Indianapolispalletswholesale.com

The timeline behind indianapolispalletswholesale.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 INDIANAPOLIS PALLET WHOLESALE, LLC v. oscar mbongo / intelcia Claim Number: FA2506002159307 PARTIES Complainant is INDIANAPOLIS PALLET WHOLESALE, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Kevin N. Tharp of RILEY BENNETT & EGLOFF, LLP, Indiana, USA. Respondent is oscar mbongo / intelcia ("Respondent"), Cameroon. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <indianapolispalletswholesale.com>, registered with NameSilo, LLC. 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. Héctor Ariel Manoff as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 5, 2025; Forum received payment on July 1, 2025. On July 1, 2025, NameSilo, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <indianapolispalletswholesale.com> domain name is registered with NameSilo, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameSilo, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameSilo, 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 July 1, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 21, 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@indianapolispalletswholesale.com. Also, on July 1, 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 July 22, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Héctor Ariel Manoff 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 1- Complainant, Indianapolis Pallet Wholesale, LLC, has been doing business in central Indiana as "Indianapolis Pallet Wholesale" since 2013 to identify its wholesale and liquidation business in Mooresville, Indiana. 2- Complainant has a state trademark registration in Indiana in which first use refers to 2013 (Exhibit C). 3- Complainant's online presence is through Facebook (Exhibit A). 4- Respondent has created and is maintaining a website at the domain name that purports to be a website for Complainant's business (Exhibit B). 5- The business name and physical location address on the Imitation Website are identical to Complainant's business name and physical location address; however, the phone number and email address are not Complainant's. 6- Respondent has never conducted a wholesale business, or any other legitimate business, using the disputed domain name. 7- Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Imitation Website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant, Indianapolis Pallet Wholesale, LLC is a company that has been doing business in central Indiana as "Indianapolis Pallet Wholesale" since 2013 to identify its wholesale and liquidation business. Complainant owns a state trademark registration for INDIANAPOLIS PALLET WHOLESALE. Respondent registered the disputed domain name which included Complainants' exact trade name except for an extra "s" in 2025. Registration and use show 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, Indianapolis Pallet Wholesale, LLC, has been doing business in central Indiana as "Indianapolis Pallet Wholesale" since 2013 to identify its wholesale and liquidation business in Mooresville, Indiana. (Exhibit A and C). Apart from Complainant's rights on the trade name, Complainant has a state trademark registration in Indiana for INDIANAPOLIS PALLET WHOLESALE in which first use also refers to 2013 (Exhibit C). Prior Panels has established that to base the complaint on unregistered or common law trademark rights it is necessary to show that the mark has become a distinctive identifier which consumers associate with the complainant's goods and/or services. The Panel finds that Complainant has submitted evidence of use on Facebook (Exhibit A) and a reference to first use as from 2013 (Exhibit C), which it is more than 10 years. The duration of the use has been accepted as evidence by prior Panels. See Bolton & Menk, Inc. v. chaiming ming, FA 1963601 (Forum, Oct. 18, 2021) (Relevant evidence demonstrating such acquired distinctiveness (also referred to as secondary meaning) includes a range of factors such as (i) the duration and nature of use of the mark, (ii) the amount of sales under the mark, (iii) the nature and extent of advertising using the mark, (iv) the degree of actual public (e.g., consumer, industry, media) recognition, and (v) consumer surveys). The Panel also points out that Complainant's grounds, the described facts and evidence were neither responded nor refuted by Respondent, and are considered sufficient to support trademark rights. The disputed domain name <indianapolispalletswholesale.com> incorporates Complainant's INDIANAPOLIS PALLET WHOLESALE mark and adds an "s" and the generic top-level domain ("gTLD") ".COM". The Panel finds that the addition of a letter S is not sufficient to avoid confusion and it is clear that Respondent knew it belonged to Complainant. The Panel finds that the domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark since the additional element is not sufficiently distinctive. See Bloomberg L.P. v. Baltic Consultants Ltd., FA 95834 (Forum Nov. 20, 2000) ("[t]he variation or addition of a single letter or generic word in Complainant's mark is precisely what the "Identical or Confusingly Similar" language of the [UDRP] envisions"); The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical and confusingly similar to INDIANAPOLIS PALLET WHOLESALE mark, in which Complainant has rights, 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 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 Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <indianapolispalletswholesale.com> domain name because Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use the INDIANAPOLIS PALLET WHOLESALE mark. 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)"). In addition, WHOIS information does not suggest that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. This Panel finds that Respondent has never been commonly known by the domain name. Respondent has neither filed a response nor submitted evidence to prove that Respondent has any trademark rights in the <indianapolispalletswholesale.com> domain name. The evidence submitted by Complainant shows that Respondent's use of the <indianapolispalletswholesale.com> domain is not a bona fide offering of goods. (Exhibit B). The disputed domain name currently resolves to a site which shows the mark as INDIANAPOLIS PALLET WHOLESALE (identical to the Complainant's mark and without the additional S included in the disputed domain name and the e-mail contact address). This Panel agrees with Complainant that Respondent is not using the domain name in connection with a legitimate noncommercial use or fair use under Policy 4(c)(iii). Therefore, the Panel agrees that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and does not have legitimate interest under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant has proved use for many years (Annex A and C). According to this evidence, first use backs to 2013, while the disputed domain name was registered in 2025. Respondent has not rebutted these facts. Based on the fact that the disputed domain is identical to Complaint's mark except for an additional letter S, the Panel finds that the registration of the domain name was done with Complainant's mark in mind. In addition, the use of the domain name is done in bad faith since the website includes the trademark without the additional letter S (Exhibit B). Respondent also includes Complainant's physical location address; however, the phone number and email address are not Complainant's. This Panel concludes that Respondent has registered the domain name with the intent to attract and divert Internet users to the corresponding websites for its own benefit. The Panel determines that Respondent registered and used 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 <indianapolispalletswholesale.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Héctor Ariel Manoff, Panelist Dated: July 25, 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.