Davisgraharn.com

The timeline behind davisgraharn.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 Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP v. Nancy Linda Claim Number: FA2601002201032 PARTIES Complainant is Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP ("Complainant"), represented by Miriam D. Trudell, Colorado, USA. Respondent is Nancy Linda ("Respondent"), Massachusetts, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <davisgraharn.com> ("Domain Name"), registered with NameCheap, Inc. 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 21, 2026; Forum received payment on January 21, 2026. On January 22, 2026, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <davisgraharn.com> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, 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 23, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 12, 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@davisgraharn.com. Also on January 23, 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 13, 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 Complainant is a United States law firm located in Denver, Colorado with over 150 lawyers. Complainant has traded under the corporate name and mark DAVIS GRAHAM & STUBBS since 1964 and owned various state mark registrations with the Colorado Secretary of State. On July 15, 2024 Complainant adopted the trade mark DAVIS GRAHAM, commenced offering its services from its newly located website at <davisgraham.com> and applied to register DAVIS GRAHAM & STUBBS as a trademark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office Complainant claims common law rights in the DAVIS GRAHAM & STUBBS and DAVIS GRAHAM marks on the basis of its extensive use of the marks in the in the legal industry for 60 and 1.5 years respectively, as well as claiming rights through applications to register the DAVIS GRAHAM mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Respondent's <davisgraharn.com> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the DAVIS GRAHAM & STUBBS mark because Respondent has incorporated the DAVIS GRAHAM element and then misspells the GRAHAM element, replacing the "m" with an "rn" and then adds and the ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD"). Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <davisgraharn.com> domain name since Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant's DAVIS GRAHAM & STUBBS and DAVIS GRAHAM marks and is not commonly known by the Domain Name. Additionally, Respondent does not use the Domain Name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent passes off as Complainant, indeed a named employee of Complainant, through emails in furtherance of a phishing scheme. Respondent registered and uses the <davisgraharn.com> domain name in bad faith by passing off as Complainant through emails for phishing. Respondent also had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the DAVIS GRAHAM & STUBBS mark as it passes off as the Complainant in its illegal phishing e-mails. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant holds trademark rights for the DAVIS GRAHAM & STUBBS mark. The Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's DAVIS GRAHAM & STUBBS 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 claims rights in the DAVIS GRAHAM mark through its application with the USPTO. The Panel notes that generally a pending trademark application is insufficient to demonstrate rights in a mark. See Jireh Industries Ltd. v. DVLPMNT MARKETING, INC. / Domain Administrator, FA 1719671 (Forum Apr. 14, 2017) ("Pending trademark applications do not confer rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)."). Nor do any previous registrations of the DAVIS GRAHAM & STUBBS mark with Colorado authorities sufficiently confer rights to the mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See PK Information Systems, dba St Pete Software v. Kevin Kurpe, FA 1835258 (Forum May 13, 2019) ("Complainant claims trademark rights based on a Florida state trademark registration for ST PETE SOFTWARE. As numerous Panels have held, a state trademark registration is not itself sufficient proof of "rights in a trademark" for purposes of the UDRP because state trademark applications typically are not examined on absolute grounds. In particular, in granting a state trademark registration, the Florida Department of State typically does not consider whether the applied-for term is generic or merely descriptive; rather, the Department of State will typically issue the registration as long as there are no identical registrations on the State registry. See generally Town of Easton Connecticut v. Lightning PC Inc., FA 1220202 (Forum Oct. 12, 2008) (explaining that no deference is due to state registrations because they are "usually granted automatically or only after a cursory review for exact matches on the State's trademark registry."). As Complainant does not have any registered trademark rights it is therefore necessary to consider whether Complainant holds common law rights in the DAVIS GRAHAM & STUBBS and DAVIS GRAHAM marks as Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) does not require a complainant to hold a registered trademark if it can demonstrate established common law rights in the mark. See Microsoft Corporation v. Story Remix / Inofficial, FA 1734934 (Forum July 10, 2017). To establish common law rights in a mark, a complainant generally must prove that the mark has generated a secondary meaning. See Goodwin Procter LLP v. Amritpal Singh, FA 1736062 (Forum July 18, 2017) (holding that the complainant demonstrated its common law rights in the GOODWIN mark through evidence of "long time continuous use of the mark, significant related advertising expenditures, as well as other evidence of the mark's having acquired secondary meaning"). The Panel has reviewed the evidence and finds that Complainant has operated a law firm under the DAVIS GRAHAM & STUBBS mark since 1964. The Complainant is a law firm with significant size and reputation that has trade and advertised its services under DAVIS GRAHAM & STUBBS, including from its former website at www.dgslaw.com and which prominently displayed the DAVIS GRAHAM & STUBBS mark. The Panel is satisfied from Complainant's evidence (including evidence of length of use, extent of use and esteem in which the Complainant is held) that Complainant's use of the DAVIS GRAHAM & STUBBS mark for its law firm is sufficient to establish secondary meaning in that mark and hence Complainant has common law rights in the DAVIS GRAHAM & STUBBS mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). In support of the above conclusion the Panel notes that section 1.3 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition states that "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." Such a situation has emphatically occurred in the present case where Respondent seeks to take advantage of people's familiarity with Complainant and its mark by posing as Complainant. The Panel finds that the <davisgraharn.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the DAVIS GRAHAM & STUBBS mark since it incorporates a minor misspelling (replacing the "m" with an "rn") of the DAVIS GRAHAM portion of the of the DAVIS GRAHAM & STUBBS mark and adds the ".com" gTLD. Addition of a gTLD to an abbreviation and misspelling of a trade mark is generally insufficient to negate confusing similarity between a domain name and a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Sainato's Restaurant and Catering Limited v. chen xue ming, FA 1781748 (Forum June 4, 2018) (finding the <sainatos.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the SAINATO'S RESTAURANT mark as it "appends the gTLD ".com" to an abbreviated version of the mark."); see also Wells Fargo & Company v. VALERIE CARRINGTON, FA 1621718 (Forum July 2, 2015) (finding that the <wllsfago.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the WELLS FARGO mark as the domain name merely omits the "e" and "r" from the mark while adding the ".com" gTLD suffix.). In support of the above conclusion the Panel notes that the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ¶ 1.15 states that "In some instances, panels have however taken note of the content of the website associated with a domain name to confirm confusing similarity whereby it appears prima facie that the respondent seeks to target a trademark through the disputed domain name." In the present case, by reason of the facts outlined under the elements below, it is clear that Respondent has sought to target and indeed pass itself off as Complainant through the use of the Domain Name. The Panel finds that the intention of Respondent to mislead Internet users into thinking it is Complainant or connected with Complainant confirms the confusingly similar nature of the 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 DAVIS GRAHAM & STUBBS 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 "Nancy Linda" 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 inactive, which does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods and services by the Respondent. Complainant alleges, and provides evidence supporting its allegations, that Respondent uses an email address associated with Domain Name to attempt to pass itself off as Complainant (indeed a named employee of Complainant) in furtherance of a phishing scam (communicating on behalf of the Complainant regarding payment of invoices). Use of a disputed domain name to pass off as a complainant through emails is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Emerson Electric Co. v. Adilcon Rocha, FA 1735949 (Forum July 11, 2017) (finding that respondent's attempt to pass off as complainant through emails does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services and, as such, respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name); see also Caterpillar Inc. v. ruth weinstein, FA 1770352 (Forum Mar. 7, 2018) ("Use of a disputed domain name in an attempt to pass itself off as a complainant and to conduct a phishing scheme is indicative of a failure to use said domain name in connection with a bona fide offer of goods and services per Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or otherwise fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)."). The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith The Panel finds that, at the time Respondent registered the Domain Name, July 8, 2025, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's DAVIS GRAHAM & STUBBS mark. The Respondent uses the Domain Name to pass itself off as Complainant (indeed a named employee of the Complainant) for financial gain or to disrupt Complainant's business. In the absence of rights or legitimate interests of its own this demonstrates registration in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). The Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the Domain Name in bad faith as Respondent uses an email address associated with the Domain Name to attempt to pass itself off as an employee of Complainant's business to disrupt the Complainant's business or for financial gain. Using a disputed domain name to pass off as an employee of a complainant via email can demonstrate bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). See Abbvie, Inc. v. James Bulow, FA 1701075 (Forum Nov. 30, 2016) ("Respondent uses the <abbuie.com> domain name to impersonate Complainant's CEO. Such use is undeniably disruptive to Complainant's business and demonstrates bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii), and/or Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)"); see also Qatalyst Partners LP v. Devimore, FA 1393436 (Forum July 13, 2011) (finding that using the disputed domain name as an e-mail address to pass itself off as the complainant in a phishing scheme is evidence of bad faith registration and use). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the Domain Name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). 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 <davisgraharn.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Nicholas J.T. Smith, Panelist Dated: February 13, 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.