Limitless Digital Group Ltd v Obrien Robert

WIPO Case No. D2024-4738

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Limitless Digital Group Ltd v. Obrien Robert

Case No. D2024-4738

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Limitless Digital Group Ltd, United Kingdom, represented by Appleyard Lees IP LLP,

United Kingdom.

The Respondent is Obrien Robert, United States of America.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <bestheatinguk.com> is registered with Gname.com Pte. Ltd. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 18,
2024. On November 18, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar
verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 19, 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 purposes) and contact
information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on November 19,
2024, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the
Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on

November 22, 2024.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 25, 2024. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 15, 2024. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 16, 2024.

page 2

The Center appointed Jeremy Speres as the sole panelist in this matter on December 20, 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 Complainant is a United Kingdom based e-commerce company that has traded under the mark
BESTHEATING for over 15 years, selling radiators, heated towel rails and related accessories. The
Complainant operates its business from its websites located at “ and

“

The Complainant owns various trademark registrations incorporating its BESTHEATING mark in the United
Kingdom and European Union, including United Kingdom Trademark Reg. No. UK00003095186
BESTHEATING (word) in classes 11, and 35, having a registration date of March 25, 2016.

The disputed domain name was registered on March 7, 2024, and currently does not resolve to any website. The Complainant’s evidence establishes that the disputed domain name previously resolved to a website prominently entitled “bestheating.com”, ostensibly for a business offering radiators and other heating appliances, featuring product imagery and text copied from the Complainant’s website, as well as an identical replica of the Complainant’s “bestheating.com” logo.

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 was registered and has been used in bad faith in order to impersonate the Complainant for the Respondent’s commercial gain.

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 of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7.

WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8.

The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. 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 1.2.1. 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.

page 3

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.

The general impression created by the website to which the disputed domain name resolved previously is one of impersonation of the Complainant. UDRP panels have categorically held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity, here impersonation, can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent.

WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1. To the extent that the disputed domain name’s website might be considered that of a reseller of the Complainant’s products, it does not meet the requirements of the well- known Oki Data test given that the site does not accurately and prominently disclose the Respondent’s relationship with the Complainant. Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2001-0903; and WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.8.

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.

Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity, here impersonation, constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4. Considering the indicators of impersonation apparent on the Respondent’s website highlighted in the Factual Background section above, it is clear that the Respondent intended to

impersonate the Complainant. The composition of the disputed domain name, featuring the Complainant’s
mark plus the term “uk”, which denotes the Complainant’s main territory of operations, strengthens this

conclusion. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1. Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy is thus eminently applicable.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy.

page 4

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 <bestheatinguk.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Jeremy Speres/
Jeremy Speres
Sole Panelist
Date: December 26, 2024