Saleforcevc.com

The timeline behind saleforcevc.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 Salesforce Inc. v. Paul Drews Claim Number: FA2602002204177 PARTIES Complainant is Salesforce Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Ryan Miller of Pirkey Barber PLLC, Texas, USA. Respondent is Paul Drews ("Respondent"), New Jersey, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <saleforcevc.com> (the "disputed 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. Lynda M. Braun as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 6, 2026; Forum received payment on February 6, 2026. On February 9, 2026, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <saleforcevc.com> disputed 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 February 12, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 4, 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@saleforcevc.com. Also on February 12, 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 5, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Lynda M. Braun 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 disputed domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant was founded in 1999 based on an innovative business model that focused on offering enterprise business applications by way of the Internet rather than through traditional software packages. For more than 25 years, Complainant has used the trademark SALESFORCE and related marks in connection with the provision of an array of computer software tools and applications. Complainant is the world's leading customer relationship management ("CRM") platform and provides CRM and a variety of other cloud-based software-as-a-service products to over 150,000 companies worldwide. Complainant's most well-known offerings analyze, visualize, store, share, manage, integrate, and use data. Complainant's customers and partners use these offerings in virtually every field of business, entertainment, education, finance, construction, transportation, logistics, manufacturing, healthcare, technology, research, and government. Over 90% of the Fortune 500 companies are Complainant's customers. Moreover, through its venture capital arm, "Salesforce Ventures", Complainant has deployed more than USD 6 billion in capital to over 630 companies since 2009. Complainant owns numerous registered trademarks through the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO"), the earliest registered trademark being SALESFORCE, United States Registration No. 3,138,749, registered on September 5, 2006, in International Class 9. Complainant also owns registered trademarks in other jurisdictions worldwide. The foregoing trademarks will hereinafter collectively be referred to as the "SALESFORCE Mark". The SALESFORCE Mark has been extensively advertised and promoted for over 25 years, and Complainant has expended considerable effort and expense in offering quality products and services under the trademarks. As a result, the consuming public recognizes the connection between the SALESFORCE Mark and Complainant, and Complainant enjoys valuable goodwill attached to the SALESFORCE Mark. Complainant owns the domain name <salesforce.com>, which domain name resolves to Complainant's official website at "www.salesforce.com". Since at least as early as 1999, Complainant has maintained this domain and has used it in connection with its goods and services. Complainant also owns the domain name <salesforceventures.com>, which it uses in connection with its venture capital investment website at "www.salesforceventures.com". Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the SALESFORCE Mark because it incorporates the SALESFORCE Mark in its entirety, albeit omitting the second letter "s", adding the letters "cv", presumably the abbreviation for capital venture, and then adding the generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") ".com". Complainant also claims that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name since Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, Complainant has not authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted Respondent to use the SALESFORCE Mark, and the disputed domain name is used to impersonate Complainant's executives and to perpetuate a phishing scam. Finally, Complainant claims that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith as it had actual knowledge of the SALESFORCE Mark and used the disputed domain name to perpetuate a phishing scam and to create fraudulent emails purportedly from Complainant's executives. The disputed domain name was registered on January 27, 2026 and was used to impersonate Complainant, including several of its executives, and create a phishing scam by sending fraudulent emails allegedly from Complainant to Complainant's customers. In this way, Respondent could use communications from the fraudulent emails to phish for confidential, personal, and sensitive information, which it could then use for illicit purposes. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS The Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the SALESFORCE Mark based on its trademark registrations with the USPTO and other jurisdictions worldwide. Registration with the USPTO is sufficient to establish rights in a mark pursuant to Policy paragraph 4(a)(i). The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's SALESFORCE Mark, that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and that Respondent registered and is using the disputed 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 disputed domain name should be cancelled or transferred: (1) the disputed 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 disputed domain name; and (3) the disputed 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 Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the SALESFORCE Mark as set forth below. It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant's trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions ("WIPO Overview 3.1"), section 1.7. The Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the SALESFORCE Mark based on its registration of the mark with the USPTO (e.g., United States Registration No. 3,138,749, registered on September 5, 2006, in International Class 9). Registration of a mark with the USPTO confers upon a complainant trademark rights for purposes of the Policy paragraph 4(a)(i). See Liberty Global Logistics, LLC v. damilola emmanuel / tovary services limited, FA 1738536 (Forum Aug. 4, 2017) ("Registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently establishes the required rights in the mark for purposes of the Policy."). The disputed domain name consists of the SALESFORCE Mark in its entirety, albeit with a slight misspelling,1 omitting the letter "s", followed by the term "cv", an abbreviation for "capital venture", followed by the generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") ".com". Respondent misspells the disputed domain name in order to take advantage of typing or spelling errors made by Internet users in entering a domain name into their web browsers. Registration of a domain name that adds a term or terms to the entirety of a trademark, or a misspelling, does not distinguish the domain name from the mark per Policy paragraph 4(a)(i). See Microsoft Corporation v. Thong Tran Thanh, FA 1653187 (Forum Jan. 21, 2016) (determining that confusing similarity exists where a disputed domain name contains a complainant's entire mark and differs only by the addition of a descriptive term and generic Top-Level Domain); see also Staples, Inc. v. Whois Privacy Shield Services, FA 1617690 (Forum June 5, 2015) (changing a letter or two is a minor enough change to support a finding of confusing similarity under Policy paragraph 4(a)(i)). In addition, adding a gTLD, a technical requirement of a domain name, to a complainant's mark, also does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under Policy paragraph 4(a)(i). See Elenie Reese v. Eddie Morgan, FA 917029 (Forum Apr. 5, 2007) (the mere addition of a generic Top-Level Domain, such as ".com", is insufficient to differentiate a disputed domain name from a trademark). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Policy paragraph 4(a)(i) has been established by Complainant. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Panel finds that Respondent holds no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving that a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult task of "proving a negative", requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. In order to succeed under this element, Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy paragraph 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that 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 interests 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."). Here, the Panel holds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case. The Panel also finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as Respondent has not provided evidence nor proven that it is commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted Respondent to use the SALESFORCE Mark. Moreover, Respondent has no relationship, affiliation, connection, endorsement or association with Complainant. The Panel further concludes that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use since Respondent used the disputed domain name to perpetuate a phishing scam by impersonating Complainant and its executives. Complainant provides evidence that demonstrates that the disputed domain name was thus used to send fraudulent emails to Complainant's customers, attempting to disrupt Complainant's business for commercial gain. Respondent has not been permitted by Complainant in any way to use the SALESFORCE Mark or to apply for any domain name incorporating the SALESFORCE Mark. Additionally, there is no evidence of Respondent's fair use of the disputed domain name. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the Respondent was using or had demonstrable plans to use the SALESFORCE Mark or the domain name incorporating the SALESFORCE Mark in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. In particular, the Panel concludes that Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods and services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use because Respondent used the disputed domain name to further a phishing scheme, which does not qualify as a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate non-commercial or fair use. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Policy paragraph 4(a)(ii) has been established by Complainant. Registration and Use in Bad Faith The Panel concludes that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith as set forth below. First, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and was using the disputed domain name to perpetuate a fraudulent scheme to cause disruption of Complainant's business. Use of disputed domain name in this manner supports a finding of bad faith. Second, the Panel concludes that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in its SALESFORCE Mark when registering the disputed domain name. It strains credulity to believe that Respondent had not known of the Complainant or its SALESFORCE Mark when registering the disputed domain name, especially since the disputed domain name contains the SALESFORCE Mark in its entirety, albeit omitting the letter "s", followed by the term "cv" and then followed by the gTLD "com". Prior knowledge of a complainant's trademark when registering a disputed domain name, as here, is sufficient to find bad faith under Policy paragraph 4(a)(iii). See Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014) (finding actual knowledge due to the domain name chosen and the use made of it); see also Yahoo! Inc. v. Butler, FA 744444 (Forum Aug. 17, 2006) (finding bad faith where the respondent was "well-aware" of the complainant's YAHOO! mark at the time of registration). Third, Complainant claims that Respondent registered and was using the disputed domain name in bad faith as Respondent attempted to pass off as Complainant for Respondent's commercial gain. Use of a disputed domain name in connection with passing off or impersonation to commercially benefit a respondent can evince bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy paragraph 4(b)(iv). See Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum Dec. 27, 2017) (finding bad faith per Policy paragraph 4(b)(iv) where respondent registered and uses the <lbittrex.com> domain name in bad faith in order to confuse users into believing that respondent is complainant or is otherwise affiliated or associated with complainant). Fourth, Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith as Respondent engaged in typosquatting. See Cost Plus Management Services, Inc. v. xushuaiwei, FA 1800036 (Forum Sept. 7, 2018) ("Typosquatting itself is evidence of relevant bad faith registration and use."). Here, Respondent engaged in typosquatting by misspelling the disputed domain name incorporated into the SALESFORCE Mark (resulting in "saleforce"). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy paragraph 4(a)(iii). Finally, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name to perpetuate a phishing scheme. Use of a disputed domain name to impersonate Complainant and send emails incorporating the disputed domain name to Complainant's customers supports a finding of bad faith registration and use under Policy paragraph 4(b)(iii). In sum, the Panel concludes that the circumstances of this case, including claims that the disputed domain name had been used to perpetrate a fraudulent phishing scheme so that Respondent could acquire sensitive and confidential information from users, the failure of Respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good faith use, and the implausibility of any good faith use to which the disputed domain name were put, support an inference of bad faith. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Policy paragraph 4(a)(iii) has been established by Complainant. 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 <saleforcevc.com> disputed domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Lynda M. Braun, Panelist Dated: March 17, 2026 [1] This misspelling is an example of typosquatting, a situation in which a disputed domain name includes a misspelling of the incorporated trademark. 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.