Careerstextron.com

The timeline behind careerstextron.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 Textron Innovations Inc. v. Langworth-Pfeffer Claim Number: FA2602002203443 PARTIES Complainant is Textron Innovations Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Jeremiah A. Pastrick, Indiana, USA. Respondent is Langworth-Pfeffer ("Respondent"), Iceland. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <careerstextron.com>, registered with NICENIC INTERNATIONAL GROUP CO., LIMITED. 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. The Honorable Neil Anthony Brown KC as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 3, 2026; Forum received payment on February 3, 2026. On February 5, 2026, NICENIC INTERNATIONAL GROUP CO., LIMITED confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <careerstextron.com> domain name is registered with NICENIC INTERNATIONAL GROUP CO., LIMITED and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NICENIC INTERNATIONAL GROUP CO., LIMITED has verified that Respondent is bound by the NICENIC INTERNATIONAL GROUP CO., LIMITED 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 10, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 2, 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@careerstextron.com. Also on February 10, 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 March 3, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed The Honorable Neil Anthony Brown KC 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 made the following contentions. 1. The Complainant is a prominent United States company engaged through its licensee Textron Inc. in providing a large network of diversified businesses and it has been so engaged since 1923. 2. The Complainant provides its goods and services under the trademark for TEXTRON. 3. The Complainant acquired its registered trademark rights by virtue of the following registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") namely TEXTRON (Reg. No. 1090806) registered by the Complainant on May 9, 1978 and numerous other registrations for TEXTRON ("the TEXTRON trademark"). 4. The TEXTRON trademark has attracted substantial goodwill and is uniquely associated with the Complainant's goods and services and with the Complainant as its owner and as an affiliate of Textron Inc.. 5. The Respondent registered the domain name <careerstextron.com>, on January 15, 2026 ("the disputed domain name"). 6. As well as the TEXTRON trademark, the Complainant registered the domain name <textron.com> on April 13, 1992 which it uses in its business and to promote its goods and services on its website at www.textron.com. 7. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the TEXTRON trademark. 8. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as: (a) It is clear from all the circumstances that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name to take advantage of and intentionally trade on the TEXTRON trademark and the goodwill associated with it; (b) the Respondent has not used the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) because the domain name does not resolve to an active website; (c) the Respondent is not a licensee, authorized retailer or distributor of the Complainant and has no permission or authority to use Complainant's TEXTRON trademark; (d) the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name; and (e) there is no other ground on which it could conceivably be contended that the Respondent has a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. 9. The Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith as: (a) the Respondent had actual knowledge of the Complainant and its aforesaid trademark when it, the Respondent, registered the disputed domain name; (b) by its aforesaid conduct, the Respondent has sought to disrupt the Complainant's business within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii); (c) by its aforesaid conduct, the Respondent has sought to engender confusion among internet users within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv); and (d) there was and is no plausible circumstance under which the Respondent could have legitimately registered or used the disputed domain name; 10. Accordingly, the disputed domain name should be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS 1. The Complainant is a prominent United States company engaged through its licensee Textron Inc. in providing a large network of diversified businesses and it has been so engaged since 1923. 2. The Complainant provides its goods and services under the trademark for TEXTRON. 3. The Complainant acquired its registered trademark rights by virtue of the following registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") namely TEXTRON (Reg. No. 1090806) registered by the Complainant on May 9, 1978 and numerous other registrations for TEXTRON ("the TEXTRON trademark"). 4. The Respondent registered the domain name <careerstextron.com>, on January 15, 2026 ("the disputed domain name"). 5. The Respondent has impersonated and passed itself off as the Complainant, used the disputed domain name to communicate with other persons while giving the false impression that it was doing so legitimately and by or on behalf of the Complainant which it was not, and has used the domain name to solicit communications with individuals having current and/or former business relations with the Complainant. 6. By reason of the matters aforesaid, and as established by the evidence, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's aforesaid trademark, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and the disputed domain name has been registered and used in bad faith. 7. Accordingly, the disputed domain name should be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant. 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 first question that arises is whether the Complainant has rights in a trademark or service mark on which it may rely. The evidence is that the Complainant provides its goods and services under the TEXTRON trademark and that the Complainant registered the TEXTRON trademark with the United States Patent & Trademark Office ("USPTO") Reg. No. 1090806 registered on May 9, 1978. That registration is established by documentary evidence that the Panel has examined and finds to be in order, and particularly by Exhibit 3 to the Complaint. The evidence also establishes that the Complainant has registered other trademarks for TEXTRON, that all of the relevant trademarks were registered prior to the Respondent's registration of the disputed domain name on January 15, 2026 and that they are current and registered in the name of the Complainant. The Complainant has thus established its trademark rights pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) and hence its standing to bring this proceeding. The next question that arises is whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's aforesaid trademark. The Panel finds that the domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's TEXTRON trademark. The domain name includes as its most dominant feature the word "TEXTRON" which is an obvious copy of the trademark as well as being the Complainant's name and brand. Thus, the objective bystander would look at the domain name and notice that it is invoking the Complainant, its trademark and brand and that it is concerned with careers with the Complainant or its associated entities and is directed at persons who may be interested in obtaining a position with it. These considerations clearly make the domain name similar to the trademark. The domain name is also confusingly similar to the trademark, as by including the generic word "careers" it raises in the mind of the internet user the question whether this is a genuine or legitimate domain name of the Complainant or not and whether, which is the probability, that it is dealing with careers with the Complainant. Thus, applying these well-accepted principles, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's TEXTRON trademark. The Complainant has thus made out the first of the three elements that it must establish as provided in Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) Rights or Legitimate Interests It is now well established that the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) and that, if the prima facie case is made out, the burden then shifts to the Respondent to show that it does have such rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)). The Panel finds on the evidence that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case that arises from the following considerations. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name on all of the grounds relied on by the Complainant, namely: (a) as is clear from all the circumstances the Respondent registered the disputed domain name to take advantage of and intentionally trade on the TEXTRON trademark and the goodwill associated with it; this is made apparent by the use that the Respondent has made of the domain name and which is demonstrated by Exhibit 5; the evidence is that although the domain name has not been used for an active website, it has been used for a nefarious purpose; thus, it has been used to communicated with other parties while giving the impression that it is doing so legitimately and by or on behalf of the Complainant; not to make too fine a point of it, it is being used to perpetrate a fraud; the evidence is that the Complainant received reports that the domain name was being used to solicit communications with individuals having current and/or former business relationships with the Complainant; in one case, as the Complainant puts it, an individual reported that he was solicited by someone using the domain name as an email address; this is clearly an unauthorized use of the Complainant's trademark; such conduct cannot give rise to a right or legitimate interest in the domain name as it is wholly illegitimate; (b) the Respondent has not used the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) because the domain name does not resolve to an active website; moreover, what has happened in this case is that the Respondent has pretended that it is the Complainant, and that it is offering by some means or other some relationship with the Complainant when that is completely unauthorized; it would be a contradiction in terms to describe this conduct as bona fide when it is not even remotely so; (c) the Respondent is not a licensee, authorized retailer or distributor of the Complainant and has no permission or authority to use Complainant's TEXTRON trademark; thus, it could not be said that the domain name was registered and used with any sort of consent from the Complainant; (d) the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name; there is no evidence that the Respondent is known by the domain name and there is no evidence that it is known by any name other than its own; (e) moreover, the evidence shows that the Respondent has not used the disputed domain name for a legitimate, noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii); there is nothing legitimate about the way the Respondent has used the domain name, it is clearly commercial and it is not fair, either to the Complainant or internet users in general; and (f) there is no other ground on which it could conceivably be contended that the Respondent has a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. The Complainant has thus made out a persuasive case on the evidence for all of the grounds it relies on to show that the Respondent does not have a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. All of these matters make out the prima facie case against the Respondent. The Respondent is in default and has not advanced any evidence or submissions to show that it could rebut the Complainant's contentions. The Complainant has therefore made out the second of the three elements it must establish under Policy ¶ (a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith It is clear that to establish bad faith for the purposes of the Policy, the Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith. It is also clear that the criteria set out in Policy ¶ 4(b) are not exclusive but that domain name proceedings may also rely on conduct that is bad faith within the generally accepted meaning of that expression. In view of the evidence discussed above, particularly Exhibit 6 to the Complaint, which is equally as applicable to bad faith as it is to rights and legitimate interests and which it is not necessary to repeat here, it is clear that the Complainant has made out all of the grounds relied on. The Respondent has clearly been motivated by bad faith in the registration of the domain name because it was copying the Complainant's trademark and it has continued in that conduct after its registration, showing bad faith use; the registration was, as was its use, clearly an attempt by the Respondent to use the domain name, incorporating and invoking the Complainant's trademark, to give the false impression that it was the Complainant or was authorized by it to invite and implement career issues; to that end the Respondent has plagiarised the Complainant's name and trademark. It is therefore clear from the evidence that, as the Complainant has submitted: (a) the Respondent had actual knowledge of the Complainant and its aforesaid trademark when it, the Respondent, registered the disputed domain name; the Respondent must have had such actual knowledge in view of its obvious copying of the Complainant's trademark and it could not have carried out its subterfuge without having had that actual knowledge; (b) by its aforesaid conduct, the Respondent has sought to disrupt the Complainant's business within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii); clearly, the Respondent set about damaging the Complainant's name and reputation so that it, the Respondent, could mislead internet users into dealing with it on employment matters rather than with the Complainant itself; in any event, the intrusion by the Respondent into issues concerning employment or indeed with anything else under cover of the Complainant's trademark must have been disruptive of the Complainant's business; and (c) by its aforesaid conduct, the Respondent has sought to engender confusion among internet users within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv); and (d) there was and is no plausible circumstance under which the Respondent could have legitimately registered or used the disputed domain name; the Respondent registered the disputed domain name well after the Complainant had acquired its aforesaid trademark rights; it in effect impersonated and passed itself off as the Complainant and clearly set about misleading internet users who came across the domain name or who may have been the subject of its use; the Complainant is absolutely right in submitting that the real danger in this and other similar cases is the danger of potential harm and damage being done in the future if the Respondent retains ownership of the domain name; In general, the impersonation of the Complainant and the use of the Complainant's trademark show that the Respondent's registration and use of the domain name by the Respondent were in bad faith. The Complainant has thus made out the third of the three elements that it must establish under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). The Complainant has presented a detailed and persuasive case consisting of evidence that has established all of the constituent elements that must be proved under the Policy. The Complainant has also cited numerous prior UDRP decisions which support all of its contentions. The Complainant has therefore established all the elements that it must show under the Policy and it is entitled to the relief it seeks, namely transfer of 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 <careerstextron.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. The Honorable Neil Anthony Brown KC Panelist Dated: March 6, 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.