Bookbabyinc.com

The timeline behind bookbabyinc.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 DIY Media Group, Inc. v. Asjad Jawed / Pak Minerals Claim Number: FA2507002168970 PARTIES Complainant is DIY Media Group, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Stephenie W. Yeung of Offit Kurman, P.A., Pennsylvania, USA. Respondent is Asjad Jawed / Pak Minerals ("Respondent"), Pakistan. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <bookbabyinc.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. Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on July 31, 2025; Forum received payment on July 31, 2025. On August 1, 2025, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <bookbabyinc.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 August 5, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 25, 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@bookbabyinc.com. Also on August 5, 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 26, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. 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 i) Complainant assists content creators, including artists, authors, and filmmakers, in bringing their works to market. Its BOOKBABY brand enables authors to self-publish without the complexities of traditional publishing. Since 2010, Complainant has become a leading global platform for publishing, distributing, and monetizing content, serving over 50,000 independent authors across diverse genres worldwide. Complainant holds rights in the BOOKBABY mark, including, inter alia, USPTO Reg. No. 4,207,845 (registered September 11, 2012). The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's BOOKBABY mark, as it incorporates the mark in its entirety and merely appends the descriptive term "inc" together with the ".com" gTLD. ii) Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Respondent been authorized or licensed by Complainant to use the BOOKBABY mark. Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services. Rather, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to impersonate Complainant and to offer competing services. iii) Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The website to which the disputed domain name resolves disrupts Complainant's business and seeks commercial gain by passing off as Complainant and creating confusion as to sponsorship or endorsement. Respondent's use of a privacy service to conceal its identity gives rise to a rebuttable presumption of bad faith. Moreover, Respondent was aware of Complainant's rights in the BOOKBABY mark prior to registering the disputed domain name. B. Respondent Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS 1. The disputed domain name was registered on May 22, 2025. 2. Complainant has established rights in the BOOKBABY mark, including, inter alia, USPTO Reg. No. 4,207,845 (registered September 11, 2012). 3. The disputed domain name resolves to a website that displays content similar to Complainant's website, offers identical services, and is designed to create a substantially similar commercial impression to Complainant's site, with Respondent displaying a similar BOOKBABY trademark and identifying itself as "Book Baby" or "Book Baby Inc." 4. Complainant reported infringement of its BOOKBABY marks on another domain name <bookbabyfirm.com>, leading to the site's removal on May 20, 2025. Shortly after, Respondent registered the disputed domain name on May 22, 2025, which replicated the prior site's design and content. 5. In July 2025, a customer mistakenly contacted Respondent believing it was Complainant, and Respondent reinforced this confusion by identifying itself as "BookBaby." 6. Respondent's website, emails, and signatures all misrepresented affiliation with Complainant, and in direct communications even confirmed such an affiliation. 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 Complainant asserts rights in the BOOKBABY mark, including, inter alia, USPTO Reg. No. 4,207,845 (registered September 11, 2012). Registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to establish rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). As Complainant has provided evidence of such registration, the Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in the BOOKBABY mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Complainant further contends that the disputed domain name <bookbabyinc.com> is confusingly similar to its BOOKBABY mark because it incorporates the mark in its entirety and merely adds the generic or descriptive term "inc," together with the ".com" gTLD. The addition of a generic term and a gTLD does not serve to distinguish a disputed domain name from the incorporated mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Skechers U.S.A., Inc. and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II v. Svensson Viljae, FA 1784650 (Forum June 1, 2018) ("The disputed domain name <skechers-outlet.com> adds a hyphen and the generic term 'outlet' to Complainant's registered SKECHERS mark, and appends the '.com' top-level domain."). Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's BOOKBABY mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Section 2.1, WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 ("Where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element."). Complainant argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Respondent been authorized by Complainant to use Complainant's mark, and Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant. Relevant information, such as WHOIS information, can be used as evidence to show a respondent is or is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). The Panel notes that the unmasked WHOIS data lists "Asjad Jawed / Pak Minerals" as the registrant, and there is no evidence in the record to suggest Respondent was authorized to use the mark. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Complainant argues that Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, as Respondent is passing itself off as Complainant by selling competing goods. Using a disputed domain name to impersonate a complainant for the purpose of offering competing products does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See General Motors LLC v. MIKE LEE, FA 1659965 (Forum Mar. 10, 2016) ("use of a domain to sell products and/or services that compete directly with a complainant's business does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)"). Complainant further contends that Respondent is deliberately attempting to trade on the goodwill associated with Complainant and to confuse and mislead Internet users. The Panel notes from the screenshots of both the disputed domain name's resolving website and Complainant's own website that the disputed domain name resolved to a site displaying content similar to Complainant's, offering identical services, and creating a substantially similar commercial impression. The website prominently displays a similar BOOKBABY trademark and identifies itself as "Book Baby" or "Book Baby Inc." The Panel finds that Respondent's passing off activities and diversion of Internet users seeking Complainant to its own website offering competing or unrelated products do not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). Accordingly, the Panel concludes that Complainant has made out a prima facie case on these grounds. As Respondent has not filed a Response or otherwise attempted to rebut this prima facie showing, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant contends that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith, as Respondent registered the domain name to pass off as Complainant and to sell competing versions of Complainant's products for Respondent's commercial gain. Registration of a confusingly similar domain name with the intent to disrupt business by passing off as a complainant to sell competing products constitutes evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Xylem Inc. and Xylem IP Holdings LLC v. YinSi BaoHu YiKaiQi, FA 1612750 (Forum May 13, 2015) ("The Panel agrees that Respondent's use of the website to display products similar to Complainant's, imputes intent to attract Internet users for commercial gain, and finds bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)."); see also Allianz of Am. Corp. v. Bond, FA 680624 (Forum June 2, 2006) (finding bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent was diverting Internet users searching for the complainant to its own website and likely profiting). The Panel notes that (i) the disputed domain name resolved to a website that displays content similar to Complainant's website, offers identical services, and is designed to create a substantially similar commercial impression to Complainant's site, with Respondent displaying a similar BOOKBABY trademark and identifying itself as "Book Baby" or "Book Baby Inc."; (ii) Complainant reported infringement of its BOOKBABY marks on another domain name, <bookbabyfirm.com>, leading to the site's removal on May 20, 2025, and shortly thereafter Respondent registered the disputed domain name on May 22, 2025, replicating the prior site's design and content; (iii) in July 2025, a customer mistakenly contacted Respondent believing it was Complainant, and Respondent reinforced this confusion by identifying itself as "BookBaby"; and (iv) Respondent's website, emails, and signatures misrepresented affiliation with Complainant, and in direct communications even confirmed such an affiliation. The Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in a manner that disrupts Complainant's business by diverting Internet users seeking Complainant to Respondent's website for Respondent's commercial benefit, in violation of Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and 4(b)(iv). Complainant further argues that Respondent was aware of Complainant and its rights due to the complaint filed against their prior domain and infringement of the BOOKBABY marks as a result of Complainant's enforcement actions. The Panel notes that by virtue of Complainant's widespread use, promotion, and recognition of the BOOKBABY marks for nearly 15 years, the marks had become well-known symbols of Complainant and its goods well before the registration of the disputed domain name on May 22, 2025. The Panel therefore infers, based on the notoriety of Complainant's marks, Respondent's use of the disputed domain name to pass off as Complainant, and Respondent's prior infringement involving the BOOKBABY marks, that Respondent had knowledge of Complainant's rights in the BOOKBABY marks at the time of registration. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). 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 <bookbabyinc.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist Dated: August 28, 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.