Cdvvg.com

The timeline behind cdvvg.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 CDW LLC v. MICHAEL WALLACE / CDVVG Claim Number: FA2601002198781 PARTIES Complainant is CDW LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Kelley S. Gordon of Marshall, Gerstein & Borun LLP, Illinois, USA. Respondent is MICHAEL WALLACE / CDVVG ("Respondent"), Texas, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <cdvvg.com> ('the Domain Name'), registered with Squarespace Domains II 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. Dawn Osborne as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 8, 2026; Forum received payment on January 8, 2026. On January 8, 2026, Squarespace Domains II LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <cdvvg.com> Domain Name is registered with Squarespace Domains II LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Squarespace Domains II LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Squarespace Domains II LLC 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 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@cdvvg.com. 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 Dawn Osborne 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 The Complainant is the owner of the CDW and CDW-G trade marks, registered, inter alia, in the United States for computer related services since 1991 and 2003 respectively. These marks are well known in their field. The Domain Name registered in 2025 is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade marks substituting two letters 'vv' for the letter 'w', omitting the hyphen in the Complainant's CDW-G mark and adding the gTLD .com none of which prevents the said confusing similarity. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, is not commonly known by it and is not authorised by the Complainant. Causing confusion by a typosquatting registration is an indication of a lack of rights and legitimate interests. The Domain Name points to a holding page, so there has been no bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Passive holding of a domain name containing a sign confusingly similar to a mark well known in its field disrupts the Complainant's business and is opportunistic registration and use in bad faith. Typosquatting and causing confusion by means of the Domain Name is registration and use in bad faith. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS The Complainant is the owner of the CDW and CDW-G marks, registered, inter alia, in the United States for computer related services since 1991 and 2003 respectively. These marks are well known in their field. The Domain Name registered in 2025 points to a holding page. 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 Domain Name consist of a sign confusingly similar to the Complainant's CDW-G mark (which is registered, inter alia, in USA for computer services since 2003), substituting two letters v 'vv' for the letter 'w', omitting the hyphen and adding the gTLD .com. The Panel agrees that visually similar misspellings of a Complainant's mark in a domain name do not prevent confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant's trade mark pursuant to the Policy. See Acme Lift Company, L.L.C. v. VistaPrint Technologies Ltd, FA 1607039 (Forum Apr. 11, 2015) (stating, "Where a respondent has created a domain name in an effort to visually deceive Internet users via a simple misspelling (and when such misspellings are visually similar to the mark), a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) is appropriate."). As such the substitution of the letter 'w' with two letters 'v' does not prevent the Domain Name being confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade mark which is still recognisable in the Domain Name. Not does the omission of the hyphen. See MTD Products Inc v ICS Inc, FA 1721505 (Forum Apr. 18, 2017) (holding that "[t]he removal of the hyphen [from complainant's TROY-BILT mark in the disputed domain name] is, like most all embedded punctuation, insignificant"). The gTLD .com does not serve to distinguish a Domain Name from a Complainant's mark. See Red Hat Inc v Haecke, FA 726010 (Forum July 24, 2006) (concluding that the redhat.org domain name is identical to the complainant's red hat mark because the mere addition of the gTLD was insufficient to differentiate the disputed domain name from the mark). Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's CDW-G registered mark. As such the Panel holds that Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant has not authorised the use of a sign confusingly similar to its marks. There is no evidence to suggest the Respondent is commonly known by the Domain Name. See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA 1574905 (Forum Sept. 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark). There has been no use of the Domain Name. See Hewlett-Packard Co. v Shemesh, FA 434145 (Forum Apr. 20, 2005) (where the panel found inactive use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy 4(c)(i)). The Domain Name appears to be a typosquatting registration. Typosquatting is an indication of a lack of rights or a legitimate interests. See Chegg Inc. v. yang qijin, FA 1610050 (Forum Apr. 23, 2015). The Respondent has not answered this Complaint or rebutted the Complainant's prima facie case as evidenced herein. As such the Panelist finds that the Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy. Registration and Use in Bad Faith The Domain Name seeks to take advantage of the situation where Internet users may make a typographical error. Typosquatting itself is evidence of relevant bad faith registration and use. See Diners Club int'l Ltd. v Domain Admin ****** It's all in the name ******, FA 156839 (Forum June 23, 2003). Typosquatting also indicates the Respondent had knowledge of the Complainant and its rights. See InfoSpace, Inc. v. Greiner, FA 227653 (Forum Mar. 8, 2004) ("Such a domain name evidences actual knowledge of the underlying mark prior to the registration of the domain name, and as Respondent failed to submit any evidence to counter this inferrence [sic], Respondent's actions evidence bad faith registration of the disputed domain name."). The overriding objective of the Policy is to curb the abusive registration of domain names in circumstances where the registrant seeks to profit from or exploit the trade mark of another. Passive holding of a domain name containing a mark with a reputation can be bad faith registration and use. See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows, D2000-0003 (WIPO Feb. 18, 2000). As such, the Panel holds that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith and has satisfied the third limb of the Policy. 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 <cdvvg.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Dawn Osborne, 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.