The domain kimsdry.com was challenged in a UDRP by CHEM-DRY, INC., a carpet cleaning franchise claiming rights in the CHEM-DRY trademark. The Complainant alleged the domain is a misspelled, phonetically similar version of its mark and that the Respondent’s website copied its branding and design.
The Respondent, Desert Carpet Cleaners Inc, did not respond. However, the Panel found critical gaps in the Complainant’s case. Trademark registrations submitted were held by Harris Research, Inc., with no explanation of any relationship to the Complainant and as a result, the Panel found no proven rights in the CHEM-DRY mark.
The disputed domain was also deemed neither visually nor conceptually similar to CHEM-DRY, failing the first element of the UDRP.
Final decision: Deny the transfer of the domain kimsdry.com.
Copyright © 2025 DomainGang.com · All Rights Reserved.CHEM-DRY, INC. v. ofir asis / Desert Carpet Cleaners Inc
Claim Number: FA2505002156710
PARTIES
Complainant is CHEM-DRY, INC. (“Complainant”), represented by Timothy L. Capria of Husch Blackwell LLP, Tennessee, USA. Respondent is ofir asis / Desert Carpet Cleaners Inc (“Respondent”), Nevada, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is kimsdry.com, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
PANEL
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Debrett G. Lyons as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on May 21, 2025; Forum received payment on May 21, 2025.
On May 22, 2025, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the kimsdry.com domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, LLC registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On May 23, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 12, 2025 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@kimsdry.com. Also on May 23, 2025, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.
Having received no response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On May 13, 2025, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Debrett G. Lyons as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the “Panel”) finds that Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) “to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent” through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, Forum’s Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
Complainant asserts trademark rights in CHEM-DRY. Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark. Complainant argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Further, Complainant alleges that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith being aware of Complainant and its trademark.
In particular, Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is phonetically and visually similar to its trademark and is “merely a sound-alike, misspelled version of Complainant’s CHEM-DRY Mark.” Complainant states that Respondent has not been authorised to use the trademark or any similar iteration thereof, nor to register any domain name including same. Despite that, the disputed domain name resolves to a website which features the same colour scheme and design features as Complainant’s website, such that consumers could easily and falsely believe an association exists between the Parties.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
FINDINGS
The factual findings pertinent to the decision in this case are that:
1. Complainant operates a carpet, flooring, and upholstery cleaning franchise system under the name, CHEM-DRY;
2. Respondent appears to operate a competitive business using the disputed domain name to host a website which has look-and-feel aspects of Complainant’s website.
DISCUSSION
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to “decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.”
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:
(1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Identical and/or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires a two-fold enquiry—a threshold investigation into whether a complainant has rights in a trademark, followed by an assessment of whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark.
Trademark rights may be established by proof of Complainant’s registration of the trademark with a national authority, or by proof of reputation and secondary meaning. The Complaint makes unsupported claims to use of the trademark since 1977. Without more, the Panel is unable to find common law rights (see, for example, the requirements laid out by the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview”) at #1.3). The Complaint annexes copies of registration certificates issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office for CHEM-DRY in word and stylized forms. Those certificates all state the owner of the trademarks to be Harris Research, Inc. There is no explanation of the relationship, if any, between Harris Research, Inc. and Complainant. There is accordingly no proof of Complainant having registered trademark rights.
For these reasons alone the Complaint fails. However, the Panel finds that neither element of the first limb of the Policy has been shown. The Panel does not agree with Complainant’s submission that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark. Complainant is correct that, for the purposes of comparison, the gTLD, “.com” can be disregarded (see, for example, Am. Int’l Group, Inc. v. Domain Admin. Ltd., FA 1106369 (Forum Dec. 31, 2007)) but does not find CHEM-DRY and KIMSDRY to be either visually or – more critically – conceptually similar. The Panel does not find that the domain name is either identical or confusingly similar to the trademark.
Neither aspect of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
No findings required (see, for example, Netsertive, Inc. v. Ryan Howard / Howard Technologies, Ltd., FA 1721637 (Forum Apr. 17, 2017) finding that because the complainant must prove all three elements under the Policy, the complainant’s failure to prove one of the elements makes further inquiry into the remaining element unnecessary; Wasatch Shutter Design v. Duane Howell / The Blindman, FA 1731056 (Forum June 23, 2017) deciding not to inquire into the respondent’s rights or legitimate interests or its registration and use in bad faith where the complainant could not satisfy the requirements of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
No findings required.
DECISION
Having not established one of the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the kimsdry.com domain name be REMAIN WITH Respondent.
Debrett G Lyons, Panelist
Dated: June 16, 2025