Lennar Pacific Properties Management, LLC and Lennar Corporation v; Walking Dead, waynseboroconstruction
WIPO Case No. D2025-3253
•05-10-2025
ARBITRATION
AND
| MEDIATION CENTER |
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Lennar Pacific Properties Management, LLC and Lennar Corporation v.
Walking Dead, waynseboroconstruction
Case No. D2025-3253
1. The Parties
The Complainants are Lennar Pacific Properties Management, LLC and Lennar Corporation, United States of
America (“United States”), represented by Slates Harwell Campbell, LLP, United States.
The Respondent is Walking Dead, waynseboroconstruction, South Africa.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name <lennarsmortgage.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 August 13, 2025.
On August 14, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in
connection with the disputed domain name. On August 14, 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 Complainants on
August 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 August 18, 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”).
page 2
In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on August 21, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 10, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 11, 2025.
The Center appointed Christian Schalk as the sole panelist in this matter on September 18, 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.
The language of the proceedings is English.
4. Factual Background
Both Complainants, Lennar Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “Lennar”) and Lennar Pacific Properties Management, LLC (hereinafter referred to as “LPPM”) belong to the same group of companies and have the same grievance against the Respondent. For sake of effectiveness they are hereinafter collectively referred to as the Complainant.
The Complainant has offered real estate management, brokerage, development, construction, mortgage, and financial services under its LENNAR trademarks since at least as early as 1973. The Complainant has been one of the United States’ leading homebuilders and develops, builds and sells homes in 21 states in the United States. In this context, the Complainant LPPM owns among others the following trademarks which right to use has been licensed to the Complainant Lennar:
| - | United States Trademark Registration Number 3108401 for LENNAR, in International classes 35, 36 and 37, with registration date of June 27, 2006; |
| - | United States Trademark Registration Number 3477143 for LENNAR, in International classes 36 and 37, with registration date of July 29, 2008; and |
| - | United States Trademark Registration Number 6980927 for LENNAR MORTGAGE, in International class 36, with registration date of February 14, 2023. |
The Complainant Lennar owns and operates websites utilizing the LENNAR trademarks as part of the domain names, among them <lennar.com> and <lennarmortgage.com>.
The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on July 14, 2025. According to the material brought before the Panel, the website to which the disputed domain name resolves to features among others the following message:
“Website blocked by Trend Micro Worry-Free Business Security Services
Malicious website blocked
Category: Phishing Rating: Dangerous Verified fraudulent page or threat source.”
At the time of this Decision, the disputed domain name does not resolve to any active website.
The Complainant sent a cease and desist letter to the Respondent on July 16, 2025 to which the Respondent has never replied.
page 3
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.
| Complainant’s LENNAR service marks and LENNAR domain names in which the Complainant has rights. | Notably, the Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the is sufficient to establish that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar for the purposed of the Policy. |
| The Complainant contends further that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the disputed domain name. The Complainant explains in this context that there is no evidence of the Respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to such domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Complainant states in addition that the Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name and has not acquired any trademark or service mark rights in the Complainant’s LENNAR marks. The Complainant believes that the Respondent is not making any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name and may use this disputed domain name to impersonate the Complainant in the mortgage lending and/or financial aspects of the Complainant’s business, presumably for fraud and to misleadingly divert the Complainant’s consumers or to tarnish the Complainant’s LENNAR marks. | |
| Another indications for lack of legitimate interests are, for the Complainant, that the Respondent did not reply to its cease and desist letter and that passive holding of the disputed domain name does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods and services and refers in this context to Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Gabriel Hall, WIPO Case | |
| No. D2015-1179 and Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America v. Wreaks Communications Group, WIPO Case No. D2006-0483 to support this argument. | |
| The Complainant finally alleges that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. There are three aspects which the Complainant regards as sufficient to fulfill this criteria: (a) the Respondent’s non-use of the disputed domain name combined with the distinctiveness and reputation of the Complainant’s famous and strong LENNAR marks; (b) the Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complainant’s cease and desist letter including the lack of providing any evidence of actual or contemplated good faith use; and (c) the Respondent’s concealing of its identity or use of false contact information. | |
| The Complainant argues further that another indication of bad faith is that the disputed domain name purports to offer services similar to those offered by the Complainant in the regular course of its business, specifically mortgage lending and financial services. The composition of the disputed domain name also illustrates bad faith and an effort to fraudulently mislead consumers into believing that the Respondent offers services that are the Complainant’s. The Complainant refers in this context to Longs Drug Stores California, Inc. v. Shep Dog, WIPO Case No. D2004-1069; Lexar Media, Inc. v. Michael Huang, WIPO Case No. D2004-1039 and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Longo, WIPO Case No. D2004-0816 in order to support its arguments. | |
| The Complainant explains that other indications of bad faith which apply to this case are the passive holding of the disputed domain name and the use of a privacy shield, especially when a respondent employs a proxy service, or selected a registrar that applies default proxy services, merely to avoid being contacted by a |
page 4
complainant for notified of a UDPR proceeding referring to section 3.6 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) and Fifth Third Bancorp v. Secure Whois Information Service, WIPO Case No. D2006-0696.
| website which has been verified as a malicious phishing website and argues that it is well settled that a finding of | Another indication of bad faith according to the Complainant is that the disputed domain name resolves to a section 3.4. |
| B. Respondent | |
| The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s 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 Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. | |
| The Panel finds that the Complainant has established trademark rights in the LENNAR and LENNAR MORTGAGE marks and that the entirety of both marks is reproduced within the disputed domain name. | |
| The addition of terms to a trademark does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity where the trademark remains recognizable within the disputed domain name (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8). Therefore, the addition of the letter “s” after the word “lennar” (in terms of the LENNAR MORTGAGE trademark) and the addition of the letter “s” and the word “mortgage” (in terms of the LENNAR trademark) in the disputed domain name cannot prevent a finding of confusing similarity. | |
| Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the LENNAR and LENNAR MORTGAGE marks for the purposes of the Policy (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7). | |
| Furthermore, the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” in the disputed domain name is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test. | |
| For all these reasons, the Panel finds that the first element is established under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. | |
| B. Rights or Legitimate Interests | |
| Based on the submissions and materials filed in this case, the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. | |
| Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, UDRP 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 |
page 5
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 (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1).
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.
However, the Respondent has not provided any evidence of circumstances specified in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy or of any other circumstances giving rise to rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Specifically, the Panel finds no evidence that the Respondent has been or is commonly known by the disputed
domain name. The Respondent is neither affiliated with the Complainant nor has a license to use its trademark. explanations as to the Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests.
In this case, noting the reputation of the Complainant’s LENNAR and LENNAR MORTGAGE trademarks, the incorporation of the Complainant’s LENNAR and LENNAR MORTGAGE trademarks with adding the letter “s” between the words “lennar” and “mortgage” in the disputed domain name suggest that any website to which the
disputed domain name resolves to, refers to mortgage services offered by the Complainant for potential
customers searching for the Complainant‘s services. This creates the impression among Internet users that the
disputed domain name should resolve to a website which is either one of the Complainant’s websites or of an
entity somehow linked with the Complainant while this is not the case (see also, for instance, Carrefour SA v.
Pedro Castro; Luis Villanueva; Lorenzo Lara; Samuel Naranjo; Alberto Caceres; Antonio Alvarez; Pablo
Silva; Enrique Revuelta; Miguel Farias; Alejandro Villalba; Nicolas Ferreyra; Julio Rivas; Marcos Villanueva;
Eugenio Cabrera, WIPO Case No. D2024-4736 and more general WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1).
In addition, in accordance with the material brought before the Panel, the disputed domain name resolves to a
website which has been verified as a malicious phishing website. At the time of this Decision, it does not
resolve to any active website. It is well established by previous UDRP panels, that passive holding of a
domain name incorporating a third party’s distinctive trademark do not constitute a bona fide offering of goods
or services pursuant to paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy, nor do they constitute a legitimate noncommercial or
fair use pursuant to paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy under the circumstances of the case (see Ustream.TV, Inc.
v. Vertical Axis, Inc, WIPO Case No. D2008-0598; mVisible Technologies, Inc v. Navigation Catalyst
Systems, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2007-1141; Mobile Communication Service Inc v. WebReg, RN, WIPO Case
No. D2005-1304; Gerber Products Company v. LaPorte Holdings, WIPO Case No. D2005-1277; Asian World
of Martial Arts Inc. v. Texas International Property Associates, WIPO Case No. D2007-1415; Champagne
Lanson v. Development Services/MailPlanet.com, WIPO Case No. D2006-0006; and, The Knot, Inc. v. In
Knot we Trust LTD, WIPO Case No. D2006-0340).
Hence, the Panel is convinced that the only reason for the Respondent to register the disputed domain name was, on balance, to capitalize on the Complainant’s goodwill by redirecting Internet traffic intended for the Complainant away from it. Such behavior cannot constitute a bona fide or legitimate use of the disputed domain name (see also Bright Imperial Ltd. v. Cleiton da Silva Pardim, WIPO Case No. D2013-1548).
For all these reasons, the Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established.
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Complainant contends that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. and use of domain names:
page 6
(i) circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or has acquired the domain name primarily for
the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is
owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of the complainant, for valuable consideration in
excess of the respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name;
(ii) the respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service
mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the respondent has engaged in a
pattern of such conduct;
(iii) the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a
competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain name, the respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website or location or of a product or service on its website or location.
According to the materials brought before the Panel, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used by the Respondent in bad faith.
The Panel finds that the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant’s trademark and its services
when it registered the disputed domain name. The Complainant’s LENNAR and LENNAR MORTGAGE
trademarks enjoy distinctiveness and are apparently well known in their field of business. The disputed domain
name incorporates the trademarks LENNAR and LENNAR MORTGAGE in their entirety. The Complainant has
a substantive commercial presence on the Internet. A simple search on a search engine reveals many
references to the Complainant, which would have made the Respondent immediately aware of the Complainant,
particularly noting the Complainant operates a website at “ In addition, given the fact
that the Respondent combined the Complainant’s trademark LENNAR with the word “mortgage” which refers to
important aspects of the Complainant’s business, it is more likely than not that the Respondent was aware of the
Complainant and its trademarks at the time of registration of the disputed domain name (see also Telstra
Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003).
The Respondent’s behaviour constitutes also use of the disputed domain name in bad faith.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is being used in bad faith by the Respondent. Having regard to the materials brought before the Panel, the disputed domain name resolves to a website which has been verified as a malicious phishing website and therefore, could be used in a phishing scheme (see The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs v. Sam Bentley, WIPO Case No. D2021-2001; AXA SA v. Ghita Zuoine, WIPO Case No. D2020-3374 as well as WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4).
The disputed domain name is currently not in use. According to the section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, it is consensus view that the lack of active use of the domain name does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith and that the panel must examine all the circumstances of the case to determine whether respondent is acting in
bad faith. Examples of circumstances that can indicate bad faith include complainant’s well-known trademark,
no response to the complaint, concealment of identity, and the impossibility of conceiving a good faith use of the
domain name (see Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, supra).
The Complainant’s LENNAR and LENNAR MORTGAGE trademarks are well-known trademarks in the area where the Complainant offers its services. Moreover, the composition of the disputed domain name clearly targets the Complainant and its trademark. Furthermore, the Respondent has failed to take part in the present
proceedings and did not reply to the cease and desist letter sent by the Complainant to the Respondent.
page 7
Therefore, the Panel concludes that the non-use of the disputed domain name would not prevent a finding of bad faith under circumstances of this case. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3. The Panel further finds that the Respondent’s primary motive in relation to the registration and use of the disputed domain name was to
capitalize on, or otherwise take advantage of, the Complainant’s trademark rights, by creating a likelihood of
confusion with the Complainant’s mark with the intent to possibly profit therefrom.
Accordingly, in light of the circumstances, the Panel finds that the Respondent has engaged in the bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name and therewith the establishment also of 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 <lennarsmortgage.com> be transferred to the Complainant Lennar Corporation.
/Christian Schalk/
Christian Schalk
Sole Panelist
Date: October 5, 2025
0
0
0