Constructconnect.ai

The timeline behind constructconnect.ai

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 ConstructConnect, Inc. v. RONALD STALEY / PQBIDS Claim Number: FA2601002200260 PARTIES Complainant is ConstructConnect, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Meghan C. Killian of Duane Morris, LLP, California, USA. Respondent is RONALD STALEY / PQBIDS ("Respondent"), California, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <constructconnect.ai>, 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. Nick J. Gardner as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 16, 2026; Forum received payment on January 16, 2026. On January 20, 2026, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <constructconnect.ai> 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 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@constructconnect.ai. 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. A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on February 4, 2026. On February 4, 2026 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Nick J. Gardner 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. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PRELIMINARY ISSUE: CONSENT TO TRANSFER As appears below Respondent has clearly and unambiguously stated that Respondent does not oppose the transfer of the domain name at issue to Complainant and is willing to voluntarily transfer it. In this regard see BBY Solutions, Inc. v. Zip.ca / Curt Millar, FA 1365325 (Forum Feb. 7, 2011) ("Where a Respondent unilaterally consents to transfer a domain name in a proceeding under the Policy, the Panel may forego analyzing the elements set forth in the Policy and simply order a transfer of the domain name. On the other hand, where the consent to transfer is itself offered in bad faith (for example, to permit a serial cybersquatter to avoid having adverse findings entered against it), the Panel may proceed with the traditional analysis notwithstanding the Respondent's request.... The Panel here considers it appropriate to proceed as suggested by Respondent in the interest of efficiency and expedience."). In the present case the Panel proposes to proceed in the same manner and order the transfer of the domain name at issue to Complainant. In these circumstances detailed analysis of the elements set forth in the Policy is unnecessary. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant, ConstructConnect, Inc., provides construction information and technology solutions. Complainant has continuously used the CONSTRUCTCONNECT mark in commerce since at least May 12, 2016. Complainant owns U.S. Trademark Registration No. 5,381,200 for the mark CONSTRUCTCONNECT, which registered on January 16, 2018, for use in connection with construction-related software, training, education, and analytic services. The disputed domain name <constructconnect.ai> was registered on March 2, 2023, approximately five years after Complainant's trademark registration. Complainant contends that: (1) the domain name is confusingly similar to its CONSTRUCTCONNECT trademark, incorporating the mark in its entirety and differing only in the addition of the ".ai" generic top-level domain; (2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name, is not commonly known by the domain name, has not been authorized to use Complainant's mark, and is not using the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; and (3) Respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith, as evidenced by passive holding of the domain, use of a privacy service to conceal identity, and actual or constructive knowledge of Complainant's mark at the time of registration. B. Respondent Respondent acknowledges receipt of the Complaint and states that the domain name was registered in 2025 [note: this appears to be inaccurate and is inconsistent with Registrar verification data which shows a date in 2023, but nothing turns on this] and has never been actively used. Respondent confirms that no content, advertisements, or monetization of any kind has been displayed and that Respondent has not attempted to sell the domain or contact Complainant. Respondent states that no use has been made of Complainant's branding, logos, or services, and that no intent existed to confuse consumers or compete with Complainant. Respondent further states: "In the interest of resolving this matter efficiently and without further proceedings, Respondent is willing to voluntarily transfer the disputed domain name to Complainant and requests that the Complaint be withdrawn and the proceeding dismissed without a panel decision." FINDINGS Respondent does not contest Complainant's trademark rights in the CONSTRUCTCONNECT mark. Respondent consents to transfer of the domain name at issue to Complainant and requests efficient resolution of the matter. DISCUSSION See discussion of preliminary issue (above). Given Respondent's consent to transfer the disputed domain name to Complainant, detailed discussion of issues arising under the Policy is unnecessary. DECISION Given Respondent's express consent to the transfer of the disputed domain name to Complainant the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <constructconnect.ai> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Nick J. Gardner, Panelist Dated: February 5, 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.