Lennar Pacific Properties Management, LLC, Lennar Corporation v; bob gaskie

WIPO Case No. D2024-4690

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Lennar Pacific Properties Management, LLC, Lennar Corporation v.
bob gaskie

Case No. D2024-4690

1. The Parties

The Complainants are Lennar Pacific Properties Management, LLC and Lennar Corporation,

United States of America (“United States”), represented by Slates Harwell LLP, United States.

The Respondent is bob gaskie, United States.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <1ennar.com> (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with eNom, LLC

(the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 13,
2024. On November 14, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar
verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On November 14, 2024, 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 Complainants on November
15, 2024, 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 November 15, 2024.

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 November 19, 2024. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 9, 2024. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 11, 2024.

page 2

The Center appointed Colin T. O'Brien as the sole panelist in this matter on December 23, 2024. 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 related corporate entities thus it is appropriate to refer to the “Complainant” in the singular in this case.

The Complainant is the owner of the following United States trademark registrations for LENNAR

(the “LENNAR Mark”):

- LENNAR, United States Reg. No. 3108401, registered on June 27, 2006 in Internation Classes 35, 36, and
37 for “consultation in the fields of real estate management and real estate brokering; real estate
management and real estate brokerage services of residential communities, undeveloped properties and
individual residences; financial services, namely mortgage services, title insurance services, and insurance
agency services; and real estate development and planning services, namely developing, laying out and
constructing residential communities and individual residences”;

- LENNAR, United States Reg. No. 3477143, registered on July 29, 2008, in International Classes in 36 and 37 for “real estate listing services; real estate management, namely, the operation, maintenance, brokerage, and rental of mid and high-rise condominium properties for both residential, business, and retail use; real

estate development of mid and high-rise buildings for both residential, business, and retail use, namely,
construction consulting in the nature of site selection and construction planning; construction management
and supervision; and construction services, namely, planning, laying out and custom construction of mid and
high-rise properties”.

The Complainant has offered real estate management, brokerage, development, construction, mortgage, and financial services under the LENNAR Mark since at least as early as 1973. The Complainant has been one of United States’ leading homebuilders since 1954.

The Complainant owns and operates website utilizing the LENNAR Mark, located at the domain name
<lennar.com>, which was registered on September 4, 1996.

The Disputed Domain Name was registered on October 18, 2024. The Disputed Domain Name does not resolve to an active website, and the Complainant provided evidence that the disputed website was blocked by a third party security program for being a “verified fraudulent page or threat source”.

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 virtually identical and/or confusingly
similar with the LENNAR Mark in its entirety, with only the substitution of the number “1” in place of the letter

“l” for the word “lennar”.

The Respondent should be considered as having no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the demonstrable preparations to use, the Disputed Domain Name or a name corresponding to the Disputed

page 3

Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. In addition, upon information and regarding registration or use of the Disputed Domain Name.

belief, the Respondent has not been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name and has acquired no
trademark or service mark rights in the famous and strong LENNAR Mark. The Respondent is not making
any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name. The Complainant sent cease and
desist correspondence to the Respondent on October 23, 2024 regarding registration of the Disputed

The Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith by the Respondent. Specifically, the Respondent’s non-use of the Disputed Domain Name coupled with (1) the distinctiveness and reputation of the famous and strong LENNAR Mark, (2) the Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complainant’s cease and desist correspondence or provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good- faith use, and (3) the Respondent’s concealing of its identity or use of false contact information supports a finding that the Disputed Domain Name is being used in bad faith.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant has demonstrated it owns registered trademark rights in the LENNAR Mark. The Disputed Domain Name differs from the Complainant’s LENNAR Mark only by the substitution of a “1” for an “l”, which does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the mark and the Disputed Domain Name. See

section 1.9 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition
(“WIPO Overview 3.0”).

Accordingly, the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the mark in which the Complainant has rights.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant has presented a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests primary domain name <lennar.com> indicates that the Respondent likely sought to piggyback on the mark for illegitimate reasons, namely, to engage in a phishing scheme targeting customers of the Complainant (an inference supported by the Complainant’s evidence and not denied by the Respondent).

in respect of the Disputed Domain Name and has not been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name.

After a complainant has made a prima facie case, the burden of production shifts to a respondent to present evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. See, e.g., Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2003-0455.

Here, the Respondent has provided no evidence of any rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain interests upon a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.

In the absence of any evidence rebutting the Complainant’s prima facie case indicating the Respondent’s
lack of rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name, the Panel finds that the
Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

page 4

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Disputed Domain Name was registered years after the Complainant first used its LENNAR Mark.
The evidence provided by the Complainant makes it clear that the Respondent undoubtedly knew of the
Complainant’s LENNAR Mark and knew that it had no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain
Name when it registered the Disputed Domain Name.

There is no apparent benign reason for the Respondent to have registered the Disputed Domain Name that is a typo variant of the Complainant’s mark.

Currently, the Disputed Domain Name does not resolve to an active website, but this does not prevent a finding of bad faith, noting the reputation of the LENNAR Mark and the composition of the Disputed Domain Name, as well as the provided evidence that the Respondent’s website was flagged for being a phishing website. See sections 3.3 and 3.4 of the WIPO Overview 3.0.

The Panel finds that the only plausible basis for registering and using the Disputed Domain Name has been in bad faith.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

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 <1ennar.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Colin T. O’Brien/
Colin T. O’Brien
Sole Panelist
Date: January 6, 2025