Elara Caring v akeria williams, Keri's Kosmetics

WIPO Case No. D2025-3592

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Elara Caring v. akeria williams, Keri’s Kosmetics

Case No. D2025-3592

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Elara Caring, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Soteria LLC,

United States.

The Respondent is akeria williams, Keri’s Kosmetics, United States.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <elaracaring.org> is registered with Tucows Domains Inc. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 4,
2025. On September 5, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar
verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 5, 2025, 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 (REDACTED FOR PRIVACY) and contact
information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on September 8,
2025, 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

September 9, 2025.

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 September 10, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 30, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 1, 2025.

page 2

The Center appointed Steven Auvil as the sole panelist in this matter on October 7, 2025. 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 is one of the nation’s largest providers of home-based care, with operations in the

Northeast, Midwest and Southwest of the United States.

The Complainant owns United States trademark registration number 7136970 for ELARA CARING,
registered on August 15, 2023. The Complainant also owns the domain name <elara.com> for its ELARA

CARING brand.

According to the Complaint the disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent on August 21,

2025. The disputed domain name resolves to a non-active holding website.

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.

The Complainant first contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s provides false impressions of the Complainant’s ELARA CARING brand.

ELARA CARING mark as the two are identical with the only difference being the inclusion of the generic Top-

The Complainant next contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. According to the Complaint, the Respondent is neither affiliated with nor has it been authorized by the Complainant to register or otherwise use the ELARA CARING mark. The Complainant further contends that there is no evidence indicating that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name. The Complainant also contends that the disputed domain name gives consumers the false impression that the disputed domain name is owned by the Complainant. The Complainant further contends that the dispute domain name resolves to a website that has no hosted content.

Finally, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. According to the Complaint, the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s ELARA CARING brand when it registered the disputed domain name.

The Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

According to paragraph 15(a) of the Rules: “[a] Panel shall 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 directs that the Complainant must prove each of the following to obtain relief:

page 3

(i) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or a service mark in which

the Complainant has rights;

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

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

In view of the Respondent’s failure to submit a Response, the Panel is entitled to accept as true the allegations set forth in the Complaint (unless the evidence is clearly contradictory), and to derive reasonable inferences from the evidence presented.

Based on the foregoing guidance, the Panel makes the following findings and conclusions based on the allegations and evidence contained in the Complaint, and reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence presented.

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 as the Complainant owns a trademark for ELARA CARING. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1.

The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ELARA CARING mark. As set forth in name, or “at least a dominant feature of the relevant mark is recognizable in the domain name,” the disputed domain name is deemed confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. Further, “[w]here the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise)” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8.

Here, the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s ELARA CARING mark because the Respondent has incorporated the entirety of the Complainant’s ELARA CARING mark and merely adds the gTLD “.org”. As set forth in section 1.11.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, the applicable gTLD (e.g., “.com” or “.org”) is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is typically disregarded under the first element’s confusing similarity test. As such, the use of “.org” gTLD in the disputed domain name has no bearing on the confusing similarity analysis.

The Panel therefore 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. Such circumstances include:

(i) before any notice of the dispute, the Respondent used, or prepared to use, the disputed domain name or
a name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or

services;

(ii) the Respondent (as an individual, business, or other organization) is commonly known by the disputed

domain name, even if the Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or

(iii) the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for
commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.

page 4

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 the production of information that is often only within the knowledge or
control of the respondent. Considering this difficulty, 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 registered the disputed domain name that is identical to Complainant’s mark, and the disputed domain name resolves to a website that has no hosted content. The Panel finds that none of the circumstances listed in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy apply. The Respondent did not respond to the Complaint and provide any evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

Under the circumstances, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and therefore that the second element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is satisfied.

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 that, if found by the Panel to be present, is evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith.

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances may be relevant in assessing whether a respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1.

In the present case, the Panel concludes that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.

First, the disputed domain name incorporates the entirety of the Complainant’s registered ELARA CARING mark with the exception of adding the gTLD “.org”, resulting in confusing similarity and a risk of implied affiliation. This alone raises an inference of bad faith.

Second, although the disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website, panels have consistently held that non-use — including the display of a blank or “coming soon” page — does not preclude a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. See Coupang Corp. v. Jinsoo Lee, WIPO Case No.

D2022-4936.

Third, the Respondent has provided no rebuttal evidence demonstrating good faith registration or use by it of the disputed domain name. See Park ’N Fly Service LLC v. Usman Hafeez, WIPO Case No. D2025-1727.

Considering these circumstances, including the failure of the Respondent to respond to the Complaint, the time of registering the disputed domain name.

The Panel therefore concludes that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith and that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy.

page 5

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 <elaracaring.org> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Steven Auvil/ Steven Auvil Sole Panelist Date: October 21, 2025