Turningpointusaflag.com

The timeline behind turningpointusaflag.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 Turning Point USA, Inc. v. John Wilday Claim Number: FA2601002198920 PARTIES Complainant is Turning Point USA, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Louis T. Perry of Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, Indiana, USA. Respondent is John Wilday ("Respondent"), Vietnam. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <turningpointusaflag.com> ('the 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. Dawn Osborne as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 9, 2026; Forum received payment on January 9, 2026. On January 12, 2026, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <turningpointusaflag.com> Domain Name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, 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 19, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 9, 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@turningpointusaflag.com. Also on January 19, 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 10, 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 founded in 2012 by Charlie Kirk operates as a not for profit organisation with the purposes to "identify, educate, train, and organize students to promote the principles of fiscal responsibility, free markets, and limited government." It has common law rights in the mark TURNING POINT USA which it uses in relation to apparel and its online retail store services as well as its podcasts, charitable fundraising services, information services and the organisation of student chapters and clubs. The Domain Name registered in 2025 eight days after the assassination of Charlie Kirk is confusingly similar to the Complainant's TURNING POINT USA mark for the purposes of the Policy adding the generic word "flag" and the gTLD .com which do not prevent said confusing similarity. The Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, is not commonly known by the Domain Name and is not authorised by the Complainant. The Domain Name pointed to a web site using the Complainant's TURNING POINT USA mark and logo to offer unauthorised TURNING POINT merchandise to capitalise on the publicity following Charlie Kirk's death and to deceive customers that the Respondent's web site was operated by or associated with the Complainant. This was not a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate non-commercial fair use, but was registration and use in bad faith to confuse Internet users for commercial gain. The Respondent did not reply to any communications from the Complainant. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS The Complainant founded in 2012 by Charlie Kirk operates as a not for profit organisation with the purpose to "identify, educate, train, and organize students to promote the principles of fiscal responsibility, free markets, and limited government." It has common law rights in the mark TURNING POINT USA which it uses in relation to apparel and its online retail store services as well as its podcasts, charitable fundraising services, information services and the organisation of student chapters and clubs since 2012. The Domain Name registered in 2025, 8 days after the Charlie Kirk's assassination, pointed to a web site using the Complainant's TURNING POINT USA mark and logo to offer unauthorised TURNING POINT merchandise for sale. 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 consists of the Complainant's TURNING POINT USA mark (in which the Complainant has common law rights having used that mark in the USA for its services and related goods since 2012), the generic word 'flag' and the gTLD.com. Previous panels have found confusing similarity when a respondent merely adds a generic term such as "flag" to a Complainant's mark. See PG&E Corp. v Anderson, D2000-1264 (WIPO Nov. 22, 2000) (finding that respondent does not by adding common descriptive or generic terms create new or different marks nor does it alter the underlying mark held by the Complainant). The gTLD .com does not serve to distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant's mark, which is the distinctive component of the Domain Name. 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 for the purposes of the Policy with a mark in which the Complainant has rights. 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 its mark. There is no evidence or reason to suggest the Respondent is, in fact, 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). The use of the web site was commercial and so was not legitimate non-commercial fair use. The web site attached to the Domain Name used the Complainant's mark and logo to appear to be a site associated with the Complainant to offer competing goods. The Panel finds this use is deceptive. As such it cannot amount to the bona fide offering of goods and services. See iFinex Inc. v Yuri Heifetz/Genie-Solution, FA 1789385 (Forum July 9, 2018) (holding that the respondent's impersonation of the complainant and its web site in order to cause existing or potential customers of the Complainant to believe they are dealing with the complainant is prima facie evidence of the respondent's lack of rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name). The Respondent has not answered this Complaint or offered any explanation to rebut the prima facie case evidenced by the Complainant above. 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 In the opinion of the panelist the use made of the Domain Name in relation to the Respondent's site was deceptive and disruptive in that visitors to the site might have reasonably believed it was connected to or operated by the Complainant as it used the Complainant's mark and its logo to suggest the web site was associated with the Complainant to sell competing goods. The use of the Complainant's logo shows that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and its rights, business and services. Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to his website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trade mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the web site likely to disrupt the business of the Complainant. (See Asbury Auto Group Inc v Tex. Int'l Prop Assocs, FA 958542 (Forum May 29, 2007) finding that the respondent's use of the disputed domain name to compete with the complainant's business would likely lead to confusion amongst Internet users as to the sponsorship or affiliation of a competing business and was therefore evidence of bad faith and use). As such, the Panelist believes 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 under Paragraphs 4(b)(iii) and (iv). 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 <turningpointusaflag.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Dawn Osborne, Panelist Dated: February 10, 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.