 3

(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has

rights; and

(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and

(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7.

The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy.
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1.

The entirety of the BELMONT VILLAGE mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.

Although the addition of other terms here, “financial”, may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such term does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8.

The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name.

Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, 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 (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1.

Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise.

In addition, the Panel notes that the composition of the disputed domain name reproducing the
Complainant’s BELMONT VILLAGE trademark with the addition of the term “financial”, which refers to one of
the activities provided by the Complainant, carries a risk of implied affiliation. WIPO Overview 3.0, section

2.5.1.

The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established.

page 4

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel notes that, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. .

The disputed domain name reproduces, without any authorization or approval, the Complainant’s registered BELMONT VILLAGE trademark with the addition of the term “financial”. The disputed domain name was registered over two decades after the Complainant’s BELMONT VILLAGE trademark was registered. In addition, the disputed domain name is similar to the Complainant’s domain name <belmontvillage.com>.

Noting also the composition of the disputed domain name, it is more likely than not that the Respondent,
when registering the disputed domain name, had knowledge of the Complainant’s earlier rights to the

BELMONT VILLAGE trademark.

Panels have found that the non-use of a domain name (including a blank or “coming soon” page) would not
prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3.
Having reviewed the available record, the Panel notes the distinctiveness of the Complainant’s trademark,
and the composition of the disputed domain name, and finds that in the circumstances of this case the

current passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the Policy.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element 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 disputed domain name <belmontvillagefinancial.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Fabrizio Bedarida/
Fabrizio Bedarida
Sole Panelist
Date: August 21, 2024