Roofr Inc. v Teni Araba

WIPO Case No. D2025-3399

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Roofr Inc. v. Teni Araba

Case No. D2025-3399

1. The Parties

1.1 The Complainant is Roofr Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by The Plus IP

Firm, United States (the “Complainant”).

1.2 The Respondent is Teni Araba, Canada (the “Respondent”).

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

2.1 The disputed domain name <roofrr.com> (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with NameCheap,

Inc. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

3.1 The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 23, sent an email communication to the Complainant on August 28, 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 August 29, 2025.

2025. On August 25, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar
verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On August 26, 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 (Jane Doe DBA Roofr / Redacted for Privacy,
3.2 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”).

3.3 In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 21, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 23, 2025.

page 2

3.4 The Center appointed Ike Ehiribe as the sole panelist in this matter on September 29, 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

4.1 The Complainant in this proceeding is Roofr Inc., a corporation incorporated under the laws of Delaware
and having its principal office Marlton, New Jersey, United States. The Complainant operates its roofing
business under the domain name <roofr.com>. The Complainant its trademarks registered in the United
States since 2019 with registration numbers 5,653,953 (registered on January 15, 2019) and 7,729,507
(registered on March 18, 2025) for the ROOFR trademark. The registrations cover services in International
Classes 35 and 42 including providing an online market place for roofing products and services, estimating
roofing contracting work and business invoicing, providing online non-downloadable software platforms and

SaaS services for CRM, lead management, and related functions.

4.2 The Disputed Domain Name was registered on July 7, 2025, and the Complainant has provided
evidence that the Disputed Domain Name has been used to send communications purporting to come from

an employee of the Complainant.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

5.1 The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a
transfer of the Disputed Domain Name.

. It is submitted that following previous UDRP precedents, such minor spelling modifications are insufficient to prevent a finding of confusing similarity as the core distinctive element ROOFR remains clearly recognisable in the Disputed Domain Name.

5.2 Notably, the Complainant contends that as the Disputed Domain Name incorporates the term ROOFR is stated that the doubling of the final “r” in “roofrr” is a typographical variation that retains the same overall visual, poetic, and conceptual impression as the ROOFR trademark
with only the addition of a single letter “r”, such use is identical to the Complainant’s use of its ROOFR marks
therefore, the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the ROOFR marks as the minor alteration
does not significantly differentiate the Disputed Domain Name from the Complainant’s trademark. It is
further submitted that the addition of a Top-Level Domain (“TLD”), such as “.com” and “.me”, to the Disputed

Do The Hustle LLC v. Tropic Web, WIPO Case No. D2000-0624. Furthermore, it is stated that the Respondent has not registered the Disputed Domain Name for any bona fide offering of goods and services but as a tool for a phishing exercise deliberately targeting the Complainant’s customers and potential customers, considering that the Disputed Domain Name does not resolve to any functional or legitimate website. It is asserted that the Disputed Domain Name is exclusively utilised for email correspondence designed to mislead recipients into believing they are dealing with the Complainant. Accordingly, it is contended that under Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, the Respondent cannot establish any rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name as UDRP Panels have consistently held that the use of a domain name for phishing or other fraudulent schemes can never confer rights or legitimate interests.

5.3 The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed the ROOFR marks in any capacity. It is further submitted that the burden is now on the Respondent to demonstrate by concrete evidence that the Respondent has rights and legitimate interests in the Domain Name following Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy and previous UDRP decisions such as

page 3

based upon which it is asserted that the Respondent intentionally registered the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith and has continued with bad faith use. The first factor referred to by the Complainant is the fact that the Respondent impersonated an actual employee of the Complainant and used her position to dispatch fraudulent employment contracts displaying the Complainant’s stylised ROOFR design mark, distinctive roof icon, and font to prospective job applicants. It is therefore argued that the Respondent must have known of the Complainant’s ROOFR marks when registering the Disputed Domain Name and deliberately sought to exploit the Complainant’s brand and reputation. Secondly, it is contended that the Respondent has utilised the Disputed Domain Name to create an online presence that intentionally imitates the Complainant including the use of the same ROOFR Marks, similar branding elements and nearly identical overall presentation. It is further stated in this regard that the contact information associated with the Disputed	5.4 On the question of bad faith registration and use the Complainant has identified a number of factors differ from the Complainant’s legitimate address and are designed to mislead consumers and or the Complainant’s customers into believing they are communicating with the Complainant. Thirdly, it is stated that by exploiting the Complainant’s branding in domain names, email addresses and fraudulent contracts, the Respondent is actively seeking to harvest personal information and misdirect legitimate business opportunities for its own benefit thereby damaging the Complainant’s goodwill and reputation. Fourthly, it is stated that the fact that the Disputed Domain Name does not resolve to any legitimate website is a clear indication that it was never intended for any bona fide commercial activity. Fifthly, and in conclusion the Respondent’s conduct creates a false association with the services offered by the Complainant and more than likely generates revenue solely by exploiting the Complainant’s mark for the Respondent’s own financial gain.
B. Respondent
5.5 The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions and therefore the Panel shall draw such adverse inferences from the Respondent’s failure to respond as may be deemed appropriate.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
6.1 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.
6.2 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.
6.3 The entirety of the ROOFR 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. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.
6.4 Although the addition of another letter, such as the letter “r”, may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of another letter does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the Disputed Domain Name and the ROOFR mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8.
6.5 The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established.

page 4

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

6.6 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.

6.7 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.

6.8 Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise.

case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. The
6.9 Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity such as, phishing,
impersonation/passing off, or other types of fraud, can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a

respondent. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1.

6.10 The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

6.11 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.

6.12 In the present case, the Panel notes that the Respondent intentionally registered the Disputed Domain exploit the Complainant’s fame and reputation considering that any search online of “roofrr” or the Complainant’s ROOFR mark would reveal searches associated with the Complainant. The Panel also observes that the Respondent has engaged in other deliberate evasive conduct which if considered all together with the foregoing suggest bad faith registration and use such as refusing to respond to a cease and desist letter from the Complainant and impersonating the Complainant through email and web form usage.

6.13 Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances may be relevant in assessing whether a respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section

3.2.1.

6.14 Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity, such as phishing, employment scam constitutes bad faith under the Policy.
impersonation/passing off, or other types of fraud, 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

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

page 5

7. Decision

7.1 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 <roofrr.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Ike Ehiribe/
Ike Ehiribe
Sole Panelist
Date: October 18, 2025