Ivanti-secure-access.com

The timeline behind ivanti-secure-access.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 IVANTI, INC. v. MAHANTAPPA NANDYAL Claim Number: FA2509002177083 PARTIES Complainant is IVANTI, INC. ("Complainant"), represented by Rachel Jacques of Maschoff Brennan, Utah, USA. Respondent is MAHANTAPPA NANDYAL ("Respondent"), California, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <ivanti-secure-access.com>, registered with Spaceship, Inc. 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. Héctor Ariel Manoff as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on September 15, 2025; Forum received payment on September 15, 2025. On September 16, 2025, Spaceship, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <ivanti-secure-access.com> domain name is registered with Spaceship, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Spaceship, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Spaceship, 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 September 17, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 7, 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@ivanti-secure-access.com. Also, on September 17, 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 October 8, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Héctor Ariel Manoff 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 1- Complainant, Ivanti, Inc. owns various registered trademarks for its IVANTI brand to identify goods of class 9 and services of class 42. 2- Complainant provides software solutions, hardware, software support and maintenance services, among other ones and has used the IVANTI trademark since 2017. 3- Complainant provides a variety of software solutions, hardware, software support and 4- Complainant owns the domain <ivanti.com>, which is used as its official website to market and sell its products to consumers online. 5- Respondent registered the domain name <ivanti-secure-access.com> on May 31, 2025. 6- Respondent is attempting to pass itself off as the Complainant by suggesting that the disputed domain name provide secure access to Ivanti product downloads in an effort to gain customer login credentials and other sensitive information. 7- As of September 15, 2025, the disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website. 8- At the beginning of September 2025 Internet searches for "ivanti secure access" brought up both Complainant's legitimate —<ivanti.com>—followed by Respondent's illicit domain name. 9- The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the IVANTI trademark in which Complainant has rights; it includes Complainant´s trademark followed by non-distinctive and descriptive words "secure" and "access", and adding the ".com" gTLD. 10- Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name 11- Respondent is not commonly known or identified by the disputed domain name. 12- Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant, Ivanti, Inc., owns trademark registrations for IVANTI as from at least 2017 to protect software solutions, hardware, software support and maintenance services, and also the <ivanti.com> domain name. Respondent registered the disputed domain name on May 31, 2025. Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith. 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 Panel finds that the disputed domain name <ivanti-secure-access.com> is identical and confusingly similar to Complainant's IVANTI marks, in which Complainant has rights. (Annex B). The disputed domain name <ivanti-secure-access.com> incorporates Complainant's IVANTI mark and adds the generic terms "secure" and "access" along with the generic top-level domain ("gTLD") ".COM". The Panel finds that the term IVANTI is a fanciful and arbitrary term and that it is clear that Respondent knew it belonged to Complainant. Respondent has just added two generic words which are related to the goods and services identified by Complainant's trademark. The Panel finds that the domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark since the additional elements are not sufficiently distinctive. (See Microsoft Corporation v. Thong Tran Thanh, FA 1653187 (Forum Jan. 21, 2016) (determining that confusing similarity exists where [a disputed domain name] contains Complainant's entire mark and differs only by the addition of a generic or descriptive phrase and top-level domain, the differences between the domain name and its contained trademark are insufficient to differentiate one from the other for the purposes of the Policy); see also, 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 finds that the disputed domain name is identical and confusingly similar to IVANTI mark, in which Complainant has rights, 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 Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) ("Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests."). The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <ivanti-secure-access.com> domain name because Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use the IVANTI mark. See Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) ("lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant's mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)"). In addition, Respondent has neither filed a response nor submitted evidence to prove that Respondent has any trademark rights in the <ivanti-secure-access.com> domain name. The evidence submitted by Complainant shows that Respondent's use of the <ivanti-secure-access.com> domain is not a bona fide offering of goods. (Page 8 of complaint). According to Complainant's arguments (which were not rebutted by Respondent) as of September 15, 2025, the disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website. However, on September 3, 2025 the use was the one included on page 8 of complaint. It proves that the use was not a bona fide one. This Panel agrees with Complainant that Respondent is not using the domain name in connection with a legitimate noncommercial use or fair use under Policy 4(c)(iii). The Panel also agrees that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and does not have legitimate interest under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant has proved trademark rights and use of it as least since 2017, which is prior to the domain name's date of registration (May 2025). (Annex B and D). Since the disputed domain name includes Complainant's trademark along with generic terms related to Complainant's goods and services, and based on the way the disputed domain name was used in the past (page 8 of complaint), the Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registered the domain name. Registration was done in bad faith. The disputed domain's homepage does not currently resolve to any active content; however, it can also be considered a bad faith sign. See Robert Half Inc. v. Rose Diaz / Robert half staffing, FA 2111371 (Forum Sept. 12 2024) ("Respondent's passive holding of <rosediazroberthalfstaffing.org> demonstrates Respondent's bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)). See also CommScope, Inc. of North Carolina v. Zhuang Yan / WANGYONG, FA 1764026 (Forum Feb. 14, 2018) ("Respondent's domain names do not have resolving websites. Using a domain name to resolve to an inactive website (or no website at all) indicates bad faith registration and use"). Prior Panels have considered it reasonable to infer bad faith registration and use when facing conflicts involving inactive domain names without evidence of preparations for use. See Health Catalyst, Inc. v. Javid Henry, FA 2158701 (Forum July 1, 2025) ("Respondent registered a domain name incorporating Complainant's registered mark. Respondent does not appear to have made any active use of the domain name, nor to have engaged in preparations for such use, and has failed to come forward with any explanation for the selection of the name or its intended use. Under the circumstances, the Panel considers it reasonable to infer that Respondent registered the domain name intending to use it in a manner calculated to create and exploit confusion with Complainant and its mark, most likely either by selling the domain name or by using it to attract or defraud Internet users seeking Complainant, and that Respondent is maintaining the domain name for that purpose. See, e.g., Blink Health Inc. v. Corey Cotts, supra (finding bad faith registration and use in similar circumstances). The Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith."). The Panel concludes that Respondent has the intention of creating an association with Complainant and its products and services. This Panel concludes that Respondent has registered the domain name with the intent to attract and divert Internet users to the corresponding websites for its own benefit. See Carey Int'l, Inc. v. Kogan, FA 486191 (Forum July 29, 2005) ("[T]he Panel finds that Respondent is capitalizing on the confusing similarity of its domain names to benefit from the valuable goodwill that Complainant has established in its marks. Consequently, it is found that Respondent registered and used the domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)."). The Panel determines 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 <ivanti-secure-access.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Héctor Ariel Manoff, Panelist Dated: October 17, 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.