PPC Industries, Inc. v Daniel Aranda

WIPO Case No. D2025-0131

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

PPC Industries, Inc. v. Daniel Aranda

Case No. D2025-0131

1. The Parties

The Complainant is PPC Industries, Inc., United States of America (“US”), represented by Nelson Mullins

Riley & Scarborough LLP, US.

The Respondent is Daniel Aranda, US.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <spectrumsplastics.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 January 14, 2025.
On January 15, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in
connection with the disputed domain name. On January 15, 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 (Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf) and
contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on
January 16, 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 amended Complaint on

January 16, 2025.

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 January 21, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph
5, the due date for Response was February 10, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response.
Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 11, 2025.

page 2

The Center appointed Lynda J. Zadra-Symes as the sole panelist in this matter on February 14, 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 has used the mark SPECTRUM PLASTICS GROUP since at least 2008 in connection with its business of component and device development and manufacturing with expertise in precision extrusion, specialty injection molding, blown film extrusion and conversion, medical balloon fabrication, laser

processing, additive manufacturing, and complex assembly of catheters and other devices.

The Complainant is the owner of the following US Trademark Registrations for its SPECTRUM PLASTICS

GROUP mark in word form and logo form.

Registration No. 3716134, registered November 24, 2009
Registration No. 5584009, registered October 16, 2018

The Complainant is the owner of the domain name <spectrumplastics.com>, which the Complainant uses to host its website and associated email address.

The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on October 11, 2024. The disputed domain name
redirects to the Complainant’s website at the domain name <spectrumplastics.com>. Additionally, the

Respondent appears to have associated MX mail servers to the disputed domain name.

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 incorporates the dominant elements of domain name and that the disputed domain name has been registered and 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

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.

page 3

The Panel finds the mark is recognizable 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.

The omission of the term “group” does not avoid a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy.

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 Panel notes that the Respondent appears to have associated MX mail services to the disputed domain
name, that the disputed domain name has a typo (an extra “s”) when compared with the Complainant’s
domain name, and that it redirects to the Complainant’s website. These facts likely indicate that the
Respondent intends to use the disputed domain name in connection with phishing emails using the

Complainant’s mark to obtain personal or financial information from confused Internet users.

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 refers to the analysis under the second element of the decision regarding the composition of the disputed domain name, its use, and that the Respondent appears to have associated MX mail services to the disputed domain name. These facts likely indicate that the Respondent intends to use

the disputed domain name in connection with phishing emails using the Complainant’s mark to obtain
personal or financial information from confused Internet users. Thus, the record indicates that Respondent
registered and is using the disputed domain name to intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain,
Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark.

Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith under the Policy.

page 4

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 <spectrumsplastics.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Lynda J. Zadra-Symes/
Lynda J. Zadra-Symes
Sole Panelist
Date: February 26, 2025