Realtors take note: Your personal brand requires a domain name that should include your own name.
In the case of Kathy Byrd, a realtor with the state of Alabama, her full name was registered by someone in her home state in the form of 3 domains: KathyByrd.com, KathyByrd.net, and KathyByrdRealty.com.
This covered the full base of options that Kathy Byrd had in order to built her personal brand as a realtor!
Smartly, she filed a UDRP and while the Respondent’, identified as “B”, did not respond, the Forum panelist delivered a decision ordering the domains to be transferred to the Complainant, thanks to the evidence she provided about establishing a common law mark — KATHY BYRD — as a professional in the real estate industry.
Moral of the story: Register your full name as a professional before some sneaky person does.
Copyright © 2025 DomainGang.com · All Rights Reserved.Kathy Byrd v. B
Claim Number: FA2503002146882
PARTIES
Complainant is Kathy Byrd (“Complainant”), represented by Michael S. Denniston of Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, Alabama, USA. Respondent is B (“Respondent”), Alabama, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are kathybyrdrealty.com, kathybyrd.com and kathybyrd.net, registered with Porkbun 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.
Charles A. Kuechenmeister, Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on March 25, 2025; Forum received payment on March 25, 2025.
On March 26, 2025, Porkbun LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the kathybyrdrealty.com, kathybyrd.com and kathybyrd.net domain names are registered with Porkbun LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Porkbun LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Porkbun 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 March 31, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint setting a deadline of April 21, 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@kathybyrdrealty.com, postmaster@kathybyrd.com, postmaster@kathybyrd.net. Also on March 31, 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 April 22, 2025, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Charles A. Kuechenmeister 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 a Response or any other submittal from Respondent.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE DOMAIN NAMES
The Complaint relates to three domain names. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules provides that a “complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder.”
The WHOIS information furnished to Forum by the registrar lists the named Respondent as the registrant of all three domain names and states that all three domain names will expire on the same day, which indicates that they were all registered at the same time. All three domain names were registered with the same registrar. Two of them resolve to identical registrar parking pages which have no substantive content and the third resolves to a parking page announcing that the domain name has been registered but the owner has not put up a site yet. These factors indicate common ownership and control. The Panel finds that all three domain names are registered to the same person or entity or are under common control and will proceed as all of them.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
Complainant is a real estate agent who has common law rights in the KATHY BYRD mark through her continuous use of that mark in connection with her business since 2017. Respondent’s kathybyrdrealty.com, kathybyrd.com and kathybyrd.net domain names are identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark because they all incorporate the KATHY BYRD mark in its entirety, merely adding a generic top-level domain (gTLD), and one of the domain names adds the term “realty,” which increases the confusing similarity.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain names. Complainant has not authorized or licensed Respondent to use her KATHY BYRD mark, Respondent is not using the domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use but instead is making no active use of them, and Respondent is not commonly known by the domain names.
Respondent registered and uses the domain names in bad faith. It is making no active use of the domain names, it registered them with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the KATHY BYRD mark, and it registered them with a privacy service.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
FINDINGS
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 a complainant to prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order cancelling or transferring a domain name:
(1) the domain name registered by the respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and
(2) the 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.
In view of Respondent’s failure to submit a Response, pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules the Panel will decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant’s undisputed representations and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations set forth in a complaint. Nevertheless, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (“Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint”), WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (WIPO Overview 3.0), at ¶ 4.3 (“In cases involving wholly unsupported and conclusory allegations advanced by the complainant, . . . panels may find that—despite a respondent’s default—a complainant has failed to prove its case.”). .”). The WIPO Overview is not a definitive statement of applicable law which governs any particular issue, but it does express a consensus among a significant number of UDRP panelists as to how particular issues typically are and should be resolved. This Panel accepts that consensus on this and other issues addressed later in this Decision.
The Panel finds as follows with respect to the matters at issue in this proceeding:
Identical and/or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has not registered her KATY BYRD mark with any governmental trademark authority. Nevertheless, a complainant need not show registration of its mark to establish rights in a mark in order to meet the requirements of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). If proven, common law rights are sufficient to establish rights for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Oculus VR, LLC v. Ivan Smirnov, FA 1625898 (Forum July 27, 2015) (“A complainant does not need to hold registered trademark rights in order to have rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) and it is well established that a Complainant may rely on common law or unregistered trademarks that it can make out”.); Artistic Pursuit LLC v. calcuttawebdevelopers.com, FA 894477 (Forum Mar. 8, 2007) (finding that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) does not require a trademark registration if a complainant can establish common law rights in its mark).
Common law rights in a trademark can be established by evidence of secondary meaning, which is proven by showing exclusive use of the mark in commerce for a period of time, evidence of advertising and sales, recognition of the mark by customers, unsolicited media attention, or other evidence showing that the relevant consuming public has come to associate the mark with goods or services provided by a single vendor. Karen Koehler v. Hiroshi Ishiura/ Lifestyle Design Inc., FA 1730673 (Forum June 1, 2017) (holding that Complainant established common law rights in her personal name since “[a] mark can generate a secondary meaning sufficient to establish Complainant’s rights when consistent and continuous use of the mark has created distinctive and significant good will . . . . Complainant has published under the KAREN KOEHLER name extensively, and Complainant’s legal skills have been recognized by various organizations and groups with extensive positive media coverage. Complainant also operates an online blog associated with the KAREN KOEHLER mark.”); Gourmet Depot v. DI S.A., FA 1378760 (Forum June 21, 2011) (“Relevant evidence of secondary meaning includes length and amount of sales under the mark, the nature and extent of advertising, consumer surveys and media recognition.”). The WIPO Overview 3.0″ ¶ 1.3 lists a number of factors that support a claim of common law trademark rights, including “(i) the nature and duration of use of the mark, (ii) the amount of sales under the mark, (iii) the nature and extent of advertising using the mark, (iv) the degree of actual public (e.g., consumer, industry, media) recognition, and (v) consumer surveys.”
Complaint Annex A is the Declaration of Kathy Byrd, the Complainant. It provides the following information: Complainant began working in the real estate business shortly after obtaining her license in 2017 and has continuously performed real estate services under the KATHY BYRD mark since then. She is currently associated with Lawrence Arendall Humphries Real Estate, Inc., which is affiliated with the worldwide real estate firm Sotheby’s International Realty, and does business under the name “LAH Sotheby’s International Realty.” In addition, she has marketed and advertised her real estate services under the KATHY BYRD name and mark through multiple media sources that are common to the residential real estate business. Those include print media, promotion of her KATHY BYRD name and mark on Homes.com (https://www.homes.com/real estate-agents/kathy-byrd/42hfckk/?msockid=202c1836896d60d622f20c1688e361bc), and with the Greater Alabama Multiple Listing Service (www.liveinalabama.com). Included in Complaint Annex E are screenshots of a listing she maintains under the KATHY BYRD mark and the City of Mountain Brook Chamber of Commerce website advertising her services under that mark. Her Declaration states that consumers of real estate services recognize the KATHY BYRD name and mark as a single source of the real estate services she provides to clients. In the time she has been associated with LAH Sotheby’s International Realty, she has served as an agent representing the buyer or the seller in over ninety transactions, and the total sales volume of real estate transactions for which she has been an agent for the buyer or the seller has been over $35 million. Home buyers and sellers associate the KATHY BYRD name and mark with the real estate agent services she offers. This evidence amply demonstrates that Complainant’s KATHY BYRD mark has become associated with Complainant as a source identifier for Complainant’s services in the minds of the relevant consuming public. Complainant has common law rights in the KATHY BYRD mark sufficient to meet the requirements of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Respondent’s kathybyrdrealty.com, kathybyrd.com and kathybyrd.net domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the KATHY BYRD mark. They fully incorporate the mark, merely omitting the space, adding a gTLD, and in one case adding the term “realty.” These changes do not distinguish the domain name from Complainant’s mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Dell. Inc. v. Protection of Private Person / Privacy Protection, FA 1681432 (Forum Aug. 1, 2016) (“A TLD (whether a gTLD, sTLD or ccTLD) is disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax requires TLDs. Likewise, the absence of spaces must be disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax prohibits them.”), Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Alex / OctaLogo, FA 2023898 (Forum Dec. 22, 2022) (“The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s registered AMAZON and KINDLE trademarks, adding the generic term “direct” and the “.com” top-level domain. These additions do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant’s marks.”). The WIPO Overview 3.0, at ¶ 1.7, states that the test for confusing similarity “typically involves a side-by-side comparison of the domain name and the relevant trademark to assess whether the mark is recognizable within the domain name.” Notwithstanding the changes described above, Complainant’s mark is clearly recognizable within the domain names.
Further, the addition of descriptive terms that relate to a complainant can actually enhance confusion. That is the case with one of the domain names involved here. The term “realty” describes the market segment in which Complainant operates. Adding this term to Complainant’s mark in the kathybyrdrealty.com domain name associates that domain name with Complainant and enhances the confusing similarity. PADI Americas, Inc. v. MPM Administration, FA 1783415 (Forum May 22, 2018) (finding the padivacations.com domain name to be confusingly similar to the complainant’s PADI mark: “the inclusion of the suggestive term ‘vacations’ in the at-issue domain name only adds to any confusion between the domain name and Complainant’s trademark since the term suggests Complainant’s travel related services.”).
For the reasons set forth above, the Panel finds that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the KATHY BYRD mark, in which Complainant has substantial and demonstrated rights.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
If a complainant makes a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden of production shifts to respondent to come forward with evidence that it has rights or legitimate interests in it. Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) (“Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests”). If a respondent fails to come forward with such evidence, the complainant’s prima facie evidence will be sufficient to establish that respondent lacks such rights or legitimate interests. If the respondent does come forward with such evidence, the Panel must assess the evidence in its entirety. At all times, the burden of proof remains on the complainant. WIPO Overview 3.0, at ¶ 2.1.
Policy ¶ 4(c) lists the following three nonexclusive circumstances, any one of which if proven can demonstrate a respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in a domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii):
(i) Before any notice to the respondent of the dispute, the respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services;
(ii) The respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if the respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) The respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name because (i) Complainant has not authorized or licensed Respondent to use her KATHY BYRD mark, (ii) Respondent is not using the domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use but instead is making no active use of them, and (iii) Respondent is not commonly known by the domain names. These allegations are addressed as follows:
Complainant states that Respondent is not associated or connected with Complainant and that she has not authorized or licensed Respondent to use her KATHY BYRD mark. Complainant has specific competence to make this statement, and it is unchallenged by any evidence before the Panel. In the absence of evidence that a respondent is authorized to use a complainant’s mark in a domain name or that a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name, the respondent may be presumed to lack rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. IndyMac Bank F.S.B. v. Eshback, FA 830934 (Forum Dec. 7, 2006) (finding that the respondent failed to establish rights and legitimate interests in the emitmortgage.com domain name as the respondent was not authorized to register domain names featuring the complainant’s mark and failed to submit evidence that it is commonly known by the domain name); Indeed, Inc. v. Ankit Bhardwaj / Recruiter, FA 1739470 (Forum Aug. 3, 2017) (“Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of the at-issue domain name.”).
The information furnished to Forum by the registrar lists the named Respondent as the registrant of the domain names. This name bears no resemblance to the domain names. Evidence could, of course, in a given case demonstrate that the respondent is commonly known by a name other than the name in which it registered the domain name, e.g., the case of a domain name incorporating the brand name of a specific product offered by and associated with the respondent. In the absence of any such evidence, however, and in cases where no response has been filed, UDRP panels have consistently held that WHOIS evidence of a registrant name which does not correspond with the domain name is sufficient to prove that the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name. Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Suzen Khan / Nancy Jain / Andrew Stanzy, FA 1741129 (Forum Aug. 16, 2017) (finding that respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names when the identifying information provided by WHOIS was unrelated to the domain names or respondent’s use of the same), Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA 1574905 (Forum Sept. 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark). The Panel is satisfied that the Respondent has not been commonly known by the domain names.
Complaint Annexes B, C and D are screenshots of the pages to which the domain names point. All three are registrar parking pages. The first two simply state “A Brand New Domain!” The third states that katybyrd.net has been registered but the owner has not put up a website yet, “Visit again soon to see what amazing website they decide to build.” There is no evidence that Respondent is making any active use of the domain names but instead is passively holding them. There is no direct evidence when the domain names were registered, but it may reasonably be inferred from the March 15, 2026 expiration dates in the information furnished to Forum by the registrar that they were registered on March 15, 2025. The ten days or so elapsed from then until March 25, 2025 when Complainant filed her Complaint is not enough time to develop a website but, as more fully discussed in the bad faith analysis below, the domain names are so nearly identical to Complainant’s mark that there is literally no plausible use Respondent could make of them that would not infringe upon Complainant’s rights. Passively holding a domain name is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services as contemplated by Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use as contemplated by Policy ¶ 4(c)(iv). Morgan Stanley v. Francis Mccarthy / Baltec Marine Llc, FA 1785347 (Forum June 8, 2018) (“both Domain Names resolve to a web site that shows the words, ‘Not Found, The requested URL / was not found on this server.’ ‘ Inactive holding of a domain name does not qualify as a bona fide offering of goods or services within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”).
The evidence furnished by Complainant establishes the required prima facie case. On that evidence, and in the absence of any evidence from Respondent, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain names.
Registration or Use in Bad Faith
Policy ¶ 4(b) sets forth a nonexclusive list of four circumstances, any one of which if proven would be evidence of bad faith use and registration of a domain name. They are as follows:
(i) circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant which is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) the respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain name, the respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the respondent’s web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the respondent’s web site or location or of a product of service on the respondent’s web site or location.
As discussed in the rights and legitimate interests analysis, all three domain names point to registrar parking pages. Respondent is making no active use of them but instead is passively holding them. This may demonstrate bad faith registration and use. Passively holding a domain name does not fit within any of the circumstances set forth in Policy ¶ 4(b) but that paragraph recognizes that mischief can manifest in many different forms and takes an open-ended approach to bad faith, listing some examples without attempting to enumerate all its varieties. Worldcom Exchange, Inc. v. Wei.com, Inc., WIPO Case No. D-2004-0955 (Jan. 5, 2005). The non-exclusive nature of Policy ¶ 4(b) allows for consideration of additional factors in an analysis for bad faith, and passively holding a confusingly similar domain name can be evidence of bad faith registration for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). Caravan Club v. Mrgsale, FA 95314 (Forum Aug. 30, 2000) (finding that the respondent made no use of the domain name or website that connects with the domain name, and that [failure to make an active use] of a domain name permits an inference of registration and use in bad faith).
The concept of bad faith as illustrated in the four subparagraphs of Policy ¶ 4(b) necessarily involves a subjective intent on the part of a respondent knowingly to trade upon the goodwill of the complainant. Such subjective intent would in turn require that the respondent actually knew of the complainant and its rights in the relevant mark when it registered the domain names, which in this case likely occurred in March 2025. In attempting to discern actual knowledge and a subjective bad faith intent, panels have looked at many different types of evidence, including but not limited to use of a domain name in direct competition with a trademark owner, simple impersonation of some sort, the parties operating in the same market segment, the parties being physically located in the same general geographic area, a pattern of bad faith conduct, actual prior association between or among the parties, the fanciful or famous nature of the trademark, suggesting that any similarity is not happenstance. Importantly, allegations about a respondent’s subjective intention are not evidence in this regard.
In cases such as this, where a domain name is being passively held and no Response has been filed, it is not always easy to determine whether the respondent registered or has been using the domain name with actual knowledge of the complainant and its rights in the mark. In this case, the domain names are essentially identical to Complainant’s mark, which is also her personal name. The addition of the “realty” term to one of them suggests that the Respondent not only knew Complainant’s name but the nature of her business as well. Finally, the registrant’s address is in the same metropolitan area as Complainant’s office. Respondent’s selection of these domain names was no happenstance but instead may well have been an effort to harass or annoy Complainant and put her to the trouble and expense of filing a UDRP proceeding to recover them. It is clear that Respondent registered them with actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark.
Also, Respondent is holding domain names which are confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark, without itself having any legitimate connection with Complainant or her services. This in and of itself has been held to be evidence of bad faith. Google LLC v. Noboru Maruyama / Personal, FA 1879162 (Forum Mar. 3, 2020) (“the registration and use of domain name that is confusingly similar to a trademark with which the respondent has no connection has frequently been held to be evidence of bad faith.”). Finally, it is not possible to conceive of a plausible legitimate use of the domain names that would not infringe on Complainant’s rights.
Complainant argues that Respondent’s registration of the domain names with a privacy service is also evidence of bad faith. Many UDRP panels, especially in the years first following the adoption of the Policy, accepted this argument. More recently, however, in light of many instances of abuse of information gained from domain name registrations, many registrants, and indeed even registrars themselves, have opted to use privacy services. The WIPO Overview 3.0, at ¶ 3.6, acknowledges that there are recognized legitimate uses of privacy and proxy services, and in 2018 the European Union adopted its General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) which potentially subjects entities around the world to stiff penalties in the interest of protecting personal identifying information of European Union citizens worldwide. Domain name registrars offer and recommend data privacy services to domain name registrants to protect their data, and domain name registrants are with increasing frequency using such services. In summary, there are any number of reasons a registrant might choose to use a privacy service that do not involve bad faith, and the use of such services cannot be taken ipso facto as evidence of bad faith. Rovio Entertainment Corporation v. baobin chi, Case No. D2021-0888 (WIPO May 26, 2021) (“. . . the mere fact that the WhoIs details of a respondent are protected by Pa privacy filter alone cannot be sufficient to support a finding of bad faith within the meaning of the third limb of paragraph 4(a).”).
Any inference of bad faith based upon the use of a privacy service would most likely involve some notion that the respondent did so in order to hinder or delay the filing of an administrative proceeding seeking transfer. The use of a privacy service may cause some minor delay after the administrative proceeding is commenced, to enable the provider to obtain previously screened registrant information from the registrar, but it does not impose any real deterrent to the filing of a case. UDRP cases are in the nature of in rem proceedings. The Panel has jurisdiction over the domain name and can enter any orders contemplated by the relevant policy as to the domain name without personal jurisdiction over the respondent. In this case, there is no evidence to support any contention that Respondent’s use of a privacy service to register the domain name was for any improper or unlawful purpose. Respondent’s use of a privacy service is not evidence of bad faith.
For the reasons first set forth above, the Panel finds that Respondent registered or is using the domain names in bad faith within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
DECISION
Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the kathybyrdrealty.com, kathybyrd.com and kathybyrd.net domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Charles A. Kuechenmeister, Panelist
Dated: April 23, 2025
