Peachpasstollservices.com

The timeline behind peachpasstollservices.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 State Road & Tollway Authority v. Bungee / Leonardo JavierBarroso Falcon Claim Number: FA2506002162501 PARTIES Complainant is State Road & Tollway Authority ("Complainant"), represented by Katrina M. Quicker of Quicker Law, LLC, Georgia, USA. Respondent is Bungee / Leonardo JavierBarroso Falcon ("Respondent"), Peru. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <peachpasstollservices.com>, registered with NICENIC INTERNATIONAL GROUP CO., LIMITED. 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 June 24, 2025; Forum received payment on June 24, 2025. On June 25, 2025, NICENIC INTERNATIONAL GROUP CO., LIMITED confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <peachpasstollservices.com> domain name is registered with NICENIC INTERNATIONAL GROUP CO., LIMITED and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NICENIC INTERNATIONAL GROUP CO., LIMITED has verified that Respondent is bound by the NICENIC INTERNATIONAL GROUP CO., LIMITED 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 30, 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@peachpasstollservices.com. Also on June 30, 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 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 is a government agency responsible for operating tolled transportation facilities in the State of Georgia, which in 2010 launched an electronic tolling system under the name, PEACH PASS. Complainant asserts common law and registered trademark rights in PEACH PASS and submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark. Complainant alleges that the domain name was created to impersonate Complainant for commercial gain by offering payment tools to collect money from users of Georgia toll roads. Complainant states that Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract internet users to Respondent's website, by creating confusion with Complainant's trademark. Complainant states that "upon information and belief, Respondent is using the Disputed Domain Name to send unsolicited text messages to unsuspecting users. These messages contain a hyperlink which [misleads] … recipients into believing they are interacting with the Complainant's legitimate website. However, upon clicking the link, users are redirected to a different website, which is not affiliated with the Complainant." 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 tolled transportation facilities in the US State of Georgia using the trademark PEACH PASS which is registered in Complainant's name with the United States Patent & Trademark Office ("USPTO") as Reg. No. 4,074,608, registered December 20, 2011; 2. the disputed domain name was registered on July 26, 2024, using a privacy service to shield the name of Respondent; and 3. the disputed domain name does not resolve to a website. DISCUSSION Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted 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. 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)). Complainant therefore has rights since it provides proof of its registration of the trademark PEACH PASS with the USPTO, a national trademark authority. For the purposes of comparison of the trademark and domain name, the gTLD, ".com" can be disregarded (see, for example, Am. Int'l Group, Inc. v. Domain Admin. Ltd., FA 1106369 (Forum Dec. 31, 2007)). The domain name then differs from the trademark by addition of the descriptive words, "toll services", to the trademark. The Panel finds that the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark (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.")). The Panel therefore finds that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy are satisfied. 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 (see, for example, Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000‑0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000)). The name of Respondent was shielded by a privacy service and the Complaint as originally filed named the Registrar as Respondent. The Forum issued a Deficiency Notice and the Amended Complaint then correctly named Bungee / Leonardo JavierBarroso Falcon as Respondent. Nothing in the evidence indicates that Respondent might be commonly known by the domain name (see, for example, Tercent Inc. v. Lee Yi, FA 0139720 (Forum Feb. 10, 2003) stating "nothing in [the respondent's] WHOIS information implies that [the respondent] is 'commonly known by' the disputed domain name" as one factor in determining that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) does not apply"). There is no evidence that Respondent has any trademark rights. Complainant states that Respondent has no authority to use the trademark and the Panel accepts that statement. The domain name does not resolve to a website and, for reasons given later, the Panel finds that the domain name has not been used. A prima facie case has been made (see, for example, Thermo Electron Corp. v. Xu, FA 713851 (Forum July 12, 2006) finding that the respondent's non-use of the disputed domain names demonstrates that the respondent is not using the disputed domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) 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 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. As stated earlier, there is no evidence of use of the domain name in relation to a website. However, the Complaint states that Respondent is using the domain name to send text messages to unsuspecting toll road users, offering payment collection tools. The Complaint goes on to state that these messages contain a hyperlink "that appears to direct users to the Disputed Domain Name", and that "upon clicking the link, users are redirected to a … website, which is not affiliated with the Complainant." In support is an Affidavit of Complainant's "Customer Experience Director" which states that: "[b]eginning in approximately July 2024, [Complaint] began receiving a high volume of calls from PEACH PASS customers reporting that they had received text messages ("Fraudulent Texts") stating they have outstanding toll violations. The PEACH PASS customers also reported that the Fraudulent Texts directed them to various websites or click a link to pay those purported violations. Attached as Exhibit A are true and accurate copies of the Fraudulent Text messages …" The Panel notes that there Exhibit A to the Affidavit is missing, but nevertheless the Affidavit goes on to state that: "[w]hen customers click on the link or enter the domain name identified in the Fraudulent Texts, they are directed to sites designed to fraudulently collect money and/or personal information from [Complainant's] customers or toll violators. … Some of the websites identified in the Fraudulent Texts use [the trademark] in [its] entirety. Some of the websites … use the PEACH PASS Mark in a confusingly similar way to the PEACH PASS Mark." (sic) The Complaint lists the following exhibits: Exhibit 11: Screen Captures of FBI and FTC Warnings of Peach Pass Scams Exhibit 12: Screen Capture of Fox 5 Text Message Scam Story Exhibit 13: Screen Capture of SRTA FBI Warning Those exhibits warn of "smishing scams"1, but none identify the disputed domain name or Respondent. The Panel notes that the Complaint carries the following footnote: "The Disputed Domain Name appears to be currently inactive. However, reports of Complainant's customers being scammed lead Complainant to argue both that the Disputed Domain Name is involved in a fraudulent phishing scam and that the Disputed Domain Name is held inactively." Complainant's suspicions may be well-founded and although the Panel is permitted to draw reasonable inferences under paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, it cannot in this case conclude with any certainty that the domain name has been used. Nor, in the result, can any of paragraphs 4(b)(i)-(iv) of the Policy be reliably applied. All that can be implied from the Complaint is that the domain name was registered in bad faith and is being held passively in bad faith. In that respect, the leading case of Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, D2000-0003 (WIPO February 18, 2000) required that the complainant's mark was widely known. As indicated earlier, Complainant claims common law trademark rights as well as registered rights in PEACH PASS. There is insufficient evidence to show common law trademark rights (see, for example, WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Overview") at #1.3). However, whilst the Affidavit simply asserts "immense public goodwill", the Panel accepts a number of other claims, including (1) Complainant's existence as the regulatory authority since 1953; (2) its use of the trademark since 2010 (additionally supported by the first use in commerce of August 17, 2010, stipulated in Registration No. 4,074,608); (3) the exclusive use of the trademark by Complainant and its authorized vendors since then; and (4) the exposure of the mark to a largely motorised population. Based on those facts, the Panel accepts that the trademark is well-known, at least in the State of Georgia. In these circumstances, the Panel draws the inference that the domain name was registered in bad faith. Absent a Response, there is nothing to suggest that Respondent could have a legitimate expectation to use the trademark. Further, the issue of use in bad faith falls in line with Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, not only because of the repute of the trademark, but because Respondent has provided no evidence of any actual or contemplated good faith use by it of the domain name; it took active steps to conceal its identity and very probably gave false contact details, and, importantly, it is very difficult to conceive of a legitimate use of the domain name unless Respondent had Complainant's authority. Following Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, the Panel finds passive holding and "use" in bad faith and so finds that Complainant has satisfied the third and final element 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 <peachpasstollservices.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Debrett G. Lyons, Panelist Dated: July 23, 2025 [1] Defined therein as a social engineering attack using fake text messages to trick people into downloading malware, sharing sensitive information, or sending money or cybercriminals. "Smishing" combines "SMS" — or "short message service," and "phishing." "Phishing" generally pertains to attacks on the Internet, email, or websites. 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.