Secureidentityiq.com, Theidiq.com

The timeline behind secureidentityiq.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

How each disputed name was decided in this proceeding.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION Identity Intelligence Group, LLC v. Arise Cash / Identity Intelligence / Identity Intelligence Group, LLC Claim Number: FA2602002203435 PARTIES Complainant is Identity Intelligence Group, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Nicholas B. Boroski of Rutan & Tucker LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Arise Cash / Identity Intelligence / Identity Intelligence Group, LLC ("Respondent"), California, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES The domain names at issue are <secureidentityiq.com> and <theidiq.com>, registered with NameCheap, 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 February 3, 2026; Forum received payment on February 3, 2026. On February 4, 2026, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <secureidentityiq.com> and <theidiq.com> domain names are registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. 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 February 5, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 25, 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@secureidentityiq.com and postmaster@theidiq.com. Also on February 5, 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 26, 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 any response from Respondent. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant states that it is the owner of registered trademarks for IDIQ and IDENTITYIQ which it uses in connection with credit security and identity protection services. Complainant submits that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its trademarks. Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Complainant further alleges that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith. In particular, Complainant states that the domain names redirect internet users to Complainant's own website, thereby generating affiliate referral commissions for Respondent's commercial gain. In addition, Complainant states that one of the domain names has been used to send emails which impersonate Complainant. Those emails are framed either as Complainant soliciting business for itself, or Complainant contacting customers on behalf of a trusted "partner" company promoting various services, such as life insurance. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS The factual findings pertinent to the decision in this case are that: 1. Complainant owns United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") Reg. No. 5,918,200, for the mark, IdentityIQ, and Reg. No. 5,918,204, for the mark, IDIQ, both registered on November 26, 2019; 2. the disputed domain names were registered on June 11, 2025, and September 9, 2025, and redirect Internet users to Complainant's website; 3. the <secureidentityiq.com> domain name has been used to send emails to Complainant's customers which pose as having originated from Complainant; and 4. there is no relationship between the parties and Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its trademarks or to register any domain name incorporating those trademarks. DISCUSSION Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable." PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE RESPONDENTS Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules provides that the Complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder. Here, there are multiple domain name holders but Complainant petitions the Panel to treat them as, in effect, owned by a single, unknown, person or entity. As stated, both domain names direct to Complainant's website. Both domain names were registered with the same Registrar. The WhoIs data for <secureidentityiq.com> lists Complainant as the holder of that domain name, which Complainant argues is part of the fraudulent scheme in which the domain names play a part. Further, the registrant information for <secureidentityiq.com> provides a contact email address not connected with Complainant. These claims are supported by material appended to the Complaint but they do not provide the most compelling case for treating the named respondents as controlled by a single mind, something Complainant appears to accept when it submits that "[i]f … the Panel feels it cannot accurately determine the Respondent is the same for both domains, Complainant requests the Complaint at least proceed against <secureidentityiq.com>." That said, absent any Response or other reason not to accept the claim of common underlying control, the Panel finds just enough evidence to infer that the names were registered by one person as part of a larger plan to mislead Complainant's customers. The Panel considers that Rule 3(c) is satisfied and herein refers to the named respondents collectively as "Respondent". SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES 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. 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 (see, for example, Mothers Against Drunk Driving v. phix, FA 174052 (Forum Sept. 25, 2003)). Complainant therefore has rights since it provides proof of its registration of the trademarks IDIQ and IDENTITYIQ with the USPTO, a national trademark authority. The Panel finds that the domain names are confusingly similar to the respective trademarks. For the purposes of comparison of the disputed domain names with the trademarks the gTLD, ".com", can be disregarded (see, for example, Am. Int'l Group, Inc. v. Domain Admin. Ltd., FA 1106369 (Forum Dec. 31, 2007)). The disputed domain name <theidiq.com> then differs from the trademark IDIQ by addition of the definite article, and <secureidentityiq.com> by addition of the non-distinctive word, "secure", to the IDENTITYIQ trademark (see, for example, Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognisable 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 therefore 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 names, 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)). For reasons given already, there is no suggestion that Respondent might be legitimately known by the disputed domain names. The Panel finds that use of Complainant's name to register a domain name was part of the larger ruse described and accords no rights. There is no evidence that Respondent has any trademark rights. Complainant states that there is no association between the parties and the Panel accepts that submission. The use of the domain names has been as described. Clearly, that use is not in respect of a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor evidence of a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. The Panel finds that Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks a right or interest in the disputed domain names (see, for example, Direct Line Ins. plc v. Low‐cost‐domain, FA 1337658 (Forum Sept. 8, 2010) ("The Panel finds that using Complainant's mark in a domain name over which Complainant has no control, even if the domain name redirects to Complainant's actual site, is not consistent with the requirements of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or ¶ 4(c)(iii)."); Altavista Co. v. Brunosousa, D2002‐0109 (WIPO Apr. 3, 2002) holding that the respondent was attempting to build up "mistaken confidence" in the disputed domain name by having it resolve to the complainant's official website and that "an unconnected party has no right or legitimate interest to use an otherwise deceptive trademark, name or indicia to redirect Internet traffic, even if it is directed to the legitimate owner of the trademark"); HRB Innovations, Inc. v. Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico, FA 1880758 (Forum Feb. 28, 2020) finding lack of rights or interests arising from use of domain name to redirect users to complainant's website via unauthorized affiliate links). The onus accordingly shifts to Respondent and in the absence of a Response, the Panel finds that Respondent has not discharged that onus and so finds that 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.' Complainant argues for the application of paragraphs 4(b)(i) and (ii) above, but they seem less appropriate than paragraph 4(b)(iv) given that the Panel has found confusing similarity, a nefarious intention, and the likelihood of use for commercial gain. There was no apparent reason for Respondent to register the names in good faith since the trademarks appears to refer only to Complainant's business and have no other shown meaning. In the absence of another explanation, the Panel finds that it more likely than not that Respondent targeted Complainant's trademarks and business at the time of registration. There has been no legitimate use of the domain names. In terms of the Policy, the Panel finds that Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent's websites, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's trademarks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of those websites and the services promoted there. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the third and final element of the Policy is satisfied. 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 <secureidentityiq.com> and <theidiq.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Debrett G. Lyons, Panelist Dated: March 2, 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.