Asksoiar.com

The timeline behind asksoiar.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 Adviz, LLC v. Theresa Eriksen Claim Number: FA2506002162502 PARTIES Complainant is Adviz, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Sarah R. Frankfort of de Diego Law LLC, Texas, USA. Respondent is Theresa Eriksen ("Respondent"), California, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <asksoiar.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 24, 2025; Forum received payment on June 24, 2025. On June 25, 2025, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <asksoiar.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 27, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 17, 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@asksoiar.com. Also on June 27, 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 formal response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On July 18, 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: CONSENT TO TRANSFER Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (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 15(a) of the Rules thus permits a panel to grant a complainant's requested relief without deference to Policy ¶¶ 4(a)ii or 4(a)iii, when a respondent consents to the requested relief. See Boehringer Ingelheim Int'l GmbH v. Modern Ltd. – Cayman Web Dev., FA 133625 (Forum Jan. 9, 2003) (transferring the domain name registration where the respondent stipulated to the transfer); see also, Malev Hungarian Airlines, Ltd. v. Vertical Axis Inc., FA 212653 (Forum Jan. 13, 2004) ("In this case, the parties have both asked for the domain name to be transferred to the Complainant. . . Since the requests of the parties in this case are identical, the Panel has no scope to do anything other than to recognize the common request, and it has no mandate to make findings of fact or of compliance (or not) with the Policy."). In the instant case via correspondence with the dispute resolution service provider, Respondent agrees to transfer the at-issue domain name to Complainant stating in pertinent part: To resolve this matter amicably and without further dispute, I am willing to voluntarily transfer or release the domain name asksoiar.com to the complainant. The Panel, noting that the parties appear to agree to the disposition of the at-issue domain name, follows its rationale set out in Homer TLC, Inc. v. Jacek Woloszuk, FA 613637 (Forum May 17, 2015), as well as in other similarly reasoned decisions where the respondent likewise agreed to transfer the at-issue domain name(s) to the complainant. As more fully discussed in the cases referenced immediately above, as a prerequisite to Complainant obtaining its requested relief —even where Respondent agrees to such relief— this Panel reasons that Complainant must nevertheless demonstrate that it has rights in a mark that is confusingly similar or identical to the at-issue domain name. Notably, without requiring a prerequisite finding under paragraph 4(a)(i) a complainant lacking rights in an at-issue domain name might, via the UDRP, acquire a domain name from a respondent who also has no rights in such domain name. Here, Complainant shows it has trademark rights in its ASKSOLAR mark through Complainant's registration of ASKSOLAR with the USPTO. See Microsoft Corp. v. Burkes, FA 652743 (Forum Apr. 17, 2006) ("Complainant has established rights in the MICROSOFT mark through registration of the mark with the USPTO."); Furthermore, the at-issue domain name contains an overtly misspelled version of Complainant's ASKSOLAR trademark that merely substitutes the mark's "L" with a similar character "I" and then adds the confusingly similar analysis irrelevant ".com" top-level. The differences between <asksoiar.com> and Complainant's trademark are thus insufficient to distinguish the <asksoiar.com> domain name from Complainant's ASKSOLAR trademark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel finds that <asksoiar.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant's ASKSOLAR trademark. See Acme Lift Company, L.L.C. v. VistaPrint Technologies Ltd, FA 1607039 (Forum Apr. 11, 2015) (stating, "Where a respondent has created a domain name in an effort to visually deceive Internet users via a simple misspelling (and when such misspellings are visually similar to the mark), a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) is appropriate."); see also, Wiluna Holdings, LLC v. Edna Sherman, FA 1652781 (Forum Jan. 22, 2016) (finding the addition of a generic term and gTLD is insufficient in distinguishing a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). In light of Respondent's express consent to transfer the at-issue <asksoiar.com> domain name to Complainant and the Panel's finding that Complainant has rights in a mark that is confusingly similar to such domain name, the Panel concludes that analysis regarding paragraph 4(a)(ii) and 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, as well as presenting a summary of Complainant's contentions, are unwarranted. DECISION Having established that the parties agree to the requested relief and that the at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights, the Panel finds that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <asksoiar.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist Dated: July 21, 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.