Golo789.cloud + 6 more domains

The timeline behind golo789.cloud

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 GOLO, LLC v. Alam Ahtisham / mustaeen Akbar / gb / SHAHWAIZ shahwaiz / xiao lajiao / chen lin Claim Number: FA2601002198501 PARTIES Complainant is GOLO, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Caitlin R. Byczko of Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Indiana, USA. Respondent is Alam Ahtisham / mustaeen Akbar / gb / SHAHWAIZ shahwaiz / xiao lajiao / chen lin ("Respondent"), Pakistan. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES The domain names at issue are <golo789.cloud>, <golo789.net>, <golo789.org>, <golo777.info>, <golo789.com>, <golo789.xyz>, and <golo789.app> (collectively "Domain Names"), registered with Dynadot Inc; NameCheap, Inc.; CNOBIN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY LIMITED; and 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. Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 7, 2026; Forum received payment on January 7, 2026. On January 8 or 9, 2026, each of the Registrars (Dynadot Inc, NameCheap, Inc., CNOBIN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY LIMITED and Spaceship, Inc.) confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <golo789.cloud>, <golo789.net>, <golo789.org>, <golo777.info>, <golo789.com>, <golo789.xyz>, and <golo789.app> domain names are registered with them and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Each of the Registrars have verified that Respondent is bound by their 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 January 14, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 3, 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@golo789.cloud, postmaster@golo789.net, postmaster@golo789.org, postmaster@golo777.info, postmaster@golo789.com, postmaster@golo789.xyz, and postmaster@golo789.app. Also on January 14, 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 February 4, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Nicholas J.T. Smith 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 In the instant proceedings, Complainant has alleged that the entities which control the domain names at issue are effectively controlled by the same person and/or entity, which is operating under several aliases. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (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." Complainant contends that the registrants for the Domain Names are related because: 1) the Domain Names are all similar variants of Complainant's GOLO mark, wholly incorporating the mark along with numbers (in six of the Domain Names the number "789") 2) the Domain Names <golo789.cloud>, <golo789.org>, <golo777.info>, <golo789.com>, <golo789.xyz>, and <golo789.app> ("Active Domain Names") redirect to similar pages (the "Respondent's Websites") that purport to offer gaming services 3) The Domain Name <golo789.net> ("Inactive Domain Name") is inactive but it shares common geographical location details with the registrants of some of the other Domain Names; and 4) The Domain Names were each registered within the same two-week period. This evidence, in the Panel's opinion, strongly suggests that the Domain Names are owned/controlled by a single Respondent; were the named Respondents unrelated, it would be unlikely that 5 unconnected entities would register 7 very similar domain names during the same two-week period, with all of them either being inactive or pointing to the Respondent's Websites which offer the same gambling services. In light of these contentions, which none of the identified Respondents deny, the Panel concludes that, on the balance of probabilities, the Domain Names are commonly owned/controlled by a single Respondent who is using multiple aliases. Hereafter the single Respondent will be referred to as "Respondent" in this Decision. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant is a healthcare and wellness company that provides proprietary weight loss and wellness solutions under the GOLO mark. Complainant has rights in the GOLO mark based on registration of the mark with various national registries including with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (e.g., Reg. No. 4,436,947, registered November 19, 2013). Respondent's Domain Names are each confusingly similar to Complainant's GOLO mark because they each incorporate Complainant's mark in its entirety, simply adding a generic number, and a generic top-level domain ("gTLD"). Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names. Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant's GOLO mark and is not commonly known by the Domain Names. Additionally, Respondent does not use the Domain Names for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent uses the Active Domain Names for the Respondent's Websites that are used to promote gambling services unrelated to any ordinary meaning of the Active Domain Names and passively holds the Inactive Domain Name pending use for the purposes outlined above. Respondent registered and uses the Domain Names in bad faith. Respondent misuses Complainant's mark to create confusion and capitalize on the goodwill associated with Complainant. Respondent registered and uses the Active Domain Names to divert users to its gaming websites for commercial gain and passively holds the Inactive Domain Name pending use for such a purpose. Additionally, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights to the GOLO mark prior to registering the Domain Names based on the reputation of the Complainant. Finally, the Complainant submits it is likely that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of conduct noting the similarities between the conduct identified in this matter and a similar dispute under the Policy resolved shortly before the Domain Names were registered. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant holds trademark rights for the GOLO mark. Each of the Domain Names is confusingly similar to Complainant's GOLO mark. Complainant has established that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names and that Respondent registered and has used the 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 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 has rights in the GOLO mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (e.g., Reg. No. 4,436,947, registered November 19, 2013). Registration of a mark with a nation's trademark agency is generally sufficient to demonstrate rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Glashütter Uhrenbetrieb GmbH v. li zilin / QQ869292929, FA 1575562 (Forum Sept. 23, 2014) (holding, "Trademark registrations with a governmental authority are sufficient to prove rights in a mark pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(i)…."). The Panel finds that each of the Domain Names is confusingly similar to the GOLO mark as they each incorporate the entire GOLO mark while adding numbers and a gTLD. Adding a number and a gTLD to a wholly incorporated mark fails to sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See 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."); see also Dell Inc. v. Protection of Private Person / Privacy Protection, FA 1681432 (Forum Aug. 1, 2016) ("A TLD (whether a gTLD, sTLD or ccTLD) is disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because the domain name syntax requires TLDs."). The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant alleges that Respondent holds no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names. 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 Domain Names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have 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 interest 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."). The Panel holds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case. Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names as Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Names, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the GOLO mark. Respondent has no relationship, affiliation, connection, endorsement or association with Complainant. WHOIS information can help support a finding that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, especially where a privacy service has been engaged. 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)); see also Kohler Co. v. Privacy Service, FA 1621573 (Forum July 2, 2015) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) where "Privacy Service" was listed as the registrant of the disputed domain name). The WHOIS information of record lists "Alam Ahtisham / mustaeen Akbar / gb / SHAHWAIZ shahwaiz / xiao lajiao / chen lin" as the registrants of record. Coupled with Complainant's unrebutted assertions as to absence of any affiliation or authorization between the parties, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Names in accordance with Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). The Active Domain Names resolve or have resolved to the Respondent's Websites which offer commercial content unrelated to the Complainant (gambling content) or any descriptive meaning of the Domain Name. In these circumstances, use of a domain name to divert users, for commercial gain, to a website containing unrelated content (being content unrelated to any obvious descriptive meaning of the domain name) such as gambling content is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Spike's Holding, LLC v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1736008 (Forum July 21, 2017) ("Using a confusingly similar domain to display unrelated content can evince a lack of a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use… The Panel therefore finds that Respondent's unrelated use of the <finishnline.com> domain name evinces a lack of rights and legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) & (iii)."). The Inactive Domain Name does not resolve to any active website. Passively holding a disputed domain name may suggest a lack of rights and legitimate interests in the domain name per Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See TMP Int'l, Inc. v. Baker Enters., FA 204112 (Forum Dec. 6, 2003) ("[T]he Panel concludes that Respondent's [failure to make an active use] of the domain name does not establish rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)."). Furthermore, in the present case the Panel considers it likely that the Inactive Domain Name is being held pending use in a similar manner to the Active Domain Names. The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith The Panel finds on the balance of probabilities that, at the time of registration of the Domain Names (November-December 2025), Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's GOLO mark since there is no obvious explanation, nor has one been provided, for an entity to register 7 domain names that contain the GOLO mark and use 6 of them (with the remaining domain name being inactively held) to redirect visitors to websites offering gambling content unrelated to any descriptive meaning of the Domain Names other than to take advantage Complainant's reputation in the GOLO mark. In the absence of rights or legitimate interests of its own this demonstrates registration in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). The Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the Domain Names in bad faith to create confusion with Complainant's GOLO mark for commercial gain by using the confusingly similar Active Domain Names (the Inactive Domain Name likely being passively held pending similar use) to resolve to websites offering gambling content for which Respondent would be expected to receive revenue. Use of a confusingly similar domain name to attract users to a website hosting commercial content such as gambling may be evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iv). See G.D. Searle & Co. v. Celebrex Drugstore, FA 123933 (Forum Nov. 21, 2002) (finding that the respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because the respondent was using the confusingly similar domain name to attract Internet users to its commercial website). The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied 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 <golo789.cloud>, <golo789.net>, <golo789.org>, <golo777.info>, <golo789.com>, <golo789.xyz>, and <golo789.app> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Nicholas J.T. Smith, Panelist Dated: February 4, 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.