Carahtsoft.com

The timeline behind carahtsoft.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 Carahsoft Technology Corp. v. Bale man / baleman Inc Claim Number: FA2602002207772 PARTIES Complainant is Carahsoft Technology Corp. ("Complainant"), represented by Miki Motohashi Iino of Millen, White, Zelano & Branigan, P.C., Virginia, USA. Respondent is Bale man / baleman Inc ("Respondent"), Maryland, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <carahtsoft.com>, registered with NameSilo, LLC. 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 27, 2026; Forum received payment on February 27, 2026. On March 1, 2026, NameSilo, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <carahtsoft.com> domain name is registered with NameSilo, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameSilo, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameSilo, LLC 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 March 6, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 26, 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@carahtsoft.com. Also on March 6, 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 27, 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 name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant asserts trademark rights in CARAHSOFT. Complainant holds a national registration for that trademark. Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark. Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Complainant states that Respondent has no trademark rights or legitimate business of its own. Further, that there is no relationship between the parties and Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its trademark or to register any domain name incorporating the trademark. Complainant alleges that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith because it has been used to drive pay-per-click fees and used as part of an email address in a fraudulent scheme. 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 distributes IT products by reference to the trademark, CARAHSOFT; 2. Complainant owns, inter alia, United States Patent & Trademark Office ("USPTO") Reg. No. 3,685,627, registered September 22, 2009, for the trademark CARAHSOFT; and 3. the disputed domain name was registered on February 4, 2026, and immediately resolved to a webpage with links to "AI Business Process Automation", "iPhone 13 for free", "Best Cheapest Life Insurance", "Senior Life Insurance No Waiting Period" and "Grants That Pay Off Bills". 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." 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. 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 as it provides proof of its registration of the trademark CARAHSOFT with the USPTO, a national trademark authority. For the purposes of comparison of the disputed domain name with the trademark the gTLD, ".com", can be disregarded (see, for example, Am. Int'l Group, Inc. v. Domain Admin. Ltd., FA 1106369 (Forum Dec. 31, 2007)). What remains is a transparent misspelling of the trademark. The Panel finds the domain name to be confusingly similar to the trademark (see, for example, Carahsoft Technology Corp. v. Fatkin Tdme, FA 1981718 (Forum Feb. 28, 2022) finding <carhasoft.com> confusingly similar to Complainant's CARAHSOFT mark). The Panel finds that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy are satisfied. 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 name, 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)). There is nothing to suggest that Respondent might be commonly known by the domain name. Complainant states that it has not authorized use of the trademark and there is no evidence that Respondent has any trademark rights of its own. Complainant provides evidence that upon registration of the domain name it resolved to a webpage with the links described earlier and that on the date Complaint was filed, the webpage carried links including "Custom Software Development", "Custom Business Software" and "Application Development Software". As can be seen, the links were originally to goods/services unconnected with Complainant's business under the trademark, then later to goods/services directly competitive with Complainant's business under the mark. Furthermore, Complainant states that "Respondent is currently using the Domain Name to host email pretending to be from Complainant in furtherance of a fraudulent scheme to impersonate Complainant and defraud individuals into paying money to Respondent." Evidence of same is provided. The Panel finds that a prima facie case exists that Respondent has no rights or interest in the domain name (see, for example, Huron Consulting Group Inc. v. Michael Katka, FA 2079444 (Forum Feb. 8, 2024) ("Use of a domain name to redirect users to unrelated third-party sites (whether or not they compete with Complainant) is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use"); Carahsoft Technology Corp. v. Chadwick Spencer, FA 2040715 (Forum May 19, 2023) ("The disputed domain name incorporates a misspelled version of Complainant's registered mark without authorization, and its sole apparent use has been to impersonate Complainant in furtherance of a fraudulent scheme. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy."); see also, Carahsoft Technology Corp. v. Shane Snow / carhasoftech, FA 2173700 (Forum Sept. 22, 2025). The onus shifts to Respondent. In the absence of a Response, the Panel finds that Respondent has not discharged the onus and finds the Respondent has no rights or interests. 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. The Panel finds that Respondent's actions fall under paragraph 4(b)(iv) above. The Panel has already found confusing similarity. The resolving webpage exists for commercial gain, most likely by way of pay-per-click referral fees. The fraudulent email is clearly intended for commercial gain. In terms of the Policy, the Panel finds that Respondent has intentionally used the disputed domain name to attract, for commercial gain, internet users to an online location by creating a likelihood of confusion with as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of that location by implying to internet users that they will reach a site operated by Complainant, or a likelihood of confusion that they have received an email from Complainant. The Panel finds that the third and final element of the Policy has been established. 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 <carahtsoft.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Debrett G Lyons, Panelist Dated: March 28, 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.