M.S.E.O. Holdings LLC v david joe

WIPO Case No. D2025-3042

ARBITRATION

AND

MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

M.S.E.O. Holdings LLC v. david joe

Case No. D2025-3042

1. The Parties

The Complainant is M.S.E.O. Holdings LLC, United States of America (“United States”), represented by

Wood, Herron & Evans, LLP, United States.

The Respondent is david joe, United States.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <rare-breed-trigger.com> is registered with NameSilo, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 30, 2025. On

July 31, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in

connection with the disputed domain name. On July 31, 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 (Domain Administrator, See PrivacyGuardian) and contact

information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on August 4,

2025, 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 amendment to the

Complaint on August 4, 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”).

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the

Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on August 6, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5,

the due date for Response was August 26, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response.

Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 27, 2025.

page 2

The Center appointed Martin Schwimmer as the sole panelist in this matter on September 1, 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 Complainant is M.S.E.O. Holdings LLC, a limited liability company organized under the laws of

Wyoming, United States. The Complainant conducts its business through two exclusive licensees: Rare

Breed Firearms, LLC, and Rare Breed Triggers, Inc, based in Texas, United States. These entities market

and sell firearms and related technology, including a forced reset trigger (a device that mechanically resets

the trigger’s position after each shot), under the Complainant’s registered trademark RARE BREED

FIREARMS and its unregistered mark RARE BREED TRIGGERS (the “Marks”). The Complainant has used

the trademark RARE BREED FIREARMS since 2018.

The Complainant owns United States Registration No. 5,656,596 for the RARE BREED FIREARMS

trademark, which was registered on January 15, 2019. The Complainant owns the domain names

<rarebreedtriggers.com> and <rarebreedfirearms.com> and the associated websites.

Currently pending before the United States Patent and Trademark Office is the Complainant’s application

bearing Serial Number 99210030, dated May 30, 2025, for the registration of the trademark RARE BREED

TRIGGERS. The application asserts a first use date of December 31, 2020.

The disputed domain name was registered on November 28, 2024. The disputed domain name hosts a

website prominently displaying a RARE BREED TRIGGERS logo which is similar to the Complainant’s, and

purportedly offering goods identical to those sold by the Complainant, bearing the Complainant’s trademark.

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 it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a

transfer of the disputed domain name.

In addition to its registered rights in the RARE BREED FIREARMS trademark, the Complaint asserts

unregistered trademark rights in the trademark RARE BREED TRIGGERS. The Complainant uses these

trademarks in connection with firearms and forced reset trigger devices for firearms. The Complainant

further asserts that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the RARE BREED TRIGGERS

trademark because the trademark is wholly incorporated into the disputed domain name, the mere addition

of hypens and the deletion of the letter “s”, neither of which changes affect the overall impression of the

Complainant’s mark.

The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is also confusingly similar to the Complainant’s

RARE BREED FIREARMS trademark because the dominant portion of the mark “rare breed” is recognizable

within the disputed domain name.

The Complainant claims that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests regarding the disputed

domain name, as the Complainant did not authorize the Respondent to use its Marks, and components

thereof, in the disputed domain name. The Complainant also states that the Respondent is neither

page 3

commonly recognized by the disputed domain name, nor is it engaged in legitimate noncommercial or fair

use of the disputed domain name.

Additionally, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name has been fraudulently used to attract

unsuspecting Internet users to the Respondent's website for commercial gain, namely, that the Respondent

has used the disputed domain name to host a website offering goods identical to those offered by the

Complainant, bearing the Complainant’s trademark.

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.

The Complainant has shown rights in respect of the RARE BREED FIREARMS trademark for the purposes

of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1.

The Panel finds the Complainant has established unregistered trademark rights for the RARE BREED

TRIGGERS mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.3. The Panel considers that

the Complainant established common law rights through (1) its pending application which contained a sworn

declaration of use; (2) its website at “ and (3) through third-party media

coverage of its legal proceedings with the United States federal government. The proceedings and the

media coverage illustrate the Complainant’s use of the RARE BREED TRIGGERS trademark prior to the

registration date of the disputed domain name.

The Panel finds the Marks are recognizable within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed

domain name is confusingly similar to the Marks for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section

1.7. The string “rare-breed-trigger” is confusingly similar to the RARE BREED FIREARMS trademark as it

contains the dominant feature of the RARE BREED FIREARMS trademark. Furthermore, it is only a letter

different from the Complainant’s RARE BREED TRIGGERS unregistered mark.

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.

page 4

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.

As discussed further in Section C below, the Complainant has demonstrated that the Respondent utilized the

disputed domain name to host a website where a RARE BREED TRIGGERS logo which is similar to the

Complainant’s was prominently displayed, and the Respondent offered for sale goods identified with the

Complainant’s trademarks, bearing those trademarks.

Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity – here, claimed as applicable to this case:

impersonation/passing off – can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview

3.0, section 2.13.1.

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.

In the present case, the Panel notes that the Respondent made available a website offering goods identical

to those of the Complainant. The Panel notes that the legality of the Complainant’s goods, forced trigger

reset devices, were the subject of massive attention in the media, and that the Complainant was the subject

of a portion of that media coverage. Accordingly, it is beyond dispute that the Respondent undertook the

registration and use of the disputed domain name with knowledge of the Complainant’s reputation in its

trademarks, and set out to trade off of the Complainant’s reputation

Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity – here, claimed impersonation/passing off

– constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the

Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitutes 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 <rare-breed-trigger.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Martin Schwimmer/

Martin Schwimmer

Sole Panelist

Date: September 16, 2025