Bridgewell Resources v Domain Administrator, See PrivacyGuardian.org

WIPO Case No. D2023-4575

ARBITRATION

AND

MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Bridgewell Resources v. Domain Administrator, See PrivacyGuardian.org

Case No. D2023-4575

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Bridgewell Resources, United States of America, represented by Soteria LLC, United

States of America.

The Respondent is Domain Administrator, See PrivacyGuardian.org, United States of America.

2. The Domain Names and Registrar

The disputed domain names <bridgewellresourcesinc.info> and <bridgewellresources.info> are registered with NameSilo, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 3, 2023. On November 6, 2023, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On November 6, 2023, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain names which differed from the named Respondent (Redacted for Privacy) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on November 15, 2023 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 November 20, 2023.

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 November 21, 2023. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 11, 2023. The Respondent did not submit any

response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 14, 2023.

page 2

The Center appointed Evan D. Brown as the sole panelist in this matter on December 27, 2023. 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 identifies itself as a global trader and wholesale distributor of agricultural, food, construction mats, utility and wood products as well as renewable resources. It owns the mark BRIDGEWELL RESOURCES, for which it enjoys the benefits of registration in the United States (Reg. No. 5,166,422, registered on March 21, 2017). According to the WhoIs information, both of the disputed domain names were registered on October 16, 2023. The Respondent does not appear to have set up active websites associated with the disputed domain names but the Complainant has introduced evidence that MX Records have been established with the disputed domain names, indicating the disputed domain names are being used to send and receive email messages.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; and that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad

faith.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

To succeed, the Complainant must demonstrate that all of the elements listed in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied: (i) the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights, (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names, and (iii) the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith. The Panel finds that all three of these elements have been met in this case.

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.

A registered trademark provides a clear indication that the rights in the mark shown on the trademark certificate belong to its respective owner. See Advance Magazine Publishers Inc., Les Publications Conde Nast S.A. v. Voguechen, WIPO Case No. D2014-0657. The Complainant has demonstrated its rights in the BRIDGEWELL RESOURCES mark by providing evidence of its trademark registration. The disputed domain names incorporate the BRIDGEWELL RESOURCES mark in its entirety. This is sufficient for showing confusing similarity under the Policy.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established this first element under the Policy.

page 3

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.

fide offering of goods or services relating to the disputed domain names, (3) there is no evidence the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain names, and (4) the disputed domain names give a false impression of being associated with the Complainant.

On this point, the Complainant asserts the following: (1) the Respondent is neither affiliated with the
Complainant nor authorized by the Complainant to use the BRIDGEWELL RESOURCES trademark, (2) the

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 names. 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 names such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise.

Based on the available record, the Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Policy requires a complainant to establish that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Policy describes several non-exhaustive circumstances demonstrating a respondent’s bad faith registration and use. Under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, a panel may find bad faith when a respondent “[uses] the domain name to intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [respondent’s] website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [respondent’s] website or location or a product or service on [the respondent’s] website or location”.

The Panel finds it likely that the Respondent was aware of the mark when it registered the disputed domain name. In the circumstances of this case, without the benefit of any explanation whatsoever from the Respondent as to a possible good faith use of the disputed domain name, such a showing is sufficient to establish bad faith registration of the disputed domain name.

The Panel likewise finds that the Respondent used the disputed domain names in bad faith. The record does not contain evidence that the Respondent used the disputed domain names in connection with any active websites. But the presence of MX Records indicates that the Respondent could be using the disputed

domain names to send and receive email messages, perhaps for fraudulent purposes. See Carrier
Corporation v. DNS Admin, Domain Privacy LTD, WIPO Case No. D2021-3728 (“if the Respondent is using
the disputed domain name to send fraudulent emails – which the MX records suggest is at least a possibility
– then bad faith use is further obvious”). The Respondent’s bad faith is also evidenced by its use of a
privacy service to obscure its identity. See Pet Plan Ltd v. Mohammed Nahhas, WIPO Case No.
D2021-1964.

page 4

Accordingly, the Panel finds the Complainant has established this third element under 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 names <bridgewellresourcesinc.info> and <bridgewellresources.info> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Evan D. Brown/
Evan D. Brown
Sole Panelist
Date: January 10, 2024