Lennar Pacific Properties Management, LLC, and Lennar Corporation v; Gordon Greiser

WIPO Case No. D2025-2216

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Lennar Pacific Properties Management, LLC, and Lennar Corporation v.
Gordon Greiser

Case No. D2025-2216

1. The Parties

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

United States.

The Respondent is Gordon Greiser, United States.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <lennarproject.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 June 5, 2025. On and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint.

June 6, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in
connection with the disputed domain name. On June 6, 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, Privacy Service Provided by Withheld for
Privacy ehf) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the
The Center verified that 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 June 20, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 10, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 11, 2025.

page 2

On July 11, 2025, a third party contacted the Center claiming to have received the written notice and that they were not the Registrant of the disputed domain name.

The Center appointed Ik-Hyun Seo as the sole panelist in this matter on July 30, 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 Lennar Pacific Properties Management, LLC, the trademark owner of the LENNAR mark (United States. Trademark Registration Numbers 3,108401 and 3,477,143, registered on Jun 27, 2006 and July 29, 2008, respectively), and Lennar Corporation, a homebuilder which develops, builds, and sells homes under the LENNAR mark and authorized licensee of the LENNAR mark (collectively the “Complainant”). The LENNAR mark has been used in connection with real estate management, brokerage, development, construction, mortgage, and financial services since 1973.

The Respondent appears to be an individual with an address in the United States.

The disputed domain name was registered on April 30, 2025, and does not resolve to any website with active content.

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 identical or confusingly similar to the
LENNAR mark in which it has registrations.

The Complainant also contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and confirms that it has not authorized or licensed rights to the Respondent in any respect. The Complainant further contends that there is no evidence of the Respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name in providing any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor

any evidence that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name, or a legitimate
noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent. In addition, the Complainant
contends that the Respondent may use the disputed domain name to impersonate the Complainant in the
mortgage lending or financial aspect of the Complainant’s business, presumably for fraud, and to
misleadingly divert the Complainant’s consumers or tarnish the LENNAR mark. The Complainant also
contends that it sent a cease and desist letter to the Respondent on May 5, 2025 regarding the disputed
domain name, and the Respondent failed to respond or to provide any explanation for registering the
disputed domain name.

Finally, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith based on the distinctiveness and reputation of the LENNAR mark, and the Respondent’s concealment of its identity and non-use of the disputed domain name, as well as the fact that the disputed domain name appears to have been composed in order to fraudulently mislead consumers into believing that the

Respondent is offering services of the Complainant.

B. Respondent

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

page 3

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 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 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, “project” – 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.

Moreover, “UDRP panels have found that domain names identical to a complainant’s trademark carry a high risk of implied affiliation. Even where a domain name consists of a trademark plus an additional term (at the second- or top-level), UDRP panels have largely held that such composition cannot constitute fair use if it

WIPO Overview construction or development project of the Complainant, contrary to the fact.

effectively impersonates or suggests sponsorship or endorsement by the trademark owner.”
3.0, section 2.5.1. Here, the descriptive term “project” is added after the LENNAR mark which may mislead
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.

In the present case, the Panel notes that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name which is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark. Based on the confusing similarity of the disputed domain name to the Complainant’s mark, as well as the distinctiveness of the Complainant’s mark, it is likely that the

Respondent targeted the Complainant in registering the disputed domain name, and that the Respondent likely did so in order to sell it to the Complainant at a profit, or to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark. It is highly improbable that the disputed domain name was registered in good faith and without knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark.

The disputed domain name is not connected to any active website. However, Panels have found that the non-use of a domain name 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

and reputation of the Complainant’s trademark, the composition of the disputed domain name, the failure of the Respondent to submit a response to the Complainant, the Respondent’s concealing its identity and use of false contact details, and the implausibility of any good faith use to which the disputed domain name may be put, and finds that in the circumstances of this case the 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 <lennarproject.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Ik-Hyun Seo/ Ik-Hyun Seo Sole Panelist Date: August 13, 2025