Alma Technologies, LLC v. Mustafa Vardali / Teknasyon

Claim Number: FA2606002225200

PARTIES

Complainant is Alma Technologies, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Mark L. Seigel Esq., Georgia, USA. Respondent is Mustafa Vardali / Teknasyon (“Respondent”), represented by Jake Dini of Perkins Coie, Arizona, USA.

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is esimo.com, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

David E. Sorkin and Steven M. Levy as Panelists and David S. Safran, as Chair.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 3, 2026; Forum received payment on June 3, 2026.

On June 4, 2026, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the esimo.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 June 8, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 23, 2026, 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 [email protected]. Also on June 8, 2026, 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.

A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on July 23, 2026.

On August 3, 2026, an Additional Submission was received. The Additional Submission does not comply with Supplemental Rule 7 and has not been considered since Complainant’s Additional Submission only contains arguments and claims that were within Complainant’s possession and which could have been included in its initial Complaint.

On August 4, 2026, pursuant to Respondent’s request to have the dispute decided by a three-member Panel, Forum appointed David E. Sorkin and Steven M. Levy as Panelists and David S. Safran, as Chair.

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.

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS

Trademark Dispute Outside the Scope of the UDRP

In item 9 of Complainant’s Complaint, it is stated that no legal proceedings have been commenced or terminated in connection with or relating to the domain name that is the subject of the complaint. However, the evidence establishes that Complainant filed an Opposition against a trademark application for ESIMO filed by Respondent in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and this Opposition, No. 9130779, and Trademark Trial and Appeals Board (“TTAB”) records show that proceeding is currently pending under suspended status. Additionally, the record shows that Respondent filed a trademark dispute with the Apple App Store asserting that the Complainant is infringing its rights in the ESIMO mark.

Thus, both Complainant and Respondent assert rights to the ESIMO mark. The Panel may determine that this dispute falls outside the scope of the Policy, and therefore choose to dismiss the Complaint. In Harvest Dispensaries v. Martin Higgins, FA 1823636 (Forum Feb. 26, 2019) the panel stated: “In deciding whether this dispute is properly within, or outside the scope of, the UDRP it is necessary to analyze the true nature of the dispute. Complainant asserts rights in Complainant’s Marks based on its registration of the marks with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (‘USPTO’)…” However, currently, Complainant and Respondent are engaged in a dispute in two different fora relative to their rights. In both of these proceedings the ESIMO mark is involved and is central to those proceedings.

Respondent argues the Panel should abstain from reaching a decision on the merits because Complainant is using this UDRP proceeding to sidestep the parties’ broader trademark dispute, the UDRP proceeding being but one part of a broader trademark and platform dispute, and should not act as a de facto substitute for the reasoned resolution of that broader dispute in other forums.

Other panels have chosen to dismiss UDRP complaints which centered upon legitimate trademark disputes. See, e.g., Abbott Labs. v. Patel, FA 740337 (Forum Aug. 15, 2006) (holding that assertions of trademark infringement are “entirely misplaced and totally inappropriate for resolution” in a domain name dispute proceeding because the UDRP Policy applies only to abusive cybersquatting and nothing else); Stevenson Indus., Inc. v. CPAP-PRO Online, FA 105778 (Forum Apr. 25, 2002) (“If the existence of [rights or legitimate interests] turns on resolution of a legitimate trademark dispute, then Respondent must prevail, because such disputes are beyond the scope of this proceeding.”).

The Panel agrees with Respondent’s argument that the dispute is not a classic case of cybersquatting and is far too broad to address appropriately in a UDRP proceeding. There are competing trademark claims here, and disputes pending in other fora. Therefore, the Panel elects to dismiss the instant Complaint on the grounds that it is outside the scope of the policy and is not susceptible to adjudication in a UDRP proceeding.

DECISION

The Complaint is dismissed with prejudice to filing of another Complaint relative to the subject domain absent new circumstances that could not reasonably have been foreseen when the present Complaint was filed.

David S Safran, Chair

Steven M. Levy and David E. Sorkin, Panelists

Dated: August 13, 2026