Livenascaronline.com, Nascarlivetv.com, Nascartvlive.com

The timeline behind livenascaronline.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 National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing, LLC v. zeeshan khuhro / IUKSOFT / Faizan Inayat / Iuksoft / Jibran Inayat Claim Number: FA2511002190085 PARTIES Complainant is National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Neil Magnuson, North Carolina, USA. Respondent is zeeshan khuhro / IUKSOFT / Faizan Inayat / Iuksoft / Jibran Inayat ("Respondent"), Pakistan. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES The domain names at issue are <livenascaronline.com>, <nascarlivetv.com> and <nascartvlive.com> (the "disputed domain names"), the first and third disputed domain names registered with Dominet (HK) Limited and the second disputed domain name registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC. 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. Lynda M. Braun as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on November 20, 2025; Forum received payment on November 20, 2025. On November 20, 2025, Dominet (HK) Limited and GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <livenascaronline.com>, <nascarlivetv.com> and <nascartvlive.com> disputed domain names are registered with Dominet (HK) Limited and GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Dominet (HK) Limited and GoDaddy.com, LLC have verified that Respondent is bound by the Dominet (HK) Limited and GoDaddy.com, LLC registration agreements 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 November 25, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 15, 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@livenascaronline.com, postmaster@nascarlivetv.com, and postmaster@nascartvlive.com. Also on November 25, 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 December 16, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Lynda M. Braun 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 disputed domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE RESPONDENTS In the instant proceedings, Complainant has claimed that the Respondents are appropriate Respondents in this proceeding. The Panel concurs with Complainant and concludes that the three registrants are either identical or related. 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 addition, Paragraph 4(f) of the Policy provides that "[i]n the event of multiple disputes between you and a complainant, either you or the complainant may petition to consolidate the disputes before a single Administrative Panel." This is allowed where it "promotes the shared interests of the parties in avoiding unnecessary duplication of time, effort and expense, reduces the potential for conflicting or inconsistent results arising from multiple proceedings, and generally furthers the fundamental objectives of the Policy." UDRP Panels have reviewed a variety of factors in determining whether multiple domains are, in fact, of common ownership. Such factors as similar naming conventions and similar website content may be considered to determine if the disputed domain names are owned by a single entity. See WIPO Case No. D2014-0474, Delta Dental Plans Association v. ICS INC., et al. (consolidation of 31 domains allowed where "[t]he Panel notes that each of the disputed domain names follows an identical naming convention"). In the present case there are a variety of commonalities and interrelations among the disputed domain names as described below. Here, the naming convention of the disputed domain names is alike: the NASCAR trademark includes the term "live" in each disputed domain name and the terms "livetv" and "tvlive" follow the term NASCAR in two of the disputed domain names. Each resolving website operates under a similar revenue model that includes click-through links, advertisements, and paid (unauthorized) streaming services. The Respondents use NASCAR's reputation to draw consumers into these monetized pages, generating illegal commercial profit. In addition, the design of each website is alike, reflecting a common structure and visual style, and each disputed domain name lists the same contact company information and phone number for their "Contact Us" pages. Finally, Jibran Inayat Khuhro appears to be associated with the company, Iuksoft, and on his LinkedIn profile, there is a "Zeeshsoft.com" reference. Moreover, all three Respondents are from Pakistan. The above shared elements among each of the disputed domain names, and there are more than space allows, suggests a high likelihood of common ownership and therefore an appropriate consolidation of Respondents in this proceeding. Thus, the Panel finds that the aforementioned facts present a compelling case for consolidation of Respondents. The Panel concludes that based on the circumstances iterated here, it would be equitable and procedurally efficient to permit consolidation of Respondents in this case. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant was formed in Daytona Beach, Florida, United States of America ("United States") in 1948, and is today the premier regulating, sanctioning, and governing body for stock car automobile and truck racing. Complainant owns numerous registered trademarks through the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO"), including the following: NASCAR, United States Registration No. 990,987, registered on August 13, 1974, in International Classes 41 and 42 (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "NASCAR Mark"). Complainant also owns numerous domain names, including <nascar.com>, which resolves to its official website at "www.nascar.com". Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the NASCAR Mark, that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names, and Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith. The disputed domain names were registered as follows: <livenascaronline.com> was registered on February 26, 2024; <nascarlivetv.com> was registered on October 18, 2012; and <nascartvlive.com> was registered on April 20, 2022. The disputed domain names resolve to pay-per-click ("PPC") hyperlinks, which generate profit through selling and delivering unauthorized streams of NASCAR races. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS The Panel finds that Complainant holds trademark rights in the NASCAR Mark. The Panel also finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant's NASCAR Mark, that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the use of the disputed domain names, and that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names 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 disputed domain names should be cancelled or transferred: (1) the disputed domain names registered by Respondent are 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 disputed domain names; and (3) the disputed domain names have been registered and are 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 Complainant has rights in the NASCAR Mark based on its registration of the mark with the USPTO (e.g., United States Trademark Registration No. 990,987, registered on August 13, 1974, in International Classes 41 and 42). Registration of a mark with the USPTO confers upon a complainant trademark rights for purposes of the Policy paragraph 4(a)(i). See Liberty Global Logistics, LLC v. damilola emmanuel / tovary services limited, FA 1738536 (Forum Aug. 4, 2017) ("Registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently establishes the required rights in the mark for purposes of the Policy."). The Panel additionally finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the NASCAR Mark under Policy paragraph 4(a)(i). The disputed domain names incorporate the entirety of the NASCAR Mark, followed and/or preceded by the terms "live", "online" and "tv", followed by the generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") ".com". Adding a term to a disputed domain name does not distinguish a disputed domain name from a trademark under Policy paragraph 4(a)(i) because where a trademark is recognizable in a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognisable 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."). Lastly, the addition of a gTLD to an otherwise recognizable mark, as here, does not distinguish a disputed domain name from the trademark under Policy paragraph 4(a)(i). The addition of a gTLD to a complainant's mark is irrelevant in determining whether the disputed domain names are confusingly similar. See Tupelo Honey Hospitality Corp. v. King, Reggie, FA 1732247 (Forum July 19, 2017) (the addition of a gTLD is irrelevant where a mark has been fully incorporated into a domain name). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Policy paragraph 4(a)(i) has been established by Complainant. Rights or Legitimate Interests In order for Complainant to succeed under this element, it must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names under Policy paragraph 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it has rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006) and AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Forum Sept. 25, 2006) ("Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names."). Here, the Panel holds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case. The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names as Respondent has not provided evidence nor proven that it is commonly known by the disputed domain names, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the NASCAR Mark. Moreover, Respondent has no relationship, affiliation, connection, endorsement or association with Complainant. Further, Respondent fails to use the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, the disputed domain names resolve to websites that display PPC-sponsored hyperlinks. The links, which, once clicked on, display unauthorized streams of NASCAR races. Respondent's intent to generate profit through such click-through revenue links and streaming services is not a bona fide offering of goods or services nor legitimate fair use. Each website actively generates revenue by directing users to unauthorized streams of NASCAR races, which directly compete with NASCAR's legitimate race broadcasts. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Policy paragraph 4(a)(ii) has been established by Complainant. Registration and Use in Bad Faith The Panel concludes that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith as set forth below. First, the use of disputed domain names to intentionally attempt to attract Internet users to a respondent's website or online location by creating a likelihood of confusion with a complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the registrant's website or online location is evidence of registration and use in bad faith. Bad faith under Policy paragraph 4(b)(iv) can be found where, as here, a respondent uses confusingly similar domain names to falsely indicate an association with a complainant. See AOL LLC v. iTech Ent, LLC, FA 726227 (Forum July 21, 2006). Second, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith because Respondent registered the disputed domain names with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the NASCAR Mark. Actual knowledge of a complainant's mark prior to registering disputed domain names is sufficient to establish bad faith under Policy paragraph 4(a)(iii). Moreover, it strains credulity to think that Respondent did not have actual knowledge of Complainant's NASCAR Mark or of Complainant. Prior knowledge of a complainant's trademark and use of disputed domain names that incorporate the trademark is sufficient to find bad faith under Policy paragraph 4(a)(iii). See Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014) (finding actual knowledge due to the domain name chosen and the use made of it); Yahoo! Inc. v. Butler, FA 744444 (Forum Aug. 17, 2006) (finding bad faith where the respondent was "well-aware" of the complainant's mark at the time of registration). Third, Respondent attempted to attract Internet users for commercial gain by hosting third-party sponsored PPC links. See American Council on Education and GED Testing Service LLC v. Anthony Williams, FA 1760954 (Forum Jan. 8, 2018) (Respondent's hosting of PPC links demonstrates bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name). In so doing, there can be no doubt that the disputed domain names in this proceeding were likely to confuse consumers into believing that Respondent's resolving websites were affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by Complainant. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Policy paragraph 4(a)(iii) has been established by Complainant. 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 <livenascaronline.com>, <nascarlivetv.com> and <nascartvlive.com> disputed domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Lynda M. Braun, Panelist Dated: December 26, 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.