Ddiworldinc.org

The timeline behind ddiworldinc.org

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 Development Dimensions International, Inc. v. Brazeel Michael / Company mgt Claim Number: FA2502002142488 PARTIES Complainant is Development Dimensions International, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Jeffrey J. Nein of Kegler, Brown, Hill, & Ritter Co., L.P.A., Ohio, USA. Respondent is Brazeel Michael / Company mgt ("Respondent"), Arizona, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <ddiworldinc.org> ("Domain Name"), registered with Dreamscape Networks International Pte Ltd. 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. Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 27, 2025; Forum received payment on February 27, 2025. On March 3, 2025, Dreamscape Networks International Pte Ltd confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <ddiworldinc.org> domain name is registered with Dreamscape Networks International Pte Ltd and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Dreamscape Networks International Pte Ltd has verified that Respondent is bound by the Dreamscape Networks International Pte 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 March 4, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 24, 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@ddiworldinc.org. Also on March 4, 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 25, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Nicholas J.T. Smith 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 Since 1970, Complainant has supplied a range of human resources and leadership development consulting solutions. Complainant has rights in the DDI mark through trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (e.g., Reg. No. 1,352,054, registered on January 30, 1985 with a first use date of 1977). Respondent's <ddiworldinc.org> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's DDI mark, wholly incorporating the DDI mark and adding the generic terms "world inc" and the ".org" generic top-level domain ("gTLD"). Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <ddiworldinc.org> domain name as it is not authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted to use the DDI mark. Respondent does not use the Domain Name for any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, but instead uses the Domain Name to create e-mail addresses to pass off as Complainant while engaging in a phishing scheme. Additionally, the Domain Name resolves to a webpage with pay-per-click hyperlinks that purport to redirect to Complainant's services. Respondent registered and uses the <ddiworldinc.org> domain name in bad faith. Respondent is passing itself off as Complainant to engage in a fraud. Respondent registered the Domain Name with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the DDI Mark given its use as an e-mail address for e-mails where Respondent passes off as Complainant. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant holds trademark rights for the DDI mark. The Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's DDI mark. Complainant has established that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the use of the Domain Name and that Respondent registered and has used the Domain Name 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 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 has rights in the DDI mark through its registration of the mark with the USPTO (e.g. Reg. No. 1,352,054, registered on January 30, 1985). Registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to demonstrate rights in the mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See DIRECTV, LLC v. The Pearline Group, FA 1818749 (Forum Dec. 30, 2018) ("Complainant's ownership of a USPTO registration for DIRECTV demonstrate its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)."). The Panel finds that the <ddiworldinc.org> domain name is confusingly similar to the DDI mark as it consists the DDI Mark and adds the descriptive terms "world inc" and the ".org" gTLD. The addition of a generic term or terms to a mark fails to sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognizable 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."); see also Dell Inc. v. Protection of Private Person / Privacy Protection, FA 1681432 (Forum Aug. 1, 2016) ("A TLD (whether a gTLD, sTLD or ccTLD) is disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because the domain name syntax requires TLDs."). The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant alleges that Respondent holds no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. In order for Complainant to succeed under this element, it must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the Domain Name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006) and AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Forum Sept. 25, 2006) ("Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names."). The Panel holds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case. Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name as Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the DDI mark. Respondent has no relationship, affiliation, connection, endorsement or association with Complainant. WHOIS information can help support a finding that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, especially where a privacy service has been engaged. See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Dale Anderson, FA 1613011 (Forum May 21, 2015) (concluding that because the WHOIS record lists "Dale Anderson" as the registrant of the disputed domain name, the respondent was not commonly known by the <statefarmforum.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)); see also Kohler Co. v. Privacy Service, FA 1621573 (Forum July 2, 2015) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) where "Privacy Service" was listed as the registrant of the disputed domain name). The WHOIS lists "Brazeel Michael / Company mgt" as registrant of record. Coupled with Complainant's unrebutted assertions as to absence of any affiliation or authorization between the parties, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name in accordance with Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). The Domain Name presently resolves to a parking page with pay-per-click hyperlinks, some of which are related to Complainant's training services, which by itself does not show a bona fide offering of goods and services. See Vance Int'l, Inc. v. Abend, FA 970871 (Forum June 8, 2007) (concluding that the operation of a pay-per-click website at a confusingly similar domain name does not represent a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, regardless of whether or not the links resolve to competing or unrelated websites or if the respondent is itself commercially profiting from the click-through fees). Complainant alleges, and provides evidence supporting its allegations, that prior to the commencement of the proceeding the Domain Name was used for creating e-mail addresses used by Respondent as part of a scheme where Respondent would pass off as Complainant to contact customers of the Complainant seeking payment of invoices purportedly provided by the Complainant. Such conduct is best characterized as "phishing". Respondent's use of the Domain Name to impersonate Complainant for the purpose of engaging in a phishing scheme seeking payment of fraudulent invoices is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). 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)"); see also Caterpillar Inc. v. ruth weinstein, FA 1770352 (Forum March 7, 2018) ("Use of a disputed domain name in an attempt to pass itself off as a complainant and to conduct a phishing scheme is indicative of a failure to use said domain name in connection with a bona fide offer of goods and services per Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or otherwise fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)."); Registration and Use in Bad Faith The Panel finds on the balance of probabilities that at the time Respondent registered the Domain Name, July 12, 2024, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's DDI mark. It would be implausible for an entity to register the Domain Name and send invoices referring to the Complainant (some even including the Complainant's logo) to customers of Complainant absent knowledge of Complainant and its reputation in the DDI mark. In the absence of rights or legitimate interests of its own this demonstrates registration in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). The Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the Domain Name in bad faith as Respondent uses or has used the Domain Name to impersonate Complainant in furtherance of a phishing scheme. Use of a disputed domain name to impersonate a complainant in furtherance of a phishing scheme is evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Google Inc. v. Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp., FA 1622862 (Forum Aug. 10, 2015) (finding that the respondent's apparent use of the disputed domain name in furtherance of a 'phishing' scheme further established its bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the Domain Name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(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 <ddiworldinc.org> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Nicholas J.T. Smith, Panelist Dated: March 26, 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.