Davidson.email

The timeline behind davidson.email

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 The Trustees of Davidson College Corp. v. Domain Privacy / Domain Name Privacy Inc. Claim Number: FA2502002142241 PARTIES Complainant is The Trustees of Davidson College Corp. ("Complainant"), represented by Amanda L. DeFord of McGuireWoods LLP, Virginia, USA. Respondent is Domain Privacy / Domain Name Privacy Inc. ("Respondent"), Cyprus. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <davidson.email>, registered with CommuniGal Communication Ltd. 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 26, 2025; Forum received payment on February 26, 2025. On February 28, 2025, CommuniGal Communication Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <davidson.email> domain name is registered with CommuniGal Communication Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. CommuniGal Communication Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the CommuniGal Communication Ltd. 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 28, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 20, 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@davidson.email. Also on February 28, 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 21, 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, The Trustees of Davidson College is responsible for the oversight, management, and operation of Davidson College. Established in 1837, Davidson College is a liberal arts institution in North Carolina, committed to cultivating humane instincts as well as disciplined and creative minds for lives of leadership and service. Complainant, acting through and in conjunction with Davidson College, has owned, used, and continues to use a family of DAVIDSON-formative marks in connection with the College's academic and athletic programs since the institution's founding 188 years ago. Complainant holds rights, inter alia, in the DAVIDSON mark through its registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 2,784,338 registered November 18, 2003; first used December 31, 1837). The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark as it incorporates the DAVIDSON mark in its entirety along with the ".email" gTLD. ii) Respondent lacks any legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and Complainant has neither authorized nor licensed Respondent to use the DAVIDSON mark. Moreover, Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor for any legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent employs the disputed domain name in connection with a pay-per-click website, seeking to derive profit from the confusion caused by the domain name by redirecting unsuspecting users. iii) Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent registered the disputed domain name with full awareness of Complainant and its marks. Respondent's use of the domain to host parked pages evidences that Respondent lacks any legitimate commercial interest in the domain name and is instead engaged in cybersquatting by registering a domain that is confusingly similar to the DAVIDSON family of marks. B. Respondent Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS 1. The disputed domain name was registered on February 9, 2025. 2. Complainant holds rights, inter alia, in the DAVIDSON mark through its registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 2,784,338 registered November 18, 2003; first used December 31, 1837). 3. The disputed domain name resolves to a webpage displaying various third-party links—such as "Harley Davidson Motorcycle Parts," "Harley Davidson Road Glide," and "Harley Bike Parts"—none of which are affiliated with Complainant. 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 asserts rights inter alia, in the DAVIDSON mark through its registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 2,784,338 registered November 18, 2003; first used December 31, 1837). Registration of a mark with the USPTO is generally a valid showing of rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Since Complainant provides evidence of its registration of the DAVIDSON mark with the USPTO, the Panel finds Complainant has established rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Complainant argues the disputed domain name <davidson.email> is confusingly similar to Complainant's DAVIDSON mark, as the domain name incorporates the mark in its entirety and merely adds the ".email" gTLD. The Panel agrees and finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark per 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 "Domain Privacy / Domain Name Privacy Inc." 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 contends that Respondent does not use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor for any legitimate noncommercial or fair use, as the domain instead resolves to a webpage displaying links unrelated to Complainant's services. Where a respondent employs a domain name to redirect users to unrelated third-party services for commercial gain arising from user confusion, the Panel may conclude that the respondent has failed to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See TGI Friday's of Minnesota, Inc. v. Tulip Company / Tulip Trading Company, FA 1691369 (Forum Oct. 10, 2016) ("Respondent uses the domain for a parking page displaying various links that consumers are likely to associate with Complainant, but that simply redirect to additional advertisements and links that divert traffic to third-party websites not affiliated with Complainant… The Panel here finds that Respondent is not using the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services."). Complainant has submitted evidence demonstrating that the disputed domain name resolves to a webpage displaying third-party links not affiliated with Complainant. The Panel further observes that the webpage displays various third-party links—such as "Harley Davidson Motorcycle Parts," "Harley Davidson Road Glide," and "Harley Bike Parts"—none of which are affiliated with Complainant. The Panel finds that Respondent presumably derives profit by misleading Internet users and diverting them to its website by exploiting confusion with Complainant's well-known mark. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or for legitimate noncommercial or fair use within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). The Panel concludes that Complainant has established a prima facie case based on the foregoing considerations. Each of these factors supports the finding of a prima facie case against Respondent. In the absence of any Response or other effort by Respondent to rebut this 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 Complainant argues that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith by unfairly disrupting Complainant's business through the operation of a pay-per-click website for commercial gain derived from user confusion. The Panel finds that the use of a disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to goods or services unrelated to a complainant may constitute evidence of bad faith disruption under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii), as well as an attempt to attract users for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). As previously noted, Complainant has provided evidence that the disputed domain name resolves to a webpage displaying third-party links not affiliated with Complainant. The Panel further observes that the domain resolves to a webpage displaying various links—such as "Harley Davidson Motorcycle Parts," "Harley Davidson Road Glide," and "Harley Bike Parts"—none of which are affiliated with Complainant. The Panel concludes that Respondent presumably derives commercial gain by diverting Internet users seeking Complainant and its well-known marks. Such conduct disrupts Complainant's business. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) or (iv). Complainant further contends that Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant and its marks. Given the notoriety of Complainant's DAVIDSON mark and the manner in which the disputed domain name is used, the Panel infers that Respondent was aware of Complainant's rights in the mark at the time of registration. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith 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 <davidson.email> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist Dated: March 23, 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.