Glocksguns.com + 3 more domains

The timeline behind glocksguns.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 GLOCK, Inc. v. Jacob Tregoning / Bisong kalusjill / Keshav Pandey / REDACTED FOR PRIVACY / See PrivacyGuardian.org Claim Number: FA2301002028486 PARTIES Complainant is GLOCK, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Gavin M. Strube of Renzulli Law Firm, LLP, USA. Respondent is Jacob Tregoning / Bisong kalusjill / Keshav Pandey / REDACTED FOR PRIVACY / See PrivacyGuardian.org (“Respondent”), USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES The domain names at issue are <glocksguns.com>, <glocksnation.com>, <glocksupplies.com>, and <usaglockstore.com>, registered with NameCheap, Inc.; NameSilo, LLC; Dynadot, 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. The Honorable Neil Anthony Brown KC as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 20, 2023; Forum received payment on January 20, 2023. On January 23, 2023; Jan 24, 2023, NameCheap, Inc.; NameSilo, LLC; Dynadot, LLC; Name.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <glocksguns.com>, <glocksnation.com>, <glocksupplies.com>, and <usaglockstore.com> domain names are registered with NameCheap, Inc.; NameSilo, LLC; Dynadot, LLC; Name.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. NameCheap, Inc.; NameSilo, LLC; Dynadot, LLC; Name.com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, Inc.; NameSilo, LLC; Dynadot, 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 January 25, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 14, 2023 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@glocksguns.com, postmaster@glocksnation.com, postmaster@glocksupplies.com, postmaster@usaglockstore.com. Also on January 25, 2023, 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 17, 2023, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed The Honorable Neil Anthony Brown KC 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 will 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE RESPONDENTS In the instant proceedings, Complainant has submitted that the entities which control the domain names at issue are effectively controlled by the same person and/or entity, which is operating under several aliases and that the proceeding has therefore been properly instituted, as the domain names have in effect been registered by the same domain name holder. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (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.” To support its argument, Complainant points to the construction of the disputed domain names, which all include the GLOCK mark with a generic or descriptive word added; the registration of the disputed domain names, which were all during the COVID-19 pandemic, a time when scams and phishing greatly increased; and the use of the disputed domain names, which all purport to sell Complainant’s products and accept payment and other personal information. See Compl. Exhibits B (WHOIS information), E-G (screenshots of disputed domain names’ resolving sites), and H (reports and articles about increased scams during the pandemic). In addition, there are various similarities between some of the websites of the disputed domain names, including images, text, and color scheme, all of which seek to impersonate a legitimate firearm company. See Compl. Exhibits E-G. Having regard to the evidence and all the circumstances, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are commonly owned/controlled by a single Respondent who is using multiple aliases, that the proceeding was properly instituted and that it may therefore go forward on that basis. For ease of reference, the respective respondents will be referred to collectively in this decision as Respondent. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant made the following contentions. Complainant, Glock, Inc., is a firearm manufacturer. Complainant has rights in the GLOCK mark through trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 1,691,390, which was registered on June 9, 1992). See Compl. Exhibit C. Respondent’s <glocksguns.com>, <glocksnation.com>, <glocksupplies.com>, and <usaglockstore.com> domain names (hereinafter referred to as the “Disputed Domain Names”) are confusingly similar to the GLOCK mark as they only add descriptive terms and generic top-level domains (“gTLD”). Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Names since Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s GLOCK mark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain names. Additionally, Respondent does not use the disputed domain names for any bona fide offering of goods or services. Rather, Respondent is conducting a fraudulent phishing scheme. Respondent registered and uses the Disputed Domain Names in bad faith by diverting confused Internet traffic to Respondent’s own websites. Respondent then purports to sell Complainant’s genuine GLOCK products and accessories, as well as Complainant’s competitor’s products. Further, Complainant is phishing for customers’ personal and financial information. Respondent registered the disputed domain names on the following dates: <glocksguns.com>: February 26, 2021. <glocksnation.com>: December 27, 2021. <glocksupplies.com>: September 11, 2022. <usaglockstore.com>: November 21, 2020. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS 1. Complainant is a United States company engaged in the manufacture of firearms. 2. Complainant has established its rights in the GLOCK mark through its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 1,691,390, which was registered on June 9, 1992). 3. Respondent registered the disputed domain names on the following dates: <glocksguns.com>: February 26, 2021. <glocksnation.com>: December 27, 2021. <glocksupplies.com>: September 11, 2022. <usaglockstore.com>: November 21, 2020. 4. Respondent has caused the disputed domain names to be used for phishing for customers’ personal and financial information. 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 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 The first question that arises is whether Complainant has rights in a trademark or service mark on which it may rely. Complainant claims rights in the GLOCK mark through multiple trademark registrations with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 1,691,390, which was registered on June 9, 1992). See Compl. Exhibit C. Registration of a mark with the USPTO is a valid showing of rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Liberty Global Logistics, LLC v. damilola emmanuel / tovary services limited, FA 1738536 (Forum Aug. 4, 2017) (stating, “Registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently establishes the required rights in the mark for purposes of the Policy.”). Since Complainant provides evidence of registration of the GLOCK mark with the USPTO, the Panel finds that Complainant has demonstrated its rights in the GLOCK mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). The next question that arises is whether the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s GLOCK mark. Complainant argues that the Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to its GLOCK mark since they merely add descriptive words before or after the mark (e.g., “guns” and “supplies”) and the “.com” gTLD. When a disputed domain name incorporates an entire mark, additional terms have been found insufficient to defeat a finding of confusing similarity. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) (“Where a relevant trademark is recognisable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element.”). Similarly, gTLDs are irrelevant for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis. See Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association v. Shi Lei aka Shilei, FA 1784643 (Forum June 18, 2018) (“A TLD (whether a gTLD, sTLD or ccTLD) is disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax requires TLDs.”). Given that Respondent simply adds generic words and a gTLD to the GLOCK mark, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s GLOCK mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Complainant has thus made out the first of the three elements that it must establish. Rights or Legitimate Interests It is now well established that Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), then the burden shifts to Respondent to show 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”). The Panel finds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case that arises from the following considerations: (a) Respondent has chosen to take Complainant’s GLOCK mark and to use it in its domain names, adding only generic words that do not negate the confusing similarity between the domain names and the trademark; (b) Respondent registered the disputed domain names on the following dates: <glocksguns.com>: February 26, 2021. <glocksnation.com>: December 27, 2021. <glocksupplies.com>: September 11, 2022. <usaglockstore.com>: November 21, 2020; (c) Respondent has caused the disputed domain names to be used for phishing for customers’ personal and financial information; (d) Respondent has engaged in these activities without the consent or approval of Complainant; (e) Complainant argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Names because Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names and Complainant has never authorized Respondent to use the GLOCK mark. In the absence of a response, WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. See 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). In addition, where there is no evidence to indicate a complainant has authorized the use of a mark, it may act as support that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and thus lacks any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. See Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) (“lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant’s mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)”); see also Navistar International Corporation v. N Rahmany, FA 1505001620789 (Forum June 8, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name where the complainant had never authorized the respondent to incorporate its NAVISTAR mark in any domain name registration). The WHOIS information for the disputed domain names lists the registrants as “Jacob Tregoning,” “Bisong kalusjill,” “Keshav Pandey,” and “REDACTED FOR PRIVACY / See PrivacyGuardian.org.” See Registrar Email Verifications. Further, there is no other evidence to suggest that Respondent was authorized, licensed rights to, or otherwise permitted to use the GLOCK mark. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by, and lacks rights or legitimate interests in, the disputed domains name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii); (f) Complainant argues that Respondent uses the Disputed Domain Names in furtherance of a fraudulent scheme to acquire personal and financial information. Phishing has consistently been held not to constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of a domain name. See, e.g., Enterprise Holdings, Inc. v. I S / Internet Consulting Services Inc., FA 1785242 (Forum June 5, 2018) (“On its face, the use of a domain name that is confusingly similar to the mark of another in order to facilitate a phishing scheme cannot be described as either a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶4(c)(iii).”). Complainant provides screenshots of the resolving sites’ checkout pages, which require users to enter a name, physical and email address, and phone number. See Compl. Exhibit G. They also appear to accept payment in various nontraditional forms, such as Cryptocurrency or Bitcoin, Google Pay or Apple Pay, and Zelle or Venmo. See id. Complainant also notes that Respondent is legally unable to fulfill orders, since they do not require customers to enter Federal Firearms Licensee information to facilitate the transfer of the firearm as required by law. As the Panel finds that Respondent is engaging in illegal phishing, it also finds that Respondent fails to make a bona fide or legitimate use of the disputed domain names under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii). All of these matters go to make out the prima facie case against Respondent. As Respondent has not filed a formal Response or attempted by any other means to rebut the prima facie case against it, the Panel finds that Respondent does not have a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain names. Complainant has thus made out the second of the three elements that it must establish. Registration and Use in Bad Faith It is clear that to establish bad faith for the purposes of the Policy, Complainant must show that the disputed domain names were registered in bad faith and have been used in bad faith. It is also clear that the criteria set out in Policy ¶ 4(b) for establishing bad faith are not exclusive, but that Complainants in UDRP proceedings may also rely on conduct that is bad faith within the generally accepted meaning of that expression. Having regard to those principles, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names were registered and used in bad faith. That is so for the following reasons. First, Complainant argues that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith by advertising, and purporting to sell, Complainant’s genuine GLOCK products and accessories. A respondent’s use of a disputed domain name to offer a complainant’s genuine products for sale without authorization shows bad faith disruption of a complainant’s business pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See G.D. Searle & Co. v. Celebrex Cox-2 Vioxx.com, FA 124508 (Forum Oct. 16, 2002) (“Unauthorized use of Complainant’s CELEBREX mark to sell Complainant’s products represents bad faith use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).”). Such use has also been held as evidence of bad faith attraction for commercial pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Fanuc Ltd v. Mach. Control Servs., FA 93667 (Forum Mar. 13, 2000) (finding that the respondent violated Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark by using a domain name identical to the complainant’s mark to sell the complainant’s products); see also Hunter Fan Co. v. MSS, FA 98067 (Forum Aug. 23, 2001) (finding bad faith where the respondent used the disputed domain name to sell the complainant’s products without permission and mislead Internet users by implying that the respondent was affiliated with the complainant). Complainant provides screenshots of the webpages associated with the disputed domain names, which display firearms for sale, some of which are advertised as Complainant’s GLOCK pistols. See Compl. Exhibits E and F. As the Panel agrees that Respondent is purporting to sell, or holding itself out to sell, Complainant’s products, it finds bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and/or Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). Secondly, Complainant notes that Respondent also advertises and purports to sell products of Complainant’s competitors. Previous Panels have found that using a disputed domain name to compete with a complainant is further evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See LoanDepot.com, LLC v. Kaolee (Kay) Vang-Thao, FA 1762308 (Forum January 9, 2018) (Finding that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to offer competing loan services disrupts Complainant’s business under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)); Xylem Inc. and Xylem IP Holdings LLC v. YinSi BaoHu YiKaiQi, FA 1504001612750 (Forum May 13, 2015) (“The Panel agrees that Respondent’s use of the website to display products similar to Complainant’s, imputes intent to attract Internet users for commercial gain, and finds bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”). In addition to GLOCK-branded firearms, Respondent also purports to sell other brands of firearms and accessories, such as Remington and Winchester. See Compl. Exhibits E and F. As the Panel agrees that Respondent is purporting to compete with Complainant, it finds additional support for a finding of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and/or Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) which the Panel now makes. Thirdly, Complainant submits that Respondent is using the Disputed Domain Names to phish for confidential information from customers. Phishing has been widely used as independent evidence of bad faith. See Morgan Stanley v. Bruce Pu, FA 1764120 (Forum Feb. 2, 2018) (“[T]he screenshot of the resolving webpage allows users to input their name and email address, which Complainant claims Respondent uses that to fraudulently phish for information. Thus, the Panel agrees that Respondent phishes for information and finds that Respondent does so in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”). Respondent offers a place for users to input a name, email and physical address, phone number, and even to make payments for orders Respondent cannot legally fulfill. See Compl. Exhibit G. As the Panel agrees, it finds that Respondent’s phishing operation is further evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). Fourthly, Complainant argues that Respondent’s use of the GLOCK mark causes customer confusion. When a mark is especially well-known and connected with goods or services, its use in a domain name may itself indicate Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith for deceiving and confusing customers. See Am. Univ. v. Cook, FA 208629 (Forum Dec. 22, 2003) (“Registration and use of a domain name that incorporates another's mark with the intent to deceive Internet users in regard to the source or affiliation of the domain name is evidence of bad faith.”); see also Red Bull GmbH v. Gutch, D2000-0766 (WIPO Sept. 21, 2000) (finding that the respondent’s expected use of the domain name <redbull.org> would lead people to believe that the domain name was connected with the complainant, and thus is the equivalent to bad faith use). As the Panel agrees, this supports the finding that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) which the Panel now makes. Fifthly, in addition and having regard to the totality of the evidence, the Panel finds that, in view of Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain names using the GLOCK mark and in view of the conduct that Respondent has engaged in when using the domain names, Respondent registered and used them in bad faith within the generally accepted meaning of that expression. Complainant has thus made out the third of the three elements that it must establish. 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 <glocksguns.com>, <glocksnation.com>, <glocksupplies.com>, and <usaglockstore.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. The Honorable Neil Anthony Brown KC Panelist Dated: February 19, 2023 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.