Dicksportingssgoods.com

The timeline behind dicksportingssgoods.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.

DECISION DICK'S Sporting Goods, Inc. and American Sports Licensing, LLC v Adrian Verbit Claim Number: FA2506002159592 PARTIES Complainant is DICK'S Sporting Goods, Inc. and American Sports Licensing, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Johanna Schmitt of Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, New York, USA. Respondent is Adrian Verbit ("Respondent"), Michigan, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <dicksportingssgoods.com>, registered with NameCheap, Inc. 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. Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 6, 2025; Forum received payment on June 6, 2025. On June 9, 2025, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <dicksportingssgoods.com> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, Inc. 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 11, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 1, 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@dicksportingssgoods.com. Also on June 11, 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 July2, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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. PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE COMPLAINANTS In this proceeding there are two Complainants, DICK'S Sporting Goods and American Sports Licensing, LLC. Paragraph 3(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") provides that "[a]ny person or entity may initiate an administrative proceeding by submitting a complaint. Forum's Supplemental Rule 1(e) defines "The Party Initiating a Complaint Concerning a Domain Name Registration" as a "single person or entity claiming to have rights in the domain name, or multiple persons or entities who have a sufficient nexus who can each claim to have rights to all domain names listed in the Complaint." The record shows that Complainant American Sports Licensing, LLC., the USPTO registered owner of the at-issue DICK'S SPORTING GOODS trademark, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Complainant DICK'S Sporting Goods, Inc. Additionally, there is no objection to the named Complainants proceeding together as if one. The Panel therefore finds that the two nominal Complainants have a sufficient nexus to each other and to the matters complained of such that they can be treated as if a single entity. See Tasty Baking, Co. & Tastykake Invs., Inc. v. Quality Hosting, FA 208854 (Forum Dec. 28, 2003) (treating the two complainants as a single entity where both parties held rights in trademarks contained within the disputed domain names). PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainants contends as follows: Founded in 1948, Complainant DICK'S Sporting Goods, Inc. is a leading omnichannel sporting goods retailer offering an extensive assortment of authentic, high quality sports equipment, apparel, footwear and accessories. It operates a family of sporting goods stores, including over 700 retail stores throughout the United States under the name DICK'S SPORTING GOODS. Complainant also offers goods through a family of websites, including the DICK'S SPORTING GOODS-branded website at the following domain name: <dickssportinggoods.com>. Respondent's at-issue domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the DICK'S SPORTING GOODS mark. Complainants' registration of DICK'S SPORTING GOODS with a federal trademark authority establishes a prima facie case of the Complainants' rights, and the domain name consists of Complainants' entire mark and the ".com" top-level. The entirety of the DICK'S SPORTING GOODS mark is reproduced within the <dicksportingssgoods.com> domain name, which is sufficient to establish identity or confusing similarity under the [Uniform Dispute Resolution] Policy. The at-issue domain name obviously and intentionally misspells the DICK'S SPORTING GOODS mark by deleting a letter "s" after DICK'S and adding two additional "s" letters after SPORTING. The addition or deletion of a letter in domain names is commonly called typosquatting" and creates virtually identical and/or confusingly similar marks to the Complainants' trademark," which is "sufficient for purposes of satisfying" this element. The addition of the generic top-level domain ".com" to the disputed <dicksportingssgoods.com> domain name is irrelevant in determining its similarity to the DICK'S SPORTING GOODS mark. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. Complainants have not authorized Respondent's use of the DICK'S SPORTING GOODS mark; Respondent has no rights in the DICK'S SPORTING GOODS mark; and Respondent is not using the domain name in connection with an active website. There is no evidence in Respondent's WHOIS information for the at-issue domain or otherwise to suggest that Respondent is known by the name "DICK'S Sporting Goods," nor could there be. Respondent has not used the domain name in good faith and in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or made legitimate non-commercial fair use. Respondent registered the <dicksportingssgoods.com> domain name on April 28, 2025, but has not made use of the domain name in connection with a website. Rather, Respondent has been using @dicksportingssgoods.com email addresses to defraud vendors by impersonating DICK'S Sporting Goods and sending fraudulent purchase orders for computer equipment. Respondent has included the <dicksportingssgoods.com> domain on its fake purchase orders. Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith. Use of a domain name to send e-mails impersonating Complainants and sending fake purchase orders is evidence of bad faith registration and use of the domain name. It is well settled that the practice of typosquatting constitutes obvious evidence of bad faith registration of a domain name. Respondent is deemed to have constructive knowledge of Complainants' rights pursuant to Complainants' U.S. federal trademark registrations for the DICK'S SPORTING GOODS mark, the earliest of which issued on September 17, 2002. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainants have trademark rights in DICK'S SPORTING GOODS. Respondent is not affiliated with Complainants and had not been authorized to use Complainants' trademark in any capacity. Respondent registered the at‑issue domain name after Complainants' acquired rights in the DICK'S SPORTING GOODS trademark. Respondent uses the at-issue domain to provide email used in the furtherance of fraud. 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 The at-issue domain is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainants have rights. Any of Complainants' USPTO registrations for DICK'S SPORTING GOODS is sufficient to established Complainants' rights in such mark under Policy 4(a)(i). See Liberty Global Logistics, LLC v. damilola emmanuel / tovary services limited, FA 1738536 (Forum Aug. 4, 2017) (stating, "Registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently establishes the required rights in the mark for purposes of the Policy.") The at-issue domain name contains a recognizable misspelled version of the DICK'S SPORTING GOODS trademark where the mark's domain name impermissible apostrophe and spaces are removed along with the mark's first letter "s". The letters "ss" are inserted between the last terms of the mark, with all followed by the ".com" top-level. The differences between Respondent's <dicksportingssgoods.com> domain name and Complainants' trademark are insufficient to distinguish the domain name from the trademark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent's <dicksportingssgoods.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainants' DICK'S SPORTING GOODS mark. 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.") Rights or Legitimate Interests 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. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond, Complainants' prima facie showing acts conclusively. Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainants' trademark in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of the at‑issue domain name. See Navistar International Corporation v. N Rahmany, FA1505001620789 (Forum June 8, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name where the complainant had never authorized the respondent to incorporate its NAVISTAR mark in any domain name registration). The WHOIS information for the at-issue domain name identifies the domain name's registrant as "Adrian Verbit" and the record before the Panel contains no evidence tending to prove that Respondent is commonly known by the <dicksportingssgoods.com> domain name. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by <dicksportingssgoods.com> for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See H-D U.S.A., LLC, v. ilyas Aslan / uok / Domain Admin ContactID 5645550 / FBS INC / Whoisprotection biz, FA 1785313 (Forum June 25, 2018) ("The publicly available WHOIS information identifies Respondent as 'Ilyas Aslan' and so there is no prima facie evidence that Respondent might be commonly known by either of the [<harleybot.bid> and <harleybot.com>] domain names."). Respondent's <dicksportingssgoods.com> domain name is used to host email pretending to be from Complainant. Such use of the <dicksportingssgoods.com> domain name indicates neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). Instead, Respondent uses @dicksportingssgoods.com email addresses to defraud vendors by impersonating Complainants and sending fraudulent purchase orders including the <dicksportingssgoods.com> domain name, for computer equipment. See Microsoft Corporation v. Terrence Green / Whois Agent / Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc., FA 1661030 (Forum Apr. 4, 2016) (finding the respondent's use of the disputed domain names to send fraudulent emails purportedly from agents of complainant to be neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)). Given the forgoing, Respondent's lack rights and lacks legitimate interests in respect <dicksportingssgoods.com>. Registration and Use in Bad Faith The at-issue domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. As discussed below without limitation, there is evidence from which the Panel may conclude that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). First and as mentioned above, Respondent used the at-issue domain name in connection with an email based phishing scheme to swindle third parties. To wit, Respondent sent emails from <dicksportingssgoods.com> to vendors pretending to be initiated by Complainants so as to create the illusion that the recipient was communicating with Complainants. Respondent, cloaked as Complainants, then acted to further deceive third party vendors by creating phony invoices pretending to be from Complainant so that such vendors might be tricked into delivering computer equipment to Respondent. Respondent's use of the domain name to afford a confusingly similar email address in furtherance of fraud shows Respondent's bad faith registration and use of the <dicksportingssgoods.com> domain name under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv)"). See Abbvie, Inc. v. James Bulow, FA 1701075 (Forum Nov. 30, 2016) ("Respondent uses the <abbuie.com> domain name to impersonate Complainant's CEO. Such use is undeniably disruptive to Complainant's business and demonstrates bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii), and/or Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)"); see also Microsoft Corporation v. Terrence Green / Whois Agent / Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc., FA 1661030 (Forum Apr. 4, 2016) (finding the Respondent's use of the disputed domain names to send fraudulent emails supported a finding of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)). Additionally, Respondent engages in typosquatting. Typosquatting is a practice whereby a domain name registrant deliberately introduces typographical errors or misspellings into a trademark and then uses the newly fashioned string in a domain name hoping that internet users will inadvertently type the malformed string when searching for products or services associated with the targeted trademark and/or will, as appears to be the case here, read the misspelled-trademark laden domain name and confuse it with its targeted trademark. On a cursory reading, the at-issue domain name may be mistaken as owned or sponsored by Complainant since it is confusingly similar to Complainants' DICK'S SPORTING GOODS trademark. Respondent's typosquatting, in itself, is evidence of Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith. See Cost Plus Management Services, Inc. v. xushuaiwei, FA 1800036 (Forum Sep. 7, 2018) ("Typosquatting itself is evidence of relevant bad faith registration and use."); see also LifeLock, Inc. v. Adam Viener / ThunkTunk LLC, FA1409001579875 (Forum Oct. 28, 2014) ("As the Panel has noted above, at the conclusion of its findings under the first Policy element under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), the disputed domain name <lifelocl.com> differs from the LIFELOCK mark only by substituting the letter 'L' for the letter 'K' in the LOCK-portion of Complainant's registered mark. The Panel finds this behavior amounts to typosquatting, and as such the Panel finds this to be evidence of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)."). Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainants' rights in the DICK'S SPORTING GOODS mark when it registered <dicksportingssgoods.com> as a domain name. Respondent's actual knowledge is evident from the notoriety of Complainants' trademark; from the apparent similarity between such mark and Respondent's domain name; and from Respondent's use of the domain name to pose as Complainants as part of its scheme to defraud third party vendors. Respondent's registration and use of the confusingly similar <dicksportingssgoods.com> domain name with knowledge of Complainants' rights in DICK'S SPORTING GOODS further shows Respondent's bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(iii). See Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name); see also, Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name). 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 <dicksportingssgoods.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist Dated: July 3, 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.