Truecommerces.com, Truecomrmerce.com

The timeline behind truecommerces.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

How each disputed name was decided in this proceeding.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

DECISION True Commerce, Inc. v. [REDACTED] / prayers byhisgrace Claim Number: FA2012001925292 PARTIES Complainant is True Commerce, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Allison L. Haugen of Holland & Hart LLP, Colorado, USA. Respondent is [REDACTED] / prayers byhisgrace (“Respondent”), Oregon, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES The domain names at issue are <truecommerces.com> and <truecomrmerce.com>, registered with NameSilo, LLC; Name.com, Inc.. 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. Steven M. Levy, Esq. as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on December 16, 2020; the Forum received payment on December 16, 2020. On December 17, 2020, NameSilo, LLC; Name.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <truecommerces.com> and <truecomrmerce.com> domain names are registered with NameSilo, LLC; Name.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. NameSilo, LLC; Name.com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameSilo, LLC; Name.com, Inc. 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 December 21, 2020, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 11, 2021 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@truecommerces.com, postmaster@truecomrmerce.com. Also on December 21, 2020, 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 January 7, 2021. On January 12, 2021, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Steven M. Levy, Esq. as Panelist. Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE RESPONDENTS Complainant has alleged that the two entities identified in the WHOIS records for the two disputed domain names are effectively controlled by the same person and/or entity, which is operating under certain aliases. As such, it has requested the both domain names be consolidated into this single proceeding. 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.” See, e.g., Oportun, Inc. v. Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp., FA 1872675 (Forum Jan. 12, 2020) (multiple Respondent’s consolidated into a single case where the disputed domain names displayed some similarities in WHOIS information, were held at the same registrar, and resolved to similar websites). Here, Complainant points out that both domain names are “typographical errors of Complainant’s TRUECOMMERCE trademark”, both have been used to send emails that “utilize the same signature block”, emails from both domain names use similar wording and “use the same email address convention” impersonating the same actual employee of Complainant’s. It then asserts that “it would be an exceedingly extraordinary coincidence that such similar schemes would be implemented at almost exactly the same time by two distinct parties.” The Panel also notes that both of the disputed domain names were registered within five days of each other and neither of them resolve to any website content. As the true Respondent has not participated in these proceedings in a substantive manner it has not contested the Complainant’s assertions which the Panel finds to be reasonable. As such, the Panel finds it appropriate to continue this case against both of the named Respondents as a single domain name holder. PRELIMINARY ISSUE: PARTIAL REDACTION OF RESPONDENT INFORMATION The individual who has been identified as the Registrant of the <truecomrmerce.com> domain name contends that it has no connection with either of the domain names that are the subject of these proceedings. Specifically, between January 4, 2021 and January 7, 2021, the Forum received email correspondence from this named Registrant and its authorized contact stating that this proceeding mistakenly involved them and that its name and information have been used without permission. Although not expressly requested by this individual, the Panel has the authority to make a determination of whether redaction of a Respondent’s identity is proper. According to Policy ¶ 4(j), “[a]ll decisions under this Policy will be published in full over the Internet, except when an Administrative Panel determines in an exceptional case to redact portions of its decision.” In Wells Fargo & Co. v. John Doe as Holder of Domain Name <wellzfargo.com>, FA 362108 (Forum Dec. 30, 2004) and Wells Fargo & Co. v. John Doe as Holder of Domain Name <wellsfargossl>, FA 453727 (Forum May 19, 2005), the panels omitted the respondents’ personal information from the decisions, pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(j), in an attempt to protect the respondents who claimed to be victims of identity theft from becoming aligned with acts the actual registrants appeared to have sought to impute to the respondents. The named Registrant of the <truecomrmerce.com> domain name submitted a signed letter to the Forum stating that “I have no affiliation with truecomrmerce.com or truecommerces.com. Furthermore, no one in my family does either. I believe that whomever registered the websites in this case, did so using my information without my permission…” No correspondence has been received from the entity listed as the Registrant of the <truecommerces.com> domain name. In view of the above, the Panel finds it highly likely that the named Registrant of the <truecomrmerce.com> domain name is not, in fact, a proper Respondent for the purposes of the Policy as its identity was falsely used in the WHOIS record for this disputed domain name. As such, that individual’s name will be redacted throughout this decision and the term “Respondent” will herein refer solely to the person or entity who actually registered the disputed domain names. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant provides cloud-based supply chain business services. Complainant has rights in the trademark TRUECOMMERCE through its use in commerce since 1998 and its registration with various national and regional trademark offices, the ealiest of which dates back to 2000. Respondent’s <truecommerces.com> and <truecomrmerce.com> domain names, registered on November 25, 2020 and November 20, 2020 respectively, are each identical or confusingly similar to Complainants mark as they incorporate the mark in its entirety and only add a single letter along with the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”). Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <truecommerces.com> and <truecomrmerce.com> domain names. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names, nor has Complainant authorized or licensed Respondent to use its TRUECOMMERCE mark. Respondent does not use the disputed domain names for any bona fide offering of goods or services and it does not make any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of them, but instead attempts to pass itself off as Complainant in phishing emails while failing to resolve the disputed domain names to any website content. Respondent registered and uses the <truecommerces.com> and <truecomrmerce.com> domain names in bad faith. Respondent disrupts Complainant’s business for commercial gain by impersonating Complainant in phishing emails. Respondent has also engaged in typsquatting by registering the disputed domain names. Further, Respondent does not resolve the disputed domain names to any websites. Finally, Respondent registered the disputed domain names with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the TRUE COMMERCE mark. B. Respondent Other than the above-mentioned correspondence from the individual named in the WHOIS record for the <truecomrmerce.com> domain name, the Forum has received no further Response or other submission from the Respondent in this case. FINDINGS (1) the domain names registered by Respondent are each confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights; (2) Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in respect of the domain names; and (3) the disputed domain names were registered and are being used by Respondent in bad faith. 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. 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 and evidence 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 and supported 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 claims rights in the TRUECOMMERCE mark through its multiple registrations with national and regional trademark offices. Registration with a national trademark authority is generally sufficient to establish rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Rackspace US, Inc. v. Russell Harrower, FA 1592005 (Forum Jan. 5, 2014) (“As stated above, Complainant has shown rights in the mark RACKSPACE by virtue of its registrations in the US, Europe, Mexico, Turkey, as well as in Australia, Respondent’s country of origin. All of the trademark registrations predate the registration of the disputed domain name by the Respondent and are sufficient evidence for Complainant’s rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”) Since Complainant provides copies of its various registration certificates[i] for the TRUECOMMERCE mark the Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Complainant argues that Respondent’s <truecommerces.com> and <truecomrmerce.com> domain names are identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s TRUE COMMERCE marks. Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), adding a letter and the “.com” gTLD is generally insufficient to differente a disputed domain name from the mark that it incorporates. See TripAdvisor, LLC / Smarter Travel Media LLC / Jetsetter, Inc. v. RAKSHITA MERCANTILE PRIVATE LIMITED, FA 1623459 (Forum July 17, 2015) (“Adding a single letter is not enough to prevent a domain name from being confusingly similar to a mark.”); Jerry Damson, Inc. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 916991 (Forum Apr. 10, 2007) (“The mere addition of a generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com” does not serve to adequately distinguish the Domain Name from the mark.”) The disputed domain names incorporate Complainant’s mark in its entirety, and add either the letter “s” to the end of the mark or the letter “r” between the mark’s two “m” letters, and both append to the misspelled marks the “.com” gTLD. Therefore, the Panel finds that each of the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Should it succeed in this effort, the burden then shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also 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”). Complainant argues that Respondent is not commonly known by the <truecommerces.com> or <truecomrmerce.com> domain names, nor has Complainant authorized or licensed Respondent to use its TRUECOMMERCE mark in the disputed domain names. It is well accepted that relevant WHOIS information, among other evidence, may demonstrate that a Respondent is or is not commonly known by a disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See, e.g., 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). The WHOIS information of record identifies the Registrant of the <truecomrmerce.com> domain name an individual whose name bears no relation to Complainant’s mark and that appears to have been falsely used. The Registrant of the <truecommerces.com> domain name is identified as “prayers byhisgrace”. Further, the true Respondent has not participated in this case and nothing in the record rebuts Complainant’s assertion that it never authorized Respondent to use its mark in the disputed domain names. Therefore, the Panel finds no evidence that Respondent is commonly known by either of the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Next, Complainant argues that Respondent does not use the <truecommerces.com> and <truecomrmerce.com> domain names for any bona fide offering of goods or services and that it also does not make any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of either of them as they have been used in furtherance of an email phishing scheme. Under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii), using a disputed domain name to send fraudulent emails impersonating a complainant or its agents is not a bona fide offering of goods or services nor is it a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Abbvie, Inc. v. James Bulow, FA 1701075 (Forum Nov. 30, 2016) (“Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to pose as Complainant’s CEO by means of email addresses at the confusingly similar domain name in an attempt to determine Complainant’s ability to process a transfer. Using the domain name in this manner is neither a bona fide offering of goods and services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)”). Further, the failure of a disputed domain name to be used in connection with a website can also indicate a lack of rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii). See 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).”). Complainant provides screenshots of email exchanges between Respondent and two of Complainant’s customers using addresses that incorporate the disputed domain names. In these messages Respondent appears to impersonate Complainant and attempts to have the customers redirect invoice payments from Complainant to Respondent through what is described as “updated” bank account details. Complainant also provides screenshots of the disputed domain name’s resolving websites, which display the message “This site can’t be reached”. The Panel finds that Complainant has made a prima facie case which has not been rebutted by Respondent. Based upon a preponderance of the evidence before it, the Panel finds that Respondent does not use the disputed domain names for any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor does it make any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the same under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant argues that Respondent had actual and constructive knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the TRUECOMMERCE mark at the time it registered the <truecommerces.com> and <truecomrmerce.com> domain names. While constructive knowledge is generally disfavored under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii), actual knowledge may form a solid foundation upon which an assertion of bad faith registration can be built. Such knowledge is most often evident where a domain name is used in furtherance of a phishing scheme. See Spectrum Brands, Inc. v. Guo Li Bo, FA 1760233 (Forum January 5, 2018) (“[T]he fact Respondent registered a domain name that looked identical to the SPECTRUM BRANDS mark and used that as an email address to pass itself off as Complainant shows that Respondent knew of Complainant and its trademark rights at the time of registration.”). Complainant’s submitted screenshots of emails from the disputed domain names which are directed to Complainant’s customers show that Respondent attempted to pass itself off as Complainant going so far as to use the name of one of Complainant’s actual employees as well as signature blocks that incorporate Complainant’s logo and some of its legitimate contact information. From this evidence it is clear to the Panel that Respondent registered the disputed domain names with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the TRUECOMMERCE mark. Next, Complainant argues that Respondent registered and uses the <truecommerces.com> and <truecomrmerce.com> domain names in bad faith by disrupting Complainant’s business. Under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii), using a disputed domain name to pass oneself off as a Complainant in emails and phish for illicit payments is considered bad faith disruption of a competitor’s business. See Chevron Intellectual Property, LLC v. Jack Brooks, FA 1635967 (Forum Oct. 6, 2015) (finding that Respondent’s use of <chevron-corps.com> to impersonate an executive of Complainant in emails is in opposition to Complainant and is therefore in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)). The email exchanges submitted by Complainant clearly show that Respondent seeks to pass itself off as Complainant and attempts to have Complainant’s customers make payments to an account designated by the Respondent. The Panel thus finds ample evidence that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain names for bad faith disruption of a competitor’s business under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). Complainant also argues that Respondent registered and uses the <truecommerces.com> and <truecomrmerce.com> domain names in bad faith by attracting internet users for commercial gain based upon a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s TRUECOMMERCE mark. Under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), attempting to attract internet users for commercial gain by passing oneself off as a complainant is generally considered bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Qatalyst Partners LP v. Devimore, FA 1393436 (Forum July 13, 2011) (finding that using the disputed domain name as an e-mail address to pass itself off as the complainant in a phishing scheme is evidence of bad faith registration and use). The email exchanges here submitted show that Respondent tries to pass itself off as Complainant, in the signature block and by use of the name of one of Complainant’s actual employees. It then attempts to have Complainant’s customers make payments to Respondent’s own bank account for monies that were intended to be paid to Complainant. With no input from Respondent to explain its conduct, and based upon a preponderance of the evidence presented in this case, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). Next, Respondent’s failure to use the <truecommerces.com> and <truecomrmerce.com> domain names in connection with any website may also be considered evidence of bad faith registration and use. Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii), inactively holding a disputed domain name is generally considered evidence of bad faith. See Dermtek Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Sang Im / Private Registration, FA1310001522801 (Forum Nov. 19, 2013) (holding that because the respondent’s website contained no content related to the domain name and instead generated the error message “Error 400- Bad Request,” the respondent had registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)). As noted above, Complainant submits screenshots of the disputed domain name’s resolving websites which show the message “This site can’t be reached”. The Panel finds Respondent’s lack of use for any website content further supports the conclusion that it registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). Complainant further argues that Respondent registered and uses the <truecommerces.com> and <truecomrmerce.com> domain names in bad faith based upon its engaging in typosquatting. Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii), typosquatting, or registering a disputed domain name with a slightly misspelled mark incorporated to deceive internet users into thinking they are visiting or corresponding with a Complainant is generally considered bad faith. See Adorama, Inc. v. Moniker Privacy Services, FA 1610020 (Forum May 1, 2015) (“Respondent has also engaged in typosquatting, which is additional evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). Respondents who capitalize on common typing errors engage in bad faith registration under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”) As the disputed domain names incorporate slight misspellings of the TRUECOMMERCE mark which make them visually very similar thereto, and as they have been used in an attempt to deceive email recipients, the Panel finds that such typosquatting activity buttresses the claim that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). Finally, Complainant asserts that bad faith may be found based upon Respondent’s use of false WHOIS information when registering the disputed domain names. Such improper activity has been held to support this conclusion. See Accenture Global Services Limited v. Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 1248275906/Vamshi Krishna Agulla, D2020-2776 (WIPO Dec. 11, 2020) (bad faith found based, in part, upon “the respondent’s concealing its identity or use of false contact details (noted to be in breach of its registration agreement)”. Here, the individual named as the Registrant of the <truecomrmerce.com> domain name has submitted a letter disavowing any connection with that property. Complainant further submits evidence that the postal address listed in the WHOIS record for the <truecommerces.com> domain name is non-existent. The Panel concludes that sufficient evidence exists to show that the Respondent has used at least some false information in the WHOIS records for the disputed domain names and that this supports the finding of bad faith registration and use in this case. DECISION Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <truecommerces.com> and <truecomrmerce.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Steven M. Levy, Esq., Panelist Dated: January 14, 2021 [i] The Panel notes that, the submitted United States of America trademark registration certificate lists the owner as “Core Group, Inc.” and no evidence of an assignment of this registration to the named Complainant or of any relationship between these named entities is provided. As such, this certificate will not be considered. However, as other submitted registration certificates list the owner as “True Commerce, Inc.” the Panel finds that the named Complainant has met its threshold burden of proving that it owns trademark rights in the TRUECOMMERCE mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page. Click Here to return to our Home Page

Source of record: FORUM . Reproduced for research; FORUM is the authoritative source.