Mktofferpad.com

The timeline behind mktofferpad.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 Offerpad Solutions Inc. v. Joe Grusman / Offerpad Claim Number: FA2502002142798 PARTIES Complainant is Offerpad Solutions Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Jeremy Kapteyn of KW Law, LLP, Arizona, USA. Respondent is Joe Grusman / Offerpad ("Respondent"), Arizona, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <mktofferpad.com>, registered with Squarespace Domains II LLC. 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. Debrett G. Lyons as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 28, 2025; Forum received payment on February 28, 2025. On March 3, 2025, Squarespace Domains II LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <mktofferpad.com> domain name is registered with Squarespace Domains II LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Squarespace Domains II LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Squarespace Domains II LLC 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 3, 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@mktofferpad.com. Also on March 3, 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 Debrett G. Lyons 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 Complainant asserts trademark rights in OFFERPAD and submits that "the domain name is essentially identical and confusingly similar to" its trademark. Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because it has no trademark rights; is not known by the same name; and the domain name has not been used other than for a nefarious purpose. Complainant alleges that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith having targeted Complainant's business and trademark. In particular, Complainant claims that Respondent has used the domain name as part of an email address and has sent emails with a fraudulent purpose for commercial gain. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS The factual findings pertinent to the decision in this case are that: 1. Complainant provides technology-driven homebuying services by reference to the trademark, OFFERPAD; 2. the disputed domain name was registered on February 18, 2025, by Respondent using a privacy service to shield its identity; 3. the domain name resolves to a webpage stating: "We're under construction. Please check back for an update soon."; and 4. the domain name has been used to send emails which pose as having come from a (former) employee of 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. Identical and/or Confusingly Similar Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires a two-fold enquiry - a threshold investigation into whether a complainant has rights in a trademark, followed by an assessment of whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark. It is well established by decisions under this Policy that a trademark registered with a national authority is evidence of trademark rights (see, for example, Mothers Against Drunk Driving v. phix, FA 174052 (Forum Sept. 25, 2003). The Complaint references several trademark registrations with the United States Patent & Trademark Office ("USPTO"), a national trademark authority. They are Reg. Nos. 5,735,384; 6,301,588; 6,577,430; 6,556,206 and 6,980,328. The Complaint states that "[t]he certificates of registration are attached in Annex 1, Exhibits 1-5." Exhibits 1, 2 and 4 do not show the complete certificates of Reg. Nos. 5,735,384; 6,301,588 or 6,556,206. The trademark itself has been omitted and the Panel can give these documents no weight. None of the registrations is in the name of Complainant. Reg. No. 6,577,430 for the trademark, OFFERPAD, is shown as standing in the name of Offerpad Inc. and Reg. No. 6,980,328 for OFFERPAD (stylized) is in the name of Offerpad Holdings LLC. Complainant must satisfy the elements of the Policy although Respondent failed to submit a Response. The Panel may draw certain inferences pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules and is entitled to accept Complainant's reasonable assertions, but may deny relief where a complaint contains merely conclusory or unsubstantiated statements, especially ones which go to fundamental matters under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy (see, for example, WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; 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")). The Complaint states – without support – that Offerpad Holdings LLC is the successor of Offerpad, Inc., and – without support – that "Complainant, through affiliated company Offerpad Holdings LLC, is the owner of all rights … in the United States for the service mark OFFERPAD." The WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 asks at ¶ 1.4: "Does a trademark owner's affiliate or licensee have standing to file a UDRP complaint?", in answer to which the consensus viewpoint of UDRP panelists is that: "A trademark owner's affiliate such as a subsidiary of a parent or of a holding company, or an exclusive trademark licensee, is considered to have rights in a trademark under the UDRP for purposes of standing to file a complaint. While panels have been prepared to infer the existence of authorization to file a UDRP case based on the facts and circumstances described in the complaint, they may expect parties to provide relevant evidence of authorization to file a UDRP complaint." The Complaint contains no evidence that Offerpad Holdings LLC is the successor in interest to Offerpad, Inc., or that Offerpad Holdings LLC and Complainant are affiliated companies in the sense that one is the parent or holding company of the other. There is no evidence of trademark licensing. The evidence is lacking anything that might allow the Panel to otherwise infer authorization and the Panel's limited power to make its own enquiries revealed only one internet reference - more than three years old and of dubious authority - to Offerpad Holdings LLC as a subsidiary of Complainant. Proof of trademark rights is a cornerstone of the Policy and the well published decisions and practice guidelines giving light to establishment of those rights now go back more than twenty years. The Panel finds that Complainant has not established registered trademark rights for the purpose of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. Nonetheless, paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy does not distinguish between registered and unregistered trademark rights and a governmental registration is not required so long as the complainant can establish common law rights. Proof of such common law rights becomes a critical aspect of these proceedings but Complainant has not made any express claim that OFFERPAD qualifies as a common law trademark. Another panel may have dismissed the Complaint at this point. That said, scattered through the Complaint are references to the trademark being used and well-known and the key submissions are that: "Complainant, itself and through various affiliated business entities … has offered a wide range of goods and services under the Mark … since as early as July 22, 2015. … In that time, Complainant has expended tens of millions of dollars on marketing and advertising to attract consumers and develop consumer familiarity with the Mark… . Complainant currently operates in 25 major metropolitan markets in the U.S., providing … services to homeowners in over 1,700 cities and towns. Complainant and the services it provides under the Mark has garnered unsolicited media attention, with Complainant having been profiled or mentioned in such prominent and popular media outlets as The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Forbes, The Washington Post, and Huffpost, among others. … [Complainant] was covered in over 350 media pieces and press releases throughout the United States in 2018 alone." On balance, the Exhibits to the Complaint support just enough of those claims that the Panel is able to find that the trademark enjoys a reputation in its business sector such that it would be protected as a common law trademark. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has established trademark rights. Complainant submits that the domain name is "essentially identical" and confusingly similar to the trademark. Essential identity is not the language of the Policy. Since the compared terms are not identical the only question is whether the domain name is confusingly similar to OFFERPAD. In that regard, Complainant submits that the domain name is "a complete and exact reproduction of Complainant's OFFERPAD Mark with the prefix 'mkt' appended to the front of Complainant's mark. This prefix is an abbreviation for 'market' or 'marketing' and does not distinguish the Disputed Domain Name from Complainant's Mark." The Panel is in agreement with that submission and finds the domain name to be confusingly similar to the trademark. See, for example, 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."); 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.")). The Panel therefore finds that Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy states that any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate rights or legitimate interests to a domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy: (i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or (ii) you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue. Complainant need only make out a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, after which the onus shifts to Respondent to rebut that case by demonstrating those rights or interests for (see, example, Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000‑0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000)). The publicly available WhoIs information shielded the name of the owner of the domain name but in consequence of these proceedings the Registrar has identified "Joe Grusman" as the domain name registrant. Complainant states that, until 2023, Joe Grusman was an executive in Complainant's marketing department. The Panel accepts that information and finds that the real domain name holder remains unknown. The Panel finds no evidence that Respondent might be commonly known by the disputed domain name. Whilst the registrant organization is given as "Offerpad" the Panel likewise treats that simply as a ruse to create a false impression of legitimacy. There is no evidence that Respondent has any trademark rights. Further, Complainant states that there is no association between the parties and that: "Respondent purposefully selected and registered the Disputed Domain Name with the deliberate intent to impersonate a member of Complainant's marketing team to contact other businesses with the goal of obtaining sensitive information or committing financial fraud. Respondent's actions align with known patterns of phishing and email fraud." It is unclear how that fraud might unfold on the evidence presented but the Panel accepts without question the claim of some malicious intention and the likelihood that financial gain is the motive. The use is clearly not a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate non-commercial or fair use under the Policy (see, for example, Am. Int'l Group, Inc. v. Busby, FA 156251 (Forum May 30, 2003) finding that the respondent attempts to pass itself off as the complainant online, which is blatant unauthorized use of the complainant's mark and is evidence that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; Blackstone TM L.L.C. v. Mita Irelant Ltd., FA 1314998 (Forum Apr. 30, 2010) ("The Panel finds that Respondent's attempt to "phish" for users' personal information is neither a bona fide offering of goods and services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)."). A prima facie case has been made and so the onus shifts to Respondent to rebut that case by demonstrating those rights or interests. Absent a Response the onus is not met and so the Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant must prove on the balance of probabilities both that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith and used in bad faith. Further guidance on that requirement is found in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy, which sets out four circumstances, any one of which is taken to be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith if established. The four specified circumstances are: "(i) circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the respondent's documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or (ii) the respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) by using the domain name, respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, internet users to respondent's website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the respondent's website or location or of a product or service on the site or location." The Complaint relies upon paragraph 4(b)(iv) above and there is a respectable argument for its application given the confusing similarity of the domain name to the trademark and the inferences the Panel has already drawn out above with respect to commercial gain. However, for the avoidance of any doubt the Panel finds direct evidence of registration in bad faith and use in bad faith. The fact that the name of a former employee of Complainant has been used in conjunction with the domain name as part of an email address is clear evidence that Complainant and its trademark were targeted and of registration in bad faith. The use of that email address has been in bad faith since it impersonates another with the intention of legitimizing a connection with Complainant where none exists and with what can only be assumed to be a nefarious purpose. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the third and final element of the Policy is satisfied. 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 <mktofferpad.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Debrett G. Lyons, Panelist Dated: March 30, 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.