Adobesigner.com + 3 more domains

The timeline behind adobesigner.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

How each disputed name was decided in this proceeding.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION Adobe Inc. v. Mary Jones / Microsoft / Alonco Mikadami / Emily Anderson Claim Number: FA2506002163170 PARTIES Complainant is Adobe Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Griffin Barnett of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Mary Jones / Microsoft / Alonco Mikadami / Emily Anderson ("Respondent"), Multiple Locations. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES The domain names at issue are <adobesigner.com>, <adobesigning.com>, <adobefastsign.com> and <adobesignfast.com>, registered with Hello Internet Corp. 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 27, 2025; Forum received payment on June 27, 2025. On July 3, 2025 and July 9, 2025, Hello Internet Corp confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <adobesigner.com>, <adobesigning.com>, <adobefastsign.com>, and <adobesignfast.com> domain names are registered with Hello Internet Corp and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Hello Internet Corp has verified that Respondent is bound by the Hello Internet Corp 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 July 11, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 31, 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@adobesigner.com, postmaster@adobesigning.com, postmaster@adobefastsign.com, postmaster@adobesignfast.com. Also on July 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 August 14, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE RESPONDENTS Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules provides that a "complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder." In the instant proceedings, Complainant has alleged that the disputed domain names are controlled by the same person or entity which uses aliases for the purposes of registration. The Panel observes multiple commonalities in the registration information pertaining to the disputed domain names, together with identical timing in creation, plus the fact that all the names resolve to, or have resolved to, the same website. Taking these matters into account, the Panel treats the named respondents as a single person or entity for the purposes of Rule 3 and herein refers to them together as "Respondent". PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant asserts trademark rights in ADOBE. Complainant holds a national registration for that trademark. Complainant submits that the domain names are confusingly similar to its trademark. Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Complainant alleges that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith. In particular, it is said that the disputed domain names resolve or have in the past resolved to a website that mimics Complainant's website for its Adobe's Acrobat Sign product with the fraudulent intention of phishing and/or distributing malware. 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 computer software by reference to the trademark, ADOBE; 2. the trademark is the subject of United States Patent & Trademark Office ("USPTO") Reg. No. 1,475,793, registered February 9, 1988; and 3. the disputed domain names were registered on February 26, 2025 and have resolved to a website slavishly copying one of Complainant's official websites. 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 ADOBE with the USPTO, a national trademark authority. The disputed domain names take the trademark to which they add non-distinctive words or terms together with a gTLD. Those additions to the trademark are not of any distinctive value and do not avoid a finding of confusingly similarity (see, for example, 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."); Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association v. Shi Lei aka Shilei, FA 1784643 (Forum June 18, 2018) ("A TLD (whether a gTLD, sTLD or ccTLD) is disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax requires TLDs.")). The Panel finds the domain names confusingly similar to the trademark. The Panel therefore finds that Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. 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 trade mark 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 names, 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 Registrar disclosed the names of the domain name registrants as part of these proceedings. None of the names indicate that Respondent might be commonly known by any of the domain names. There is no evidence that Respondent has any trademark rights. The disputed domain names direct Internet users to a copycat website that mimics Complainant's website for its Adobe's Acrobat Sign product. The use of the domain names is to dupe consumers into providing sensitive personal and financial information / paying for alleged software services / unwittingly download malware. The Panel finds that a prima facie case has been made (see, for example, Google LLC v. Long zheng yong, FA 2403002090343 (Forum April 18, 2024) ("Respondent uses <chromedriver.com> to direct internet users to a website mimicking one of Complainant's actual websites. There, Respondent purports to offer the GoogleDriver solution when in fact it deceives internet users into downloading malware. Respondent's use of the at-issue domain name as such 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)")). The onus shifts to Respondent and in the absence of a Response, Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or interests and so finds that Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant must prove on the balance of probabilities both that the disputed domain names were 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.' The Panel considers that Respondent's conduct most likely falls under paragraph 4(b)(iv) above, but the simpler analysis is that the evidence plainly shows registration in bad faith and use in bad faith. Complainant is well-known. The Panel has already found the domain names to be confusingly similar to the trademarks. The Panel finds that they were created in bad faith with the intention to deceive consumers. Moreover, the use is manifestly in bad faith (see, for example, TimeWarner Inc. v. Yang, FA 1700364 (Forum Dec. 12, 2016) ("[t]he Panel infers from the fame of Complainant's marks and the manner of use of the disputed domain names by Respondent that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant and its rights..."); Enterprise Holdings, Inc. v. IS / Internet Consulting Services Inc., FA 1785242 (Forum June 5, 2018) ("On its face, the use of a domain name that is confusingly similar to the mark of another in order to facilitate a phishing scheme cannot be described as either a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)."). The Panel 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 <adobesigner.com>, <adobesigning.com>, <adobefastsign.com> and <adobesignfast.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Debrett G. Lyons, Panelist Dated: August 15, 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.