Turningpointmedina.com

The timeline behind turningpointmedina.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. Donna Bartolozzi / Turning Point Medina Claim Number: FA2601002198985 PARTIES Complainant is Turning Point USA, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Louis T. Perry of Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, Indiana, USA. Respondent is Donna Bartolozzi / Turning Point Medina ("Respondent"), Ohio, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <turningpointmedina.com>, registered with Tucows Domains Inc. PANEL The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Debrett G. Lyons 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, Tucows Domains Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <turningpointmedina.com> domain name is registered with Tucows Domains Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Tucows Domains Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Tucows Domains 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 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@turningpointmedina.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 formal 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 Debrett G. Lyons 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 a formal response from Respondent. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant is a nonprofit organization using the name TURNING POINT USA since its foundation in 2012 by the late Charles "Charlie" Kirk. It asserts common law trademark rights in TURNING POINT USA and submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark. Complainant states that the disputed domain name was created after Complainant had acquired rights in the trademark. Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because it is not known by the same name; has not been authorized to use the trademark; and has used the domain name opportunistically. Complainant alleges that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith having targeted Complainant and its trademark. In particular, Complainant states that the domain name was registered twelve days after the assassination of Charlie Kirk on September 10, 2025 and has been used to capitalise on the attention surrounding his death by diverting charitable contributions intended to support Complainant's mission, deceiving and defrauding donors, and undermining public trust in Complainant's fundraising efforts. The resolving website displayed the TURNING POINT mark and offered merchandise which created the misleading impression of an affiliation with Complainant. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a formal Response in this proceeding. However, on January 19, 2026, Forum received two emails from Respondent. The first stated: "All products have been removed off of the Turning Point Medina domain. Never did we say we were turning point USA nor do we use your logo." The second stated: "I am not joining your portal. You guys need to leave me alone this is harassment I have never used Turning Point USA logos or trademarks this is harassment." FINDINGS The factual findings pertinent to the decision in this case are that: 1. the disputed domain name was registered on September 22, 2025, using a privacy service to shield the name of Respondent; and 2. the disputed domain resolved to a website advertising the sale of clothing. 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. Identical and/or Confusingly Similar Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires a two-fold enquiry—a threshold investigation into whether a complainant has rights in a trademark, followed by an assessment of whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark. It is well established by decisions under this Policy that a trademark registered with a national authority is evidence of trademark rights but in this instance Complainant does not assert any registered rights. Nevertheless, paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy does not distinguish between registered and unregistered trademark rights and UDRP panels have found that a governmental registration is not required so long as a complainant can establish common law rights (see, for example, Microsoft Corporation v. Story Remix / Inofficial, FA 1734934 (Forum July 10, 2017) finding that "The Policy does not require a complainant to own a registered trademark prior to a respondent's registration if it can demonstrate established common law rights in the mark."). The WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Overview") asks at #1.3: What does a complainant need to show to successfully assert unregistered or common law trademark rights? To establish unregistered or common law trademark rights for purposes of the UDRP, the complainant must show that its mark has become a distinctive identifier which consumers associate with the complainant's goods and/or services. Relevant evidence demonstrating such acquired distinctiveness (also referred to as secondary meaning) includes a range of factors such as (i) the duration and nature of use of the mark, (ii) the amount of sales under the mark, (iii) the nature and extent of advertising using the mark, (iv) the degree of actual public (e.g., consumer, industry, media) recognition, and (v) consumer surveys. (Particularly with regard to brands acquiring relatively rapid recognition due to a significant Internet presence, panels have also been considering factors such as the type and scope of market activities and the nature of the complainant's goods and/or services.) Specific evidence supporting assertions of acquired distinctiveness should be included in the complaint; conclusory allegations of unregistered or common law rights, even if undisputed in the particular UDRP case, would not normally suffice to show secondary meaning. … The fact that a respondent is shown to have been targeting the complainant's mark (e.g., based on the manner in which the related website is used) may support the complainant's assertion that its mark has achieved significance as a source identifier. … Complainant states that "[t]hrough a decade of exclusive continuous and widespread use, Complainant has established strong common law trademark rights in … the TURNING POINT USA word mark … which is widely recognized across the United States and internationally in connection with Complainant's … charitable activities." In particular, Complainant alleges that it uses the trademark "on a variety of goods and services including … online retail store services, podcasts, charitable fundraising services, the provision of information services, and the organization of student chapters and clubs. To support its efforts, Complainant invested over USD10 million in advertising and promotional initiatives." Those claims are supported by a declaration made on behalf of Complainant by its General Counsel. The Complaint also carries material showing the ways in which Charlie Kirk and others had garnered support for Complainant's social and political platform. This material falls short of the ideal described in the WIPO Overview but the evidence, as a whole, points to the Complainant being not only well-known (all that might be required for this aspect the Policy), but well-known before the creation date of the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that the Complainant has shown common law trademark rights in TURNING POINT USA. For the purposes of comparison of the disputed domain name with the trademark, the gTLD, ".com" can be disregarded (see, for example, Am. Int'l Group, Inc. v. Domain Admin. Ltd., FA 1106369 (Forum Dec. 31, 2007)). Thereafter the disputed domain name merely replaces the non-distinctive geographical abbreviation, "USA", with the State of Ohio city name, "Medina", creating the impression of an Ohio chapter of Complainant organization. The Panel finds the domain name to be confusingly similar to the trademark (see, for example, Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) finding that "[w]here 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"). The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy states that any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate rights or legitimate interests to a domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy: (i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or (ii) you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue. Complainant need only make out a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, after which the onus shifts to Respondent to rebut that case by demonstrating those rights or interests (see, for example, Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000‑0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000)). The name of the domain name owner, "Donna Bartolozzi", does not carry any suggestion that Respondent might be commonly known by the domain name. The Panel finds that the given name of the registrant organization, "Turning Point Medina", is nothing more than a ruse to create the illusion of legitimacy since there is no evidence to support even the existence of such an organization. There is no evidence that Respondent has any trademark rights of its own. Complainant states that it has not authorised Respondent to use the trademark. Complainant provides evidence that Respondent has linked the domain name to a website offering for sale (principally) clothing bearing Charlie Kirk's name and image. The Panel finds that a prima facie case has been made (see, for example, Turning Point USA, Inc. v. Boom Bengi, FA 2180800 (Forum, Dec. 4, 2025) ("The overall presentation of Respondent's websites creates the impression that they are operated by, or affiliated with, Complainant. The websites display Complainant's Mark on apparel and related merchandise in a manner that reinforces this impression.") The onus shifts to Respondent. As stated, there has been no Response. The informal emails to Forum do nothing to establish rights or a legitimate interest. Respondent has not discharged the onus and the Panel finds the Respondent has no rights or interests. Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant must prove on the balance of probabilities both that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith and used in bad faith. Further guidance on that requirement is found in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy, which sets out four circumstances, any one of which is taken to be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith if established. The four specified circumstances are: (i) circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the respondent's documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or (ii) the respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) by using the domain name, respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, internet users to respondent's website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the respondent's website or location or of a product or service on the site or location.' The Panel finds that Respondent's conduct falls under paragraph 4(b)(iv). The Panel has found that the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark. The use of the domain name is for commercial gain. In terms of the Policy, the Panel finds that Respondent has used the disputed domain name to attract, for commercial gain, internet users to its online location by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of that location. The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied the third and final element 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 <turningpointmedina.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Debrett G Lyons, Panelist Dated: February 12, 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.