Credicomarketings.com

The timeline behind credicomarketings.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 Credico (USA) LLC v. Andrew Gloss Claim Number: FA2506002159337 PARTIES Complainant is Credico (USA) LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Elizabeth W. Baio of Nixon Peabody LLP, Illinois, USA. Respondent is Andrew Gloss ("Respondent"), Washington, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <credicomarketings.com>, registered with GMO Internet Group, Inc. d/b/a Onamae.com. 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. Steven M. Levy as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 5, 2025; Forum received payment on June 5, 2025. On June 8, 2025, GMO Internet Group, Inc. d/b/a Onamae.com confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <credicomarketings.com> domain name is registered with GMO Internet Group, Inc. d/b/a Onamae.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GMO Internet Group, Inc. d/b/a Onamae.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the GMO Internet Group, Inc. d/b/a Onamae.com 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 June 13, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 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@credicomarketings.com. Also on June 13, 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 7, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Steven M. Levy 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 2001, Complainant has been a leading provider of direct sales and marketing solutions to businesses and retailer markets globally. With headquarters in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, and South Africa, it offers various customized solutions, including outsourced sales and marketing, direct sales, event staffing, retail/mall and telesales, lead generation, sales consulting, digital marketing, search engine optimization (SEO), pay per click, social media, email, and experiential marketing services. These services are provided under the trademark CREDICO and this is the subject of numerous registrations in the United States, the European Union, Canada, Australia, and South Africa (e.g., U.S. Reg. No. 5112202 dated January 3, 2017; E.U. Reg. No. 014771431 dated March 14, 2016; U.K. Reg. No. UK00914771431 dated March 14, 2016). The <credicomarketings.com> domain name, registered on March 27, 2025, is confusingly similar the CREDICO mark as it incorporates the entirety of the mark and adds only the generic term "marketings" and the ".com" TLD. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name where it is not commonly known by the domain name and it hosts a deceptive website that seeks to dupe consumers into believing that it is affiliated with Complainant, which is not the case. The disputed domain name was registered and is used in bad faith based on Respondent's prior knowledge of the CREDICO mark and the above-mentioned website activity. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS - Complainant owns trademark rights in the CREDICO mark and the <credicomarketings.com> domain name is confusingly similar to such mark; - Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name where it is used to pass itself off as Complainant and there is no evidence that Respondent is commonly known by the domain name; and - The disputed domain name was registered and is used in bad faith where its website passes itself off as 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 in the CREDICO trademark through its registration with various national and multi-national trademark offices. Registration of a mark in this manner is a valid showing of rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Red Hat, Inc. v. Muhammad Shahzad, FA 1787738 (Forum June 19, 2018) ("Registration of a mark with multiple trademark agencies is sufficient to demonstrate rights to a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)."). Here, Complainant provides copies of its registration certificates from various trademark offices. Based on this information, the Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the CREDICO trademark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Next, Complainant argues that Respondent's <credicomarketings.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the CREDICO mark because it incorporates the entirety of the mark and adds the term "marketings" and the ".com" TLD. Where the dominant portion of a mark is incorporated into a domain name, the addition of generic or descriptive terms typically does not negate any confusing similarity with an asserted mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See ADP, LLC. v. Ella Magal, FA 1773958 (Forum Aug. 2, 2017) ("Respondent's <workforce-now.com> domain name appropriates the dominant portion of Complainant's ADP WORKFORCE NOW mark and adds a hyphen and the gTLD '.com.' These changes do not sufficiently distinguish the disputed domain name from the ADP WORKFORCE NOW mark."). As the CREDICO mark is clearly discernable in the <credicomarketings.com> domain name, and only the generic term "marketings" and the ".com" TLD are added to the mark, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark 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). Should it succeed in this effort, the burden then shifts to Respondent to show that 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."). Complainant first argues that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interest in the <credicomarketings.com> domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name nor has Respondent been given license or consent to use the CREDICO mark or register domain names using the mark. In considering this issue, WHOIS information may be reviewed to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. LY Ta, FA 1789106 (Forum June 21, 2018) (concluding that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name where the complainant asserted it did not authorize the respondent to use the mark, and the relevant WHOIS information bore no resemblance to the domain name). Additionally, lack of authorization to use a complainant's mark may indicate that the respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. 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)"). The WHOIS record for the <credicomarketings.com> domain name, as revealed by the concerned Registrar after the Complaint was filed, identifies Respondent as "Andres Gloss" and there is no evidence that Respondent is known otherwise. The fact that Complainant's mark appears on Respondent's website does not, itself, indicate that Respondent is commonly known thereby where such use is intended to create consumer confusion. Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and "Madonna.com", D2000-0847 (WIPO Oct. 16, 2000) ("use which intentionally trades on the fame of another can not constitute a 'bona fide' offering of goods or services. To conclude otherwise would mean that a Respondent could rely on intentional infringement to demonstrate a legitimate interest, an interpretation that is obviously contrary to the intent of the Policy."). Furthermore, Complainant specifically notes that "Respondent is in no way connected with Complainant and has no authority, license, permission, or other arrangement from Complainant to use the CREDICO Marks to identify the Disputed Domain Name, Disputed Website, or services provided by Respondent, or to otherwise hold itself out as Complainant" and Respondent has not made any claim to the contrary. Therefore, the Panel finds no evidence that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name or that it has been granted any rights relevant thereto under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Next, Complainant argues that Respondent does not use the <credicomarketings.com> domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or that it makes a legitimate noncommercial or fair use thereof. Instead, the disputed domain name resolves to a website that claims to promote an online business called "Credico Marketing". Panels have held that passing off use and impersonation do not constitute either a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii). See Materia, Inc. v. Michele Dinoia, FA 1627209 (Forum Aug. 20, 2015) ("The Panel finds that Respondent is using a confusingly similar domain name to redirect users to a webpage with unrelated hyperlinks, that Respondent has no other rights to the domain name, and finds that Respondent is not making a bona fide offering or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use."). Complainant provides screenshots of the resolving website for the disputed domain name, which displays, at the top, the name CREDICO MARKETING followed by the phrase "We Are Charleston's Digital Agency" and a link button titled "Request A Free Quote". Further down the page appears the text "Schedule a call with Holy Webst today and take your business marketing to the next level!" followed by another link button titled "Schedule Call".1 Towards the bottom of the page there is a form titled "Request Your Free Quote!" followed by fill-in fields for a user's name, phone, email, and other information. Oddly, above this form appears the following text repeated twice: "Copyright 2020 The Open Sans Project Authors (https://github.com/googlefonts/opensans) This Font Software is licensed under the SIL Open Font License, Version 1.1. This license is copied below, and is also available with a FAQ at: https://scripts.sil.org/OFL." Finally, and of particular note, the footer of the page shows the text "Let's Connect" followed by a postal address in Chester, United Kingdom which is Complainant's own U.K. office address. Based on the above, the Panel finds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case which has gone unrebutted by Respondent and, upon a preponderance of the available evidence, the Panel further finds that Respondent engages in passing off activity which does not provide it with any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant asserts that Respondent registered the <credicomarketings.com> domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the CREDICO mark. Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii), actual knowledge of another's famous trademark can form a solid foundation upon which to build a case for bad faith registration of a disputed domain name and this can be demonstrated based on the use to which a disputed domain name is put. See Infosys Limited v. Anil Zaparde, Infosys Consulting, Inc., D2025-0445 (WIPO March 19, 2025) (Respondent operating in the same industry "increases the likelihood that the Respondent had been aware of the Complainant when the disputed domain name was registered.") Also UDRP Perspectives on Recent Jurisprudence, § 3.4 (updated Jan. 15, 2025), available at https://udrpperspectives.org) ("For bad faith to be present, the Respondent must have actual knowledge of the existence of the Complainant, the trademark owner."). Here, Complainant asserts that Respondent had prior knowledge of Complainant's rights in its mark and the appearance on the <credicomarketings.com> site of Complainant's U.K. office address leads the Panel to conclude that this is a reasonable assertion. Based on this evidence, the Panel finds it highly likely that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). Next, Complainant argues that Respondent registered and uses the <credicomarketings.com> domain name in bad faith because Respondent passes itself off as Complainant by confusing and deceiving consumers into thinking that they are dealing with a website that originates with Complainant and is a genuine source for its services. Such conduct is indicative of bad faith per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). See Tesla Inc. v. Ultimate / Jonathan Littlewood, FA 2052426 (Forum Aug. 2, 2023) (finding bad faith where "Respondent has attempted to commercially gain or otherwise benefit by fraudulently impersonating Complainant to entice shoppers to purchase on Respondent's website."). The Complaint asserts that Respondent is impersonating Complainant or at least passing off the <credicomarketings.com> website by deceiving consumers into believing that it is affiliated with Complainant. The Panel references the screenshots of the websites that resolve from the domain name which are mentioned in the previous section. These show Respondent's use of the CREDICO mark in relation to services which appear to be very similar if not identical in some respects to those provided by Complainant. In particular, Respondent's use of Complainant's own U.K. business address on the site convinces the Panel that passing off is the objective of Respondent's website. Based on a preponderance of the evidence presented, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name to seek commercial gain based on a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark within the parameters of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). 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 <credicomarketings.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Steven M. Levy, Panelist Dated: July 9, 2025 [1] Complainant claims that "one of the links on the Disputed Website, namely the 'Email Us' – 'Send Message' link, takes the user to a website under the name 'holywebs' (https://holywebscharleston.com)". However, no screenshots or other evidence are provided to support this and so the Panel declines to consider the claim. 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.