Lennar Pacific Properties Management, LLC and Lennar Corporation v Bush

WIPO Case No. D2025-1265

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Lennar Pacific Properties Management, LLC and Lennar Corporation v. Bush
Fire

Case No. D2025-1265

1. The Parties

The Complainants are Lennar Pacific Properties Management, LLC, United States of America (“United States”) and Lennar Corporation, United States, represented by Slates Harwell Campbell, LLP, United States. (Collectively, the “Complainants”)

The Respondent is Bush Fire, United States.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <lennarfl.com> is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 27, 2025. On March 28, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 28, 2025, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which

differed from the named Respondent (Redacted for Privacy, Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainants on March 31, 2025, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainants to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainants filed an amendment to the Complaint on March 31, 2025.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to 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 the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on April 7, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 27, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 28, 2025.

page 2

The Center appointed Michelle Brownlee as the sole panelist in this matter on May 1, 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 Complainants are affiliated companies. The First Complainant Lennar Pacific Properties Management LLC is the owner of several U.S. trademark registrations for the mark LENNAR. The Second Complainant Lennar Corporation is an authorized licensee of the trademarks and the operator of a website that uses the domain name <lennar.com>. The Complainants have offered real estate management, brokerage,

development, construction, mortgage, and financial services under the LENNAR Marks since at least as
early as 1973, and the Second Complainant Lennar Corporation has been in the homebuilding business

since 1954.

The Complainants own the following United States registrations for the LENNAR trademark:

Registration Number 3,108,401 for services in International Classes 35, 36, and 37, registered on June 27,

2006; and

Registration Number 3,477,143 for services in International Classes 36 and 37, registered on July 29, 2008.

The disputed domain name was registered on March 18, 2025. The disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website. The disputed domain name was used in an email address that also used the name of an employee of the Complainants when contacting one of the Complainants’ suppliers to ask for a price quote for a product.

5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainants

The Complainants contend that they have satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name.

Notably, the Complainants contend that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the disputed domain name, and that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith by sending fraudulent communications that misrepresent that the communications originate from the Complainants.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainants’ contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings
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 Complainants’ 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.

page 3

The Complainants have 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 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, the letters “fl”, 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 Complainants have established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainants’ 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.

Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity, here, claimed impersonation of an employee of the Complainants for the likely purpose of phishing or fraud, can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1.

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

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.

In the present case, the Panel notes that the Respondent used the disputed domain name in an email address designed to deceive the receiver of communications from this address into believing that the communication originated from an employee of the Complainants. This constitutes bad faith registration and

use of the disputed domain name under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.

Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity, here, claimed impersonation of an employee of the Complainants for the likely purpose of phishing or fraud constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Respondent’s registration and

use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith under the Policy.

page 4

The Panel finds that the Complainants have 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 <lennarfl.com> be transferred to the Second Complainant Lennar Corporation.

/Michelle Brownlee/
Michelle Brownlee
Sole Panelist
Date: May 15, 2025