Abebookusa.com

The timeline behind abebookusa.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.

DECISION Abebooks, Inc. v. Pravesh Kumar / INNOVATIVE ENTERPRISES Claim Number: FA2601002202295 PARTIES Complainant is Abebooks, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by James F. Struthers of Richard Law Group, Inc., Texas, USA. Respondent is Pravesh Kumar / INNOVATIVE ENTERPRISES ("Respondent"), India. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <abebookusa.com>, registered with HOSTINGER operations, UAB. 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. Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 28, 2026; Forum received payment on January 28, 2026. On February 2, 2026, HOSTINGER operations, UAB confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <abebookusa.com> domain name is registered with HOSTINGER operations, UAB and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. HOSTINGER operations, UAB has verified that Respondent is bound by the HOSTINGER operations, UAB 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 February 3, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 23, 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@abebookusa.com. Also on February 3, 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 24, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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 contends in part as follows: Complainant launched AbeBooks.com in 1996 as a site for buying and selling out-of-print, used, rare, and antiquarian books. Today, Complainant offers books, fine art and collectibles, helping customers discover and buy the things they love. Thousands of independent sellers in more than 50 countries offer millions of new, used and rare books, as well as art and collectibles for sale through Complainant's websites. Complainant has customers in almost every country of the world who buy books and other printed material published in multiple languages. Complainant's ABEBOOKS and ABEBOOKS.COM trademarks are registered in the United States and other countries. CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR DOMAIN NAME. The disputed domain name incorporates: (1) ABEBOOKS, modified only by substituting the geographic term "USA" for "S" and adding the gTLD .com; and (2) ABEBOOKS.COM, modified only by substituting "USA" for "S." These elements do not sufficiently distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant's trademarks for purposes of the Policy. NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS IN DOMAIN NAME. Respondent has not used the at-issue domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; Respondent is not making noncommercial fair use of the at-issue domain name; and Respondent has never been legitimately known as or referred to as ABEBOOKS, ABEOOKS.COM, or any variations thereof. As a result, Respondent does not have legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, as legitimate interests are defined in the Policy. The domain name resolves to an online bookstore. Respondent refers to itself as ABE USA, Abebookusa, and AbebookUSA.com, as well as AbeBooks and AbeBooks USA. Respondent's copyright legend reads, "© 2023 abebookusa.com." Variations of AbeBooks are displayed as Respondent's sole brand and identity with no disclaimers and no other indications of source. Respondent's YouTube account for Abebookusa.com falsely claims that Respondent was "[f]ounded as part of the larger AbeBooks network, which was established in 1996." The foregoing is calculated and likely to confuse and mislead the public as to the source or Complainant's approval of Respondent's website and services. This constitutes passing off and is not a fair, nominative, or otherwise legitimate use. Using a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant's ABEBOOKS and/or ABEBOOKS.COM trademarks to promote the competing bookstore services offered by Respondent is also not a bona fide or legitimate use. On January 22, 2026, Complainant contacted Respondent about the disputed domain name. Respondent replied within hours with an unsolicited offer to sell the domain for $30,000. Respondent's unsolicited offer to sell the domain for an amount vastly in excess of Respondent's out-of-pocket costs is further evidence that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. REGISTRATION AND USE IN BAD FAITH. Since Respondent is purportedly an online bookstore specializing in rare books, it cannot be unfamiliar with Complainant's pioneering AbeBooks.com website which has been operating in the rare books space for nearly 30 years. Furthermore, Respondent expressly references "AbeBooks" in its Refund and Returns Policy. Furthermore, in its YouTube profile Respondent expressly references Complainant's 1996 launch date and claims to be "part of the larger AbeBooks network." Accordingly, it is clear that Respondent registered the disputed domain name with knowledge of Complainant's rights and intended to create an association with Complainant and its services. Respondent's registration of the at-issue domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). Furthermore, by using a domain name and site branding identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's well-known ABEBOOKS and ABEBOOKS.COM trademarks, and providing no other source identification or disclaimers, Respondent creates the false impression that its website or services originate with, are approved by, or are otherwise associated with Complainant. This is the sort of conduct that falls under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) and thus shows Respondent's bad faith registration and use of the at-issue domain names. By promoting Respondent's purported bookstore services using a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant's ABEBOOKS and ABEBOOKS.COM trademarks, Respondent has attempted to commercially benefit, unfairly and opportunistically, from the goodwill associated with Complainant's marks, and this conduct of diversion shows bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). Using a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant's trademarks to promote a competing bookstore operated by Respondent potentially diverts and disrupts Complainant's business and falls under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). Respondent's unsolicited offer to sell the disputed domain for $30,000, an amount vastly exceeding Registrant's out-of-pocket costs, is also evidence of bad faith. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. Correspondence was received by Forum on February 3, 2026. FINDINGS Complainant has rights in ABEBOOKS. Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and is not authorized to use the ABEBOOKS mark in any capacity. Respondent registered the at‑issue domain name after Complainant acquired trademark rights in ABEBOOKS. Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to address a website referencing Complainant's ABEBOOKS trademark and offering the same category of merchandise as Complainant offers under its ABEBOOKS mark, i.e. books. 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 at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights. Complainant's USPTO trademark registrations for the ABEBOOKS mark is conclusive evidence of Complainant's rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Microsoft Corp. v. Burkes, FA 652743 (Forum Apr. 17, 2006) ("Complainant has established rights in the MICROSOFT mark through registration of the mark with the USPTO.") Respondent's <abebookusa.com> domain name contains Complainant's entire ABEBOOKS trademark less its letter "s," followed by the geographical term "usa," and with all followed by the confusingly similar analysis irrelevant ".com" top-level. The differences between Complainant's trademark and Respondent's domain name are insufficient to distinguish one from the other for the purposes of the Policy. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent's <abebookusa.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's ABEBOOKS trademark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where 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."); see also, Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Domain Administrator / Registry Services, LLC, FA 2038314 (Forum July 26, 2023)("The addition of a gTLD fails to sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).") Rights or Legitimate Interests Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond, Complainant's prima facie showing acts conclusively. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant's trademark in any capacity and as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of the at‑issue domain name. See Navistar International Corporation v. N Rahmany, FA 1620789 (Forum June 8, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name where the complainant had never authorized the respondent to incorporate its NAVISTAR mark in any domain name registration). The WHOIS information for <abebookusa.com> leads to identifying the domain name's registrant as "Pravesh Kumar" and the record before the Panel contains no evidence suggesting that Respondent is commonly known by <abebookusa.com> or any variation thereof. Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent is not commonly known as <abebookusa.com> for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Radio Flyer Inc. v. er nong wu, FA 1919893 (Forum Dec. 16, 2020) ("Here, the WHOIS information lists "er nong wu" as the registrant and no information suggests Complainant has authorized Respondent to use the RADIO FLYER mark in any way. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).") Respondent uses its <abebookusa.com> domain name to address a website referencing Complainant's ABEBOOKS trademark and offering merchandise for sale like that offered by Complainant thus making the <abebookusa.com> website look as if it is sponsored by or affiliated with Complainant. Respondent's use of <abebookusa.com> in this manner is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Ripple Labs Inc. v. NGYEN NGOC PHUONG THAO, FA 1741737 (Forum Aug. 21, 2017) ("Respondent uses the [disputed] domain name to divert Internet users to Respondent's website… confusing them into believing that some sort of affiliation exists between it and Complainant… [which] is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)."). Given the foregoing, Respondent lacks rights and lacks legitimate interests in <abebookusa.com>. Registration and Use in Bad Faith As discussed below without being exhaustive, Respondent acted in bad faith. Respondent's confusingly similar <abebookusa.com> domain name addresses a website where Respondent purports to offer merchandise associate with Complainant's trademark namely books. Respondent's website appears as if it might be Complainant's genuine website or at least be authorized by or affiliated with Complainant. Respondent's use of the confusingly similar <abebookusa.com> domain name in support of a website referencing Complainant's trademark and trading in the same sphere of commerce as Complainant is disruptive to Complainant's business and intended to deceptively attract internet users so that Respondent may capitalize on the confusion it created between its <abebookusa.com> domain name and referenced website, and Complainant's well-known ABEBOOKS trademark. Respondent's use of the <abebookusa.com> domain name and website demonstrates Respondent's bad faith registration and use of <abebookusa.com> under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Artistic Pursuit LLC v. calcuttawebdevelopers.com, FA 894477 (Forum Mar. 8, 2007) (finding that the respondent's registration and use of the at-issue domain name, which displayed a website virtually identical to the complainant's website, constituted bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)); see also, 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.") Moreover, Respondent registered <abebookusa.com> knowing that Complainant had trademark rights in ABEBOOKS. Respondent's prior knowledge of Complainant's rights is evident from the fame of Complainant's trademark, and from Respondent's use of the domain name to address a website referencing Complainant trademark and trading the same products as does Complainant. Respondent's actual knowledge of Complainant's ABEBOOKS trademark further indicates that Respondent registered and used the <abebookusa.com> domain name in bad faith. See Lemon Inc. v. Sumer Singh, FA 2110519 (Forum Sept. 5, 2024) ("registration of a disputed domain name with actual knowledge of another's trademark rights is sufficient to establish bad faith, and can be shown by the notoriety of the mark and the use the Respondent makes of the disputed domain name"); see also, Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name); see also, Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name). 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 <abebookusa.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist Dated: February 24, 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.