Castelion.cc

The timeline behind castelion.cc

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 Castelion Corporation v. Namste Cloud Claim Number: FA2601002199720 PARTIES Complainant is Castelion Corporation ("Complainant"), represented by Betsy Wang Lee of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Namste Cloud ("Respondent"), Wyoming, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <castelion.cc> ("Domain Name"), registered with NameSilo, 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. Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 14, 2026; Forum received payment on January 14, 2026. On January 15, 2026, NameSilo, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <castelion.cc> domain name is registered with NameSilo, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameSilo, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameSilo, 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 21, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 10, 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@castelion.cc. Also on January 21, 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 November 11, 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 Name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Since 2023 Complainant has provided a range of engineering and technology services in the military field under a mark consisting of the word "CASTELION" ("CASTELION mark") and through its website located at www.castelion.com ("Complainant's website"). Complainant asserts rights in CASTELION mark based upon registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (e.g. Reg. No. 7,574,246, registered November 19, 2024). The <castelion.cc> domain name is identical to the CASTELION mark because the Domain Name wholly incorporates the CASTELION mark, adding only the country-code top-level domain ("ccTLD") ".cc". Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. Respondent is not commonly known by the <castelion.cc> domain name. Respondent is not using the Domain Name in connection with any bona fide offering of goods and services or for any legitimate or fair use. Rather, the Domain Name resolves to a website ("Respondent's Website") that is almost an exact copy of Complainant's website where Respondent passes off as Complainant to disrupt Complainant's business or harm Complainant's customers. Respondent registered and uses the <castelion.cc> domain name in bad faith. Respondent attempts to disrupt Complainant's business and attract, for commercial gain, users to the Domain Name where it passes off as Complainant. Given the content of Respondent's Website, which reproduces the overall design, copyrighted images, text and marks displayed on the Complainant's website, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the CASTELION mark prior to registration of the Domain Name. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a formal Response in this proceeding. Correspondence was received by Forum on January 22, 2026 which states "Hi, I have removed the website. just created testing something purpose , if you want share namesilo username, i will push the domain also." FINDINGS Complainant holds trademark rights for the CASTELION mark. The Domain Name is identical to Complainant's CASTELION mark. Complainant has established that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the use of the Domain Name and that Respondent registered and has used the Domain Name 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 CASTELION mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its registration of the mark with the USPTO (e.g. Reg. No. 7,574,246, registered November 19, 2024). Registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to establish rights in that mark. See Vanguard Trademark Holdings USA LLC v. Wang Liqun, FA 1625332 (Forum July 17, 2015) (finding, "Registration of a mark with a governmental authority (or, in this case, multiple governmental authorities) is sufficient to establish rights in the mark for purposes of Policy ¶4(a)(i)"). The Panel finds that the <castelion.cc> Domain Name is identical to the CASTELION mark as it wholly incorporates the CASTELION mark adding only the ".cc" ccTLD. The addition of a top-level domain ("TLD") is insufficient to distinguish a domain from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Dansko, LLC v. zhang wu, FA 1757745 (Forum Dec. 12, 2017) (finding the <danskoshoes.us.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to the DANSKO mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), despite the addition of the ".us" ccTLD and the ".com" gTLD); see also Gardline Surveys Ltd. v. Domain Fin. Ltd., FA 153545 (Forum May 27, 2003) ("The addition of a top-level domain is irrelevant when establishing whether or not a mark is identical or confusingly similar, because top-level domains are a required element of every domain name."). 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 Name. 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 Name 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 Name as Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the CASTELION 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 lists "Namste Cloud" as registrant 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 Name in accordance with Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). The Domain Name is presently inactive but prior to the commencement of the proceeding resolved to the Respondent's Website that was almost an exact copy of the Complainant's website (including reproducing images and marks from the Complainant's website and relevant text and details of their leadership team) and hence passes off as an official website of the Complainant for the apparent purpose of offering competing services under the CASTELION mark. The use of a confusingly similar domain name to resolve to a webpage for the sole purpose of passing off as a complainant does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Am. Int'l Group, Inc. v. Busby, FA 156251 (Forum May 30, 2003) (finding that the respondent attempts to pass itself off as the complainant online, which is blatant unauthorized use of the complainant's mark and is evidence that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name). The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith The Panel finds that, at the time of registration of the Domain Name, February 12, 2025, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's CASTELION mark since the Respondent has impersonated the Complainant on its website. In the absence of rights or legitimate interests of its own this demonstrates registration in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). Notwithstanding the Respondent's unsupported claims that it was just creating a test site, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the Domain Name in bad faith under Policy ¶4(b)(iv) to create confusion with Complainant's CASTELION mark for commercial gain by using the confusingly similar Domain Name to resolve to a website which mimics Complainant's own website for some commercial purpose, either to offer competing services or for a more nefarious purposes such as taking advantage of Complainant's customers. Using a confusingly similar domain name to trade upon the goodwill of a complainant can evince bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum Dec. 27, 2017) (finding bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where "Respondent registered and uses the <lbittrex.com> domain name in bad faith by directing Internet users to a website that mimics Complainant's own website in order to confuse users into believing that Respondent is Complainant or is otherwise affiliated or associated with Complainant."). 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 <castelion.cc> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Nicholas J.T. Smith, Panelist Dated: February 11, 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.