Thescrubstar.com

The timeline behind thescrubstar.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 Careismatic Brands, LLC v. Sohaib Amin Claim Number: FA2602002205337 PARTIES Complainant is Careismatic Brands, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Neha Bhalani of Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi PC, New York, USA. Respondent is Sohaib Amin ("Respondent"), Pakistan. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <thescrubstar.com> ("Domain Name"), registered with Spaceship, 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 February 13, 2026; Forum received payment on February 13, 2026. On February 16, 2026, Spaceship, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <thescrubstar.com> domain name is registered with Spaceship, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Spaceship, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Spaceship, 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 17, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 9, 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@thescrubstar.com. Also on February 17, 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 10, 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 corporation that since 1996 has designed, manufactured and distributed a brand of popular medical apparel under the SCRUBSTAR mark. This brand is distributed through various well-known online retailers such as Amazon.com and Walmart.com. Complainant has rights in the SCRUBSTAR mark through its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (e.g., Reg. No. 2,157,323 registered May 12, 1998). Respondent's <thescrubstar.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark because it wholly incorporates the SCRUBSTAR mark and adds the generic term "the" and the ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD"). Respondent has no legitimate interests in the <thescrubstar.com> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name and Complainant has not authorized or licensed Respondent any rights in the SCRUBSTAR mark. 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 is attempting to profit from confusing users into believing that the resolving site ("Respondent's Website") belongs to Complainant by reproducing Complainant's SCRUBSTAR mark and including various material suggesting that it is an official website for "SCRUBSTAR scrubs". The Respondent's Website obtains revenue through monetized hyperlinks through a third-party affiliate program. Visitors to the Respondent's Website who expressed an interest in purchasing the products listed are redirected to a third-party retailer's website where they can purchase the Complainant's products or competing products and Respondent will receive an affiliate fee. Respondent registered and uses the <thescrubstar.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent uses the Domain Name to receive revenue from the sale of products which compete directly with Complainant. Additionally, Complainant contends that Respondent registered the Domain Name with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the SCRUBSTAR mark given the content of the Respondent's Website. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant holds trademark rights for the SCRUBSTAR mark. The Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's SCRUBSTAR mark. Complainant has established that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in 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 3.1 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 has rights in the SCRUBSTAR mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its registration of the mark with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 2,157,323 registered May 12, 1998). Registration with the USPTO can sufficiently establish rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Thermo Electron Corp. v. Xu, FA 713851 (Forum July 12, 2006) (finding that the complainants had established rights in marks where the marks were registered with a national trademark authority). The Panel finds that the <thescrubstar.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's SCRUBSTAR mark as it consists of the SCRUBSTAR mark with the addition the generic term "the" and the ".com" gTLD. Addition of a generic term and a TLD to a trade mark is generally insufficient to negate confusing similarity between a domain name and a mark 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 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."); see also Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (finding top-level domains are irrelevant for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis). 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 SCRUBSTAR 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 information of record lists "Sohaib Amin" as the 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 resolves to the Respondent's Website which, through the reproduction of the SCRUBSTAR mark, images of Complainant's products (or copies of Complainant's products) and various statements to the effect that it is the official website of SCRUBSTAR products, passes itself off as an official website of the Complainant (which is not the case, noting the lack of any disclaimer to the effect that the Respondent is not associated with the Complainant in any way) for the purpose of purporting to offer for sale Complainant's products. However, the Respondent's Website actually operated as a mechanism to encourage visitors to click on hyperlinks (for which the Respondent was likely to receive revenue through the Amazon Affiliate program) that redirected to a webpages operated by Amazon that allowed users to purchase both the Complainant's products and competing products. This is not a bona fide offering or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See also Am. Int'l Group, Inc. v. Busby, FA 156251 (Forum May 30, 2003) (finding that the respondent attempts to pass itself off as the complainant online, which is blatant unauthorized use of the complainant's mark and is evidence that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name); see also Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. David Sutton, FA 1795497 (Forum July 30, 2018) (finding lack of rights or legitimate interests where domain name was used to promote competing products, presumably generating referral fees for respondent). The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith The Panel finds on the balance of probabilities that, at the time of registration of the Domain Name (September 10, 2025), Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's SCRUBSTAR mark since the Respondent's Website passes itself off as an official website of the Complainant including reproducing Complainant's marks and making misleading assertions that it is an official site. Furthermore, there is no obvious explanation, nor has one been provided, for an entity to register a domain name that contains the SCRUBSTAR mark and use it to redirect visitors to a website offering pay-per-click links to a website selling both the Complainant's goods and goods that compete with Complainant other than to take advantage of Complainant's reputation in the SCRUBSTAR mark. 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 to create confusion with Complainant's SCRUBSTAR mark for commercial gain by using the confusingly similar Domain Name to resolve to a website that purports to offer the Complainant's products for sale but actually is simply a mechanism to encourage visitors to click on a series of pay-per-click links to a third party retailer offering both the Complainant's products and competing products for which Respondent would be expected to receive revenue. Use of a confusingly similar domain name to redirect Internet users to a website containing advertisements and links to third party websites for commercial gain is indicative of bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See 3M Company v. Nguyen Hoang Son / Bussiness and Marketing, FA 1575815 (Forum Sept. 18, 2014) (finding that the respondent's use of the disputed domain name to host sponsored advertisements for Amazon, through which the respondent presumably profited, indicated that the respondent had used the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)). See also Bang & Olufsen a/s v. Chris Albano / BlueHost.com- INC, Case No. D2010-0406 (WIPO May 5, 2010) (bad faith found where the disputed domain was used "as part of a scheme to generate click through revenue by Internet users who visit the site, believing it to be associated with the Complainant, then clicking through to eBay listings of the Complainant's products for sale"). 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 <thescrubstar.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Nicholas J.T. Smith, Panelist Dated: March 10, 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.