ProPlans.com was registered in 1996, making it a 29 year old domain. Progressive Plans, Inc. filed a UDRP to get the domain despite having acquired the registration of PROPLANS in 2023. They operate from the domain ProPlans.build that was registered in 2021.
Per the UDRP:
Complainant is the owner of United States registered trademark PROPLANS and Design, registration number 7,219,295 registered on the Principal Register on November 14, 2023, for goods in international class 9.
The Respondent did not respond but the Forum panelist did their job right:
Therefore, based on the evidence on record, this Panel finds Complainant has failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that at the time of registration, the registrant of the disputed domain name, knew or ought to have known about Complainant and its registered trademark. […] The Policy requires proof of both registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith; it does not address trademark infringement or other issues. As Complainant has not proven on the balance of probabilities that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith, it is not necessary for this Panel to address whether disputed domain name is being used in bad faith. As this Panel has found that Complainant has failed to prove that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith, Complainant has failed to prove the third element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). Complainant’s application must be refused.
Final decision: Deny the transfer of ProPlans.com to the Complainant.
Copyright © 2025 DomainGang.com · All Rights Reserved.Progressive Plans, Inc v. John Tollefson / ProPlans
Claim Number: FA2501002138182
PARTIES
Complainant is Progressive Plans, Inc (“Complainant”), represented by Bron Davies, Utah, USA. Respondent is John Tollefson / ProPlans (“Respondent”), California, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is proplans.com, registered with Network Solutions, 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.
James Bridgeman SC as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 31, 2025; Forum received payment on January 31, 2025.
On February 3, 2025, Network Solutions, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the proplans.com domain name is registered with Network Solutions, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Network Solutions, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Network Solutions, 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 February 4, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 24, 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@proplans.com. Also on February 4, 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 February 26, 2025, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed James Bridgeman SC 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 disputed domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
In its brief submissions Complainant makes the following assertions:
“This Complaint is based on the following factual and legal grounds: UDRP Rule 3(b)(ix).
[a.] The domain name “proplans.com” is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. The Complainant holds a valid trademark for “ProPlans” and has continuously used the mark in commerce as issued in accordance with the trademark attached in the annex.
[b.] The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name. The domain “proplans.com” has not been actively used for years, and no legitimate business or service is associated with it. Additionally, the Respondent has remained unresponsive to all communications.
[c.] The domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The Respondent has passively held the domain without use, preventing the rightful trademark holder from utilizing it. The lack of activity and failure to respond to inquiries suggest bad faith registration.”
Furthermore, Complainant adds annexes to the Complaint described as follows:
“ANNEX OF EVIDENCE ATTACHED
Table of Contents
1. Annex 1: ProPlans Trademark
o Description: Copies of the ProPlans trademark registration, certification and ownership of the name and trademark by the Complainant
o See ProPlans Trademark.PDF
2. Annex 2: Correspondence with Respondent
o Description: Copies of all attempts to contact the Respondent.
o See Proplans.com Email Communication.PDF
3. Annex 3: Evidence of Bad Faith Registration
o Description: Documentation showing the Respondent’s passive holding of the domain.
o See Proplans.com Website History.PDF”
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
FINDINGS
Complainant is the owner of United States registered trademark PROPLANS and Design, registration number 7,219,295 registered on the Principal Register on November 14, 2023, for goods in international class 9.
The disputed domain name proplans.com was registered on November 14, 2023, and Complainant asserts that it is inactive.
There is no information available about Respondent except for that provided in the Complaint, as amended, the Registrar’s WhoIs and the information provided by the Registrar in response to the request by Forum for details of the registration of the disputed domain name for the purposes of this proceeding.
DISCUSSION
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to “decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and 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.
In view of Respondent’s failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant’s undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules 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; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also 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”).
Identical and/or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has provided uncontested evidence that it is the owner of United States registered trademark PROPLANS and Design, registration number 7,219,295 registered on the Principal Register on November 14, 2023, for goods in international class 9.
The disputed domain name proplans.com is identical to Complainant’s PROPLAN mark. The generic Top Level Domain (“gTLD”) extension .com may be ignored for the purposes of making a comparison of Complainant’s mark and the disputed domain name.
This Panel finds therefore that the disputed domain name is identical to the PROPLANS trademark in which Complainant has rights and Complainant has therefore succeeded in the first element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Rights or Legitimate Interests
Complainant has provided a link to Respondent’s website to support its assertion that the disputed domain name is being passively held by Respondent.
Furthermore, Complainant has shown that it has been the registered owner of and has established trademark rights in the PROPLANS mark in the United States, where Respondent purports to be established, since November 14, 2023, prior to the registration of the disputed domain name on November 14, 2023.
While Complainant has not argued in any detail regarding its assertion that Respondent has no rights in the disputed domain name, this Panel accepts that it has made out a weak prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
It is well established that once a complainant makes out a prima facie case that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to prove its rights or legitimate interests.
Respondent has failed to discharge that burden and therefore this Panel must find that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Complainant has therefore succeeded in the second element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
Complainant has shown that its registered trademark rights in the PROPLANS mark predate the registration of the disputed domain name.
This case turns on whether the mere existence of a trademark registration which is identical to a chosen domain name is sufficient to alert the registrant of the domain name that the complainant has pre-existing rights.
In more technical terms, whether a trademark registration imposes constructive knowledge of the registered owner’s rights, such that by registering the domain name at issue, a registrant is acting in bad faith.
The WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0”) states that “in limited circumstances – notably where the parties are both located in the United States and the complainant has obtained a federal trademark registration pre-dating the relevant domain name registration – panels have been prepared to apply the concept of constructive notice. Application of this concept may depend in part on the complainant’s reputation and the strength or distinctiveness of its mark, or facts that corroborate an awareness of the complainant’s mark.” (emphasis added by the Panel)
In a very brief Complaint, with little explanation or narrative, Complainant asserts that it has used the PROPLANS trademark at least since November 14, 2023, when the mark was registered.
However, Complainant has not produced any description or evidence whatsoever of its claimed use of the mark or reputation in the marketplace.
Complainant’s mark is registered in international class 9 for the following goods:
“Downloadable mobile applications and computer software for viewing, organizing, manipulating, and sharing, of architectural plans, templates, drawings, specifications, blueprints, technical drawings and details, building materials and methods, instructions and techniques, schematics, workflow, building tracts, building progress, Building Information Modeling (BIM), and 3D modeling; downloadable computer software for incorporating demonstration videos, instructional and training videos, AR (Augmented Reality) and VR (Virtual Reality) integration and links into presentations; downloadable computer software for providing building inspection information, inspection reporting and notifications, building progress checking, checklists, punch lists, and histories; downloadable computer software for direct reporting and collaboration with governmental and private organizations and institutions dealing with standards and best practices for environmental and green building design and construction for certification purposes; downloadable computer software for electronic communication and collaboration between manufacturers and suppliers of building materials and contractors, sub-contractors, project owners, architects, home designers, and engineers; downloadable computer software for uploading architectural plans and details and then adding notes, details, redlines, updates, modifications, overlays, changes, progress reports, mark-ups, photos, videos, and comments; downloadable computer software for use in electronic storage of data that can be integrated with other third party applications and computer software; downloadable computer software for storage, retrieval, upload and download, transmission and delivery of digital content; all in the field of Architecture, Building Design and Construction industry.”
It must be expected that an enterprise producing “downloadable mobile applications” would have a website. However, Complainant has not claimed to have, nor has it provided any evidence of having, any website or Internet presence using the PROPLANS mark.
Furthermore, in the Complaint, Complainant states that its email address is …@proplans.build.
However Complainant has not provided any evidence that it is using the…@proplans.build email address in any trade in goods or provision of services, such as would create a reputation or protectable goodwill which would alert the registrant of the disputed domain name of the prior existence of Complainant, its business, its trademark or its domain name.
This Panel has considered whether to exercise his powers under the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) which provide at r. 12. “Further Statements In addition to the complaint and the response, the Panel may request, in its sole discretion, further statements or documents from either of the Parties.”
However, because there is so little information provided by Complainant about its claimed business, it would be inappropriate for this Panel to request further information from Complainant. In the particular circumstances of this case, such a step by the Panel would be perceived as assisting one party and prejudicing the other.
Therefore, based on the evidence on record, this Panel finds Complainant has failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that at the time of registration, the registrant of the disputed domain name, knew or ought to have known about Complainant and its registered trademark.
It follows that Complainant has failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith.
The Policy requires proof of both registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith; it does not address trademark infringement or other issues.
As Complainant has not proven on the balance of probabilities that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith, it is not necessary for this Panel to address whether disputed domain name is being used in bad faith.
As this Panel has found that Complainant has failed to prove that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith, Complainant has failed to prove the third element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Complainant’s application must be refused.
DECISION
Having not established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the proplans.com domain name REMAIN WITH Respondent.
James Bridgeman SC, Panelist
Dated: February 26, 2025
