Portalpilotflyingj.com

The timeline behind portalpilotflyingj.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 Pilot Travel Centers LLC v. Piloto Mando / Mar DLL Claim Number: FA2601002197602 PARTIES Complainant is Pilot Travel Centers LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Seth L. Hudson of Maynard Nexsen PC, North Carolina, USA. Respondent is Piloto Mando / Mar DLL ("Respondent"), New York, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <portalpilotflyingj.com>, registered with NameCheap, 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. Richard Hill as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 2, 2026; Forum received payment on January 2, 2026. On January 5, 2026, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <portalpilotflyingj.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 January 7, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 27, 2026 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@portalpilotflyingj.com. Also on January 7, 2026, 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 January 28, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Richard Hill 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 Complainant states that it serves 1.5 million guests per day and provides over 70,000 fleet customers with solutions for fuel, credit, factoring, services and rewards. It has prominently and extensively used, promoted, and advertised the PILOT mark for over 60 years. The PILOT and FLYING J marks are used in 44 states and more than 750 locations in the United States, including 5 Canadian provinces. Complainant is the owner of the domain name <pilotflyingj.com>, among others. Complainant asserts rights in the marks PILOT and FLYING J through their registration in the United States in, respectively, 1958 and 1987. Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its PILOT and FLYING J marks mark as it incorporates the marks in their entirety and merely adds the generic/descriptive term "portal", together with the ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD"). Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position. According to Complainant, Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant authorized or licensed Respondent to use its mark in any way. Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent uses the disputed domain name in furtherance of a fraudulent email phishing scheme. Specifically, Complainant's customers received emails from the disputed domain name, purporting to come from Complainant by displaying its marks, distinctive logo, and business address, and inviting the customers to visit a website at the disputed domain name; that website was a fraudulent website that prompted customers to enter their login information; some customers did so enter their login information and were actually defrauded. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position. According to Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. The disputed domain name was used in furtherance of a fraudulent email phishing scheme. Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in its marks. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant has rights in the marks PILOT and FLYING J and uses it them to provide solutions for fuel, credit, factoring, services and rewards. Complainant's rights in its marks date back to, respectively, 1958 and 1987. The disputed domain name was registered in 2025. Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its marks. The disputed domain name is used in furtherance of a fraudulent email phishing scheme. The fraudulent emails display Complainant's marks and distinctive logo, and Complainant's business address. 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 disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's PILOT and FLYING J marks in their entirety, merely adding the generic/descriptive term "portal" together with the ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD"). Such changes do not distinguish a domain name from marks under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis. See Adobe Inc. v. Adrean Coroama, FA 1829809 (Forum Mar. 14, 2019) ("Complainant next argues that Respondent's … domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant's marks as they each contain either combine two of Complainant's marks, add a generic term to one of Complainant's marks, and add a gTLD. Similar changes in a registered mark have failed to sufficiently distinguish a domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)."); see also United States Postal Service v. She had khan, FA 1788585 (Forum June 19, 2018) ("Respondent combines the USPS and USPS TRACKING marks and adds the gTLD ".com" as well as the highly descriptive "service" term. Therefore, the Panel concludes that the Respondent's name is confusingly similar to the Complainants marks under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)."). Therefore the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's marks under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its marks. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Dale Anderson, FA 1613011 (Forum May 21, 2015) (concluding that because the WHOIS record lists "Dale Anderson" as the registrant of the disputed domain name, the respondent was not commonly known by the <statefarmforum.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)). Here, the WHOIS information of record identifies the registrant as "Piloto Mando / Mar DLL". The Panel therefore finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Respondent uses the disputed domain name in furtherance of a fraudulent email phishing scheme. Specifically, Complainant's customers received emails from the disputed domain name, purporting to come from Complainant by displaying its marks, distinctive logo, and business address, and inviting the customers to visit a website at the disputed domain name; that website was a fraudulent website that prompted customers to enter their login information; some customers did so enter their login information and were actually defrauded. Previous panels have determined that a respondent's attempt to pass itself off as a complainant, or a respondent's attempt to phish, is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Morgan Stanley v. Zhange Sheng Xu / Zhang Sheng Xu, FA 1600534 (Forum Feb. 26, 2015) ("The Panel agrees that the respondent's apparent phishing attempt provides further indication that the respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)."); see also Blackstone TM L.L.C. v. Mita Irelant Ltd., FA 1314998 (Forum Apr. 30, 2010) ("The Panel finds that Respondent's attempt to "phish" for users' personal information is neither a bona fide offering of goods and services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)."). Thus the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods and services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). And the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant's contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant's marks. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent's failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain name. Indeed, as already noted, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to pass off as Complainant in furtherance of a fraudulent email phishing scheme. Previous panels have determined that a respondent's attempt to pass itself off as a complainant and to induce fund transfers constitute bad faith use in the sense of the Policy. See National Oilwell Varco, L.P. v. Craig Wood/NOV, FA 1575951 (Forum Sept. 22, 2014) (finding bad faith where respondent fraudulently attempted to induce wire transfers by sending e-mails purporting to be from complainant's President and CEO); see also Capital One Financial Corporation and Capital One Bank v. Austin Howel, FA 289304 (Forum Aug. 11, 2004) (finding bad faith where respondent used complainant's mark to fraudulently induce transfer of credit and personal identification information). Thus the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). Further, Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant's mark: the fraudulent emails display Complainant's marks distinctive logo, and Complainant's business address. While constructive notice is insufficient to demonstrate bad faith, actual knowledge of a complainant's rights in a mark prior to registration may be evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Custom Modular Direct LLC v. Custom Modular Homes Inc., FA 1140580 (Forum Apr. 8, 2008) ("There is no place for constructive notice under the Policy."); see also Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014) ("The Panel notes that although the UDRP does not recognize 'constructive notice' as sufficient grounds for finding Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith, the Panel here finds actual knowledge through the name used for the domain and the use made of it."); see also Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name). The Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in its marks prior to Respondent's registration of the disputed domain name and that this constitutes 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 <portalpilotflyingj.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Richard Hill, Panelist Dated: January 28, 2026 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.