Lennar Pacific Properties Management, LLC, and Lennar Corporation v; Dana Jensen, Realty Connect
WIPO Case No. DIO2025-0018
•08-07-2025
ARBITRATION
AND
| MEDIATION CENTER |
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Lennar Pacific Properties Management, LLC, and Lennar Corporation v.
Dana Jensen, Realty Connect
Case No. DIO2025-0018
1. The Parties
The Complainants are Lennar Pacific Properties Management, LLC (the “first Complainant”), United States of America (“United States”), and Lennar Corporation (the “second Complainant”), United States, represented by Slates Harwell Campbell, LLP, United States.
The Respondent is Dana Jensen, Realty Connect, United States.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name <lennar.io> is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 12, 2025. On
May 14, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in
connection with the disputed domain name. On May 15, 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 (Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC) and contact
information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainants on May 15,
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 May 15, 2025.
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to the Complaint satisfied the formal
requirements of the .IO Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “.IO Policy”), the Rules for
.IO Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for .IO
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 the due date for Response was June 9, 2025. The Respondent sent an email communication to the Center
page 2
on May 16, 2025, providing updated contact information. The Center did not receive any further
communication from the Respondent withing the specified deadline for filing a response. Accordingly, the
Center notified the Parties about the Commencement of Panel Appointment Process on June 10, 2025.
The Center appointed Nels T. Lippert as the sole panelist in this matter on June 19, 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 one of the leading American homebuilders established in 1954. The Complainants
develop, build and sell homes in 21 states in the United States. The Complainants also offer real estate
management, brokerage, development, construction, mortgage, and financial services and have offered
these services since 1973 under the LENNAR trademark. The first Complainant, Lennar Pacific Properties
Management, LLC, has registered the LENNAR trademark and is the owner of United States Registration
No. 3,108,401 registered on June 27, 2006, for services in International Classes 35, 36, and 37 and United
States Registration No. 3,477,143 registered on July 29, 2008, for services in International Classes 36 and
37. These trademark registrations are licensed to the second Complainant Lennar Corporation.
The second Complainant Lennar Corporation owns and operates a website located at the domain name
<lennar.com> and additionally use it to conduct all email correspondence.
The disputed domain name was registered on September 10, 2021, and resolves to an inactive website.
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.
The Complainants allege that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the LENNAR trademarks because the disputed domain name incorporates the LENNAR mark in its entirety and the addition of the “.io” country code Top-Level Domain does not diminish the identical incorporation of the Complainants’ registered trademark.
The Complainants further allege that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name because there is no evidence of the Respondent’s use of or demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Complainants additionally contend that the Respondent is not making any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name and may use the disputed domain name to impersonate the Complainants in the mortgage lending or financial aspect of the Complainants’ business for purposes of fraud or divert the Complainants’ customers.
The Complainants asset that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith because the Respondent’s non-use of disputed domain name combined with (1) the distinctiveness and reputation of the LENNAR trademarks, (2) the Respondent’s failure to respond to a cease-and-desist correspondence sent by the Complainants or provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use of the disputed domain name, and (3) the Respondent’s use of a privacy protection service to conceal its identity.
page 3
B. Respondent
Apart from the email communication dated May 16, 2025, as described under section 3, the Respondent did not formally reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
As noted above, the Respondent only informed the Center of its updated contact information but did not formally respond to the Complainants’ allegations. “Panels have typically treated a respondent’s submission of a so-called ‘informal response’ ([…] failing to specifically address the case merits as they relate to the three UDRP elements […]) in a similar manner as a respondent default.” WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.3. [1] Under the Rules, paragraphs 5(f) and 14(a), the effect of a default by the Respondent is that, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, the Panel shall proceed to a decision on the basis of the Complaint. The Panel does not find any exceptional circumstance in this case.
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that in order to divest a respondent of a domain name, a complainant must demonstrate each of the following:
(i) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the
complainant has rights; and
(ii) the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(iii) the domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith.
Under 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”.
In this case, the Panel finds that as a result of the default, the Respondent has failed to rebut any of the reasonable factual assertions that are made and supported by evidence submitted by the Complainants. By defaulting and failing to respond, the Respondent has failed to offer the Panel any of the types of evidence set forth in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy or otherwise, from which the Panel might conclude that the Respondent has any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Moreover, the Respondent failed to provide any information or reasoning that might rebut the Complainants’ arguments that the Respondent has acted 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 Complainants’ trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.
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.
page 4
The entirety of the mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is identical to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.
Furthermore, it is well established that the applicable Top-Level Domain in a domain name is viewed as a
standard registration requirement and as such is disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test.
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.
The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Although the overall burden of proof in .IO 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.
The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established.
C. Registered or 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.
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.
The Complainants’ LENNAR trademarks have been used and registered many years before the registration date of the disputed domain name. The Complainants and their LENNAR trademark are widely known in the real estate business. Both Parties are located in the United States, the Panel finds it is more likely than not that the Respondent was aware of the Complainants and their LENNAR trademark when registering the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name has not been actively used. Panels have found that the non-use of a domain name (including a blank) 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 or reputation of the Complainants’ trademark, and the composition of the disputed domain name, and finds that in the circumstances of this case the passive holding of the disputed domain name at the time of the Complaint, does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the Policy.
The Panel finds that the Complainants have 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 <lennar.io> be transferred to the second Complainant Lennar
Corporation.
/Nels T. Lippert/
Nels T. Lippert
Sole Panelist
Date: July 8, 2025
Panel considers that the principles which have been developed under the UDRP (notably including the WIPO Overview 3.0) may be applied where appropriate under the .IO Policy. See LINBIT HA-Solutions GmbH v. Xvz William, WIPO Case No. DIO2024-0040.
0
0
0