Wesco-anixter.com

The timeline behind wesco-anixter.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 Wesco Distribution, Inc. and Anixter-Real Estate, LLC v. Afan Saleem Claim Number: FA2506002161246 PARTIES Complainant is Wesco Distribution, Inc. and Anixter-Real Estate, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Kelley S. Gordon of Marshall, Gerstein & Borun LLP, Illinois, USA. Respondent is Afan Saleem ("Respondent"), Texas, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <wesco-anixter.com> ('the Domain Name'), registered with GoDaddy.com, 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. Dawn Osborne as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 17, 2025; Forum received payment on June 17, 2025. On June 17, 2025, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <wesco-anixter.com> Domain Name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, 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 June 23, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 14, 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@wesco-anixter.com. Also on June 23, 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 16, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Dawn Osborne 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 the instant proceedings, there are two complainants. 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 complainants are both subsidiaries of the same company Wesco International and so are related and in the same group of companies. Wesco Distribution Inc. Is the owner of the trade mark WESCO registered in the USA for services relating to the distribution of electrical apparatus since at least 2005. Anixter-Real Estate LLC and/or one of its related companies is the owner of the trade mark ANIXTER registered in the USA for services relating to the distributing of electrical wire or cable since at least 1978. The Panel holds that both complainants have a sufficient nexus and can each claim to have rights to the domain name listed in the Complaint allowing them to be joint complainants in these Proceedings within the Rules and they will be jointly referred to as the Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's marks (details of which are given above) containing them both in their entirety and merely adding a hyphen and the ".com" gTLD. Combining two different trademarks of a complainant in a disputed domain name is insufficient to negate a finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to either trademark. Nor will adding a gTLD or a hyphen (as punctuation). The Respondent who is the CEO of a competitor is not authorised by the Complainant or commonly known by the Domain Name. The use of the Domain Name is commercial and so is not legitimate non commercial fair use. The Domain Name registered in 2025 is being used for competing commercial pay-per-click links which is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate non commercial fair use. It is confusing customers for commercial gain and disrupting the Complainant's business in full knowledge of the Complainant's rights. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS The Complainant is the owner of the trade mark WESCO registered in the USA for services relating to the distribution of electrical apparatus since at least 2005 and the trade mark ANIXTER registered in the USA for services relating to the distributing of electrical wire or cable since at least 1978. It supplies its services in relation to boats. The Domain Name registered by the CEO of a power boat company in 2025 is being used for competing commercial pay-per-click links. 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 Domain Name registered in 2025 consist of the Complainant's prior WESCO and ANIXTER marks (see details above) a hyphen and the gTLD .com. Combining two marks of the Complainants and adding a gTLD does not prevent confusing similarity between each of those marks and the Domain Name. Wyndham Hotels and Resorts, LLC, and Wyndham Vacation Resorts, Inc. v. James VanBuren, FA 1624028 (Forum July 10, 2015) ("The disputed domain name combines two of Complainant's registered trademarks, WYNDHAM and EXTRA VACATIONS, omitting the space and adding the ".com" top-level domain name. These alterations do not diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's marks."). The addition of a hyphen does not prevent confusing similarity between a complainant's mark or marks and a domain name. See Health Devices Corp. v Aspen STC, FA 158254 (Forum July 1, 2003) (The addition of punctuation marks such as hyphens is irrelevant in the determination of confusing similarity pursuant to Policy 4 (a)(i).). Accordingly the Panel agrees that the addition of a hyphen to the Complainants' marks does not prevent confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant's trade marks or either of them pursuant to the Policy. Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to each of the Complainant's registered marks. As such the Panel holds that Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant has not authorised the use of their marks. There is no evidence to suggest the Respondent is commonly known by the Domain Name. See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA 1574905 (Forum Sept. 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark). The use of the Domain Name is commercial so it cannot be legitimate non commercial fair use. The Domain Name inherently carries a risk of implied affiliation with the Complainant combining two of its distinctive marks. The Domain Name is being used for competing pay-per-click links. Use for commercial competing pay-per-click links does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate non commercial or fair use. See Insomniac Holdings, LLC v. Mark Daniels, FA 1735969 (Forum July 15, 2017) ("Respondent's use of .. domain name resolves to a site containing pay-per-click hyperlinks and advertisements… Since these kinds of advertisements generate revenue for the holder of a domain name, they cannot be noncommercial; further, they do not qualify as a bona fide offering."). McGuireWoods LLP v Mykhailo Loginov/Loginov Enterprises doo, FA 1594837 (Forum Jan. 22, 2015) ("The Panel finds Respondent's use of the disputed domain names to feature parked hyperlinks containing links in competition with the Complainant .. is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to 4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate non commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy 4(c)(iii)."). The Respondent has not answered this Complaint or rebutted the prima facie case evidenced by the Complainant as set out herein. As such the Panelist finds that the Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy. Registration and Use in Bad Faith The Complainant provides services in relation to boats. The Domain Name is being used by a CEO of a boat company for competing commercial pay-per-click links. Use of a domain name containing a mark with a reputation for competing pay-per-click links indicates bad faith being disruptive of the Complainant's business and diverting customers for commercial gain and can indicate actual knowledge of the Complainant and its business. As the Respondent is the CEO of a boat company when the Complainant supplies services in relation to boats and where the Respondent has used two distinctive marks of the Complainant it is very likely that the Respondent has actual knowledge of the Complainant and its business, rights and services. Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to his website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trade mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the web site or products or services offered on it likely to disrupt the business of the Complainant. See American Council on Education and GED Testing Service LLC v. Anthony Williams, FA 1760954 (Forum Jan. 8, 2018) ("Respondent's hosting of links to Complainant's competitors demonstrates bad faith registration and use of the <geddiploma.org> domain name pursuant to Policy 4(b)(iii)"); see also Capital One Financial Corp. v. DN Manager / Whois-Privacy.Net Ltd, FA 1615034 (Forum June 4, 2015) (holding that the respondent's use of the <capitaloneonebank.com> domain name to display links to the complainant's competitors, such as Bank of America, Visa, Chase and American Express constituted bad faith pursuant to Policy 4(b)(iv)). See also University of Rochester v. Park HyungJin, FA 1587458 (Forum Dec. 9, 2014) (where the Panel inferred Respondent's actual knowledge based on Respondent's use of the domain name to promote links related to the same field as where Complainant's mark is used). As such, the Panel holds that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith and has satisfied the third limb of the Policy. 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 <wesco-anixter.com> Domain Name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Dawn Osborne, Panelist Dated: July 16, 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.