Staccato2012.com

The timeline behind staccato2012.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 Staccato 2011, LLC v. ben mike / parivedas Claim Number: FA2602002205811 PARTIES Complainant is Staccato 2011, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by David Jones of Renzulli Law Firm, LLP, New York, USA. Respondent is ben mike / parivedas ("Respondent"), Kansas, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <staccato2012.com>, registered with Realtime Register B.V. 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. Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 17, 2026; Forum received payment on February 17, 2026. On February 18, 2026, Realtime Register B.V. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <staccato2012.com> domain name is registered with Realtime Register B.V. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Realtime Register B.V. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Realtime Register B.V. 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 19, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 11, 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@staccato2012.com. Also on February 19, 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 12, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin 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 1. Respondent's <staccato2012.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's STACCATO mark. 2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <staccato2012.com> domain name. 3. Respondent registered and uses the <staccato2012.com> domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent did not file a Response. FINDINGS Complainant offers firearms and holds a registration for the STACCCATO mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (Reg. No. 6,200,848, registered on October 17, 2018). Respondent registered the <staccato2012.com> domain name on February 12, 2026, and uses it to conduct a phishing scheme. 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 Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the STACCATO mark based on registration with the USPTO. See Brooks Sports, Inc. v. Joyce Cheadle, FA 1819065 (Forum Dec. 28, 2018) (finding that Complainant's registration of the BROOKS mark with the USPTO sufficiently conferred its rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). Respondent's <staccato2012.com> domain name uses the STACCATO mark and simply inserts "2012" and a gTLD. These changes do not sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Microsoft Corporation v. Thong Tran Thanh, FA 1653187 (Forum Jan. 21, 2016) (determining that confusing similarity exist where [a disputed domain name] contains Complainant's entire mark and differs only by the addition of a generic or descriptive phrase and top-level domain, the differences between the domain name and its contained trademark are insufficient to differentiate one from the other for the purposes of the Policy.) The Panel therefore finds that Respondent's <staccato2012.com> domain name confusingly similar to Complainant's STACCATO mark. The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Once Complainant makes a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have 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)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) ("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."). Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <staccato2012.com> domain name, as Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name, and Complainant has not authorized or licensed Respondent to use its STACCATO mark. The WHOIS information identifies Respondent as "ben mike / parivedas". Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and thus has no rights under 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)."). Complainant also provides evidence showing that Respondent uses the <staccato2012.com> domain name to to pose as Complainant and solicit payments in emails. Using a disputed domain name for a phishing scheme is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Coinbase v. Anonymize, FA 1958522 (Forum Sept. 7, 2021) (finding no rights or legitimate interests when the disputed domain name resolved to a website that, in part, impersonated Complainant in order to gain sensitive personal information as part of a phishing scam); see also Mortg. Rsch. Ctr. LLC v. Miranda, FA 993017 (Forum July 9, 2007) ("Because respondent in this case is also attempting to pass itself off as complainant, presumably for financial gain, the Panel finds the respondent is not using the domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)."). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Registration and Use in Bad Faith The Panel finds that Respondent uses the <staccato2012.com> domain name to pose as Complainant in emails to solicit payments. The Panel finds that this constitutes bad faith phishing under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Coinbase v. Anonymize, FA 1958522 (Forum Sept. 7, 2021) (finding bad faith when the domain name was used with a phishing scheme). The Panel also finds that Respondent registered the <staccato2012.com> domain name with knowledge of Complainant's rights in the STACCATO mark, since Respondent uses Complainant's mark to impersonate Complainant in emails, and finds further bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See 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"). The Panel finds that 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 <staccato2012.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist Dated: March 13, 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.