Gatarculus.com

The timeline behind gatarculus.com

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

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

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION Arculus Holdings, L.L.C. v. Terry Silver Claim Number: FA2502002138886 PARTIES Complainant is Arculus Holdings, L.L.C. ("Complainant"), represented by Rex A. Donnelly of Buchanan, Ingersoll & Rooney, Delaware, USA. Respondent is Terry Silver ("Respondent"), New York, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <gatarculus.com>, registered with Hostinger Operations, Uab. 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. Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 6, 2025; Forum received payment on February 6, 2025. On February 8, 2025, Hostinger Operations, Uab, confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <gatarculus.com> domain name is registered with Hostinger Operations, Uab, and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Hostinger Operations, Uab, has verified that Respondent is bound by the Hostinger Operations, Uab, 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 10, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 3, 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@gatarculus.com. Also on February 10, 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 March 4, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. 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 domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant i) Complainant provides a revolutionary digital security platform that offers authentication and digital asset protection for both businesses and individuals. Complainant holds multiple trademark registrations for ARCULUS, inter alia, the trademark registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 6,748,827, registered May 31, 2022). The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark as it fully incorporates ARCULUS, introduces a misspelling of the generic term "gat," and appends the ".com" gTLD. ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent has neither been licensed nor authorized to use Complainant's mark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name currently resolves to a Hostinger parking page. iii) Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith, having provided false information during registration. By selecting a domain name that fully incorporates Complainant's ARCULUS mark, Respondent demonstrates an intent to engage in bad faith use. The disputed domain name resolves to a Hostinger parking page, and IP logs show multiple logins from high-risk Nigerian IP addresses. Respondent appears to be maintaining the domain name to create confusion with Complainant, facilitate fraud, auction it to a potentially fraudulent buyer, or pressure Complainant into purchasing it at an unfair price. B. Respondent Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS 1. The disputed domain name was registered on December 28, 2024. 2. Complainant has established rights in the ARCULUS mark, inter alia, the trademark registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 6,748,827, registered May 31, 2022). 3. The disputed domain name currently resolves to an inactive webpage. 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 claims rights in ARCULUS, inter alia, the trademark registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 6,748,827, registered May 31, 2022). As Complainant has provided evidence of registration with the USPTO, the Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in ARCULUS under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Complainant further contends that the disputed domain name, <gatarculus.com>, is confusingly similar to ARCULUS because it incorporates the mark in its entirety, differing only by the addition of "gat," a misspelling of the generic term "get," along with the ".com" gTLD. The addition of a misspelled generic term and a gTLD does not eliminate confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Mediacom Communications Corporation v. Zhang Wei Zhang / zhang wei, FA1905001845412 (Forum Jul. 22, 2019) (finding <mediacomcble.com> confusingly similar to Complainant's mark despite the misspelling "cble"). The Panel observes that the disputed domain name differs from ARCULUS only by the addition of "gat," which bears phonetic similarity to the word "god." Notably, Complainant's website states: "Ancient Romans called on Arculus, the god of safes and strongboxes, to ensure the protection of their cherished possessions. Today, Arculus is the contemporary incarnation of this vigilant deity, safeguarding your critical digital assets and identity." Given this context, the Panel determines that the addition of a misspelled generic term with phonetic similarity does not sufficiently distinguish the disputed domain name from ARCULUS. Therefore, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to ARCULUS 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), then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Section 2.1, WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 ("Where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element."). Complainant argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Respondent been authorized by Complainant to use Complainant's mark, and Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant. Relevant information, such as WHOIS information, can be used as evidence to show a respondent is or is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). The Panel notes that the WHOIS data lists "Terry Silver" as the registrant, and there is no evidence in the record to suggest Respondent was authorized to use the mark. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Complainant argues that the disputed domain name resolves to a default webpage. Complainant provides evidence demonstrating that the disputed domain name resolves to an inactive page. Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent has failed to use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or for legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). The Panel finds that Complainant has established a prima facie case based on the considerations above. As Respondent has neither submitted a Response nor otherwise attempted to rebut the prima facie case, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Registration and Use in Bad Faith The Panel notes that the disputed domain name resolves to an inactive webpage, as evidenced by a screenshot provided by Complainant. The inactive use of a domain name does not preclude a finding of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003 (holding that passive holding can amount to bad faith if circumstances indicate such behavior). The Panel has considered the following circumstances: i) Complainant's trademark ARCULUS has achieved significant recognition in the field of digital security, particularly in authentication and digital asset protection. Complainant has consistently used ARCULUS in connection with its innovative security solutions, integrating both hardware and software to safeguard digital assets and identity. Since its launch in fall 2021, Complainant has actively marketed and promoted its ARCULUS Cold Storage Wallet as a premium solution in the fintech and cybersecurity sectors. Complainant has also expanded its offerings to businesses, leveraging its patented technology to enhance fraud prevention and customer security. Through these efforts, ARCULUS has garnered substantial goodwill and reputation among consumers and industry professionals. The brand's recognition is further reinforced by its association with high-quality metal card technology and software solutions designed to protect digital assets. Complainant's continuous engagement with fintech companies and financial institutions has further enhanced the brand's visibility and credibility in the market. Accordingly, ARCULUS had acquired substantial goodwill and was well known in the relevant industry prior to the registration of the disputed domain name. ii) Respondent provided false information during registration. iii) Respondent has submitted no evidence of any actual or planned bona fide use of the disputed domain name. Based on these circumstances, the Panel concludes that Respondent's passive holding of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). 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 <gatarculus.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist Dated: March 5, 2025 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.