Cabrasoft.org

The timeline behind cabrasoft.org

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. Cristian Vecchio Claim Number: FA2602002207905 PARTIES Complainant is Carahsoft Technology Corp. ("Complainant"), represented by Miki Motohashi Iino of Millen, White, Zelano & Branigan, P.C., Virginia, USA. Respondent is Cristian Vecchio ("Respondent"), Argentina. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <cabrasoft.org>, registered with IONOS SE. 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 27, 2026; Forum received payment on February 27, 2026. On March 4, 2026, IONOS SE confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <cabrasoft.org> domain name is registered with IONOS SE and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. IONOS SE has verified that Respondent is bound by the IONOS SE 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@cabrasoft.org. 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 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 <cabrasoft.org> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's CARAHSOFT mark. 2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <cabrasoft.org> domain name. 3. Respondent registered and uses the <cabrasoft.org> domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent did not file a Response. FINDINGS Complainant provides information technology products and services and holds a registration for the CARAHSOFT mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (Reg. No. 5,595,279, registered October 30, 2018). Respondent registered the <cabrasoft.org> domain name on February 24, 2026, and fails to make active use of the domain name. 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 CARAHSOFT mark through registration with the USPTO. See Liberty Global Logistics, LLC v. damilola emmanuel / tovary services limited, FA 1738536 (Forum Aug. 4, 2017) (stating, "Registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently establishes the required rights in the mark for purposes of the Policy."). Respondent's <cabrasoft.org> domain name uses a slightly misspelled version of Complainant's CARAHSOFT mark and simply adds a top-level domain. This change does not distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Dell Inc. v. Protection of Private Person / Privacy Protection, FA 1681432 (Forum Aug. 1, 2016) ("A TLD (whether a gTLD, sTLD or ccTLD) is disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax requires TLDs. Likewise, the absence of spaces must be disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax prohibits them."); see also Victoria's Secret et al. v. Zuccarini, FA95762 (Forum Nov. 18, 2000) (finding that misspelling words and adding letters does not create a distinct mark and is instead confusingly similar to the complainant's marks). The Panel therefore finds that Respondent's <cabrasoft.org> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's CARAHSOFT 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 <cabrasoft.org> domain name, as Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name, and Complainant has not authorized or licensed Respondent to use its CARAHSOFT mark. The WHOIS information identifies Respondent as "Cristian Vecchio". 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 argues that Respondent does not use the <cabrasoft.org> domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use as Respondent makes no active use of the domain name. Complainant provides evidence showing that the disputed domain name resolves to an error message with no active content. The Panel finds that this use does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use and thus Respondent has no rights under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Teachers Ins. and Annuity Ass'n of Am. V. Wreaks Commc'ns Group (WIPO June 15, 2006) ("passive holding does not constitute 'legitimate non-commercial or fair use'"). The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant argues that Respondent registered and uses the <cabrasoft.org> domain name in bad faith to divert users to an inactive page. Failing to make an active use of a domain name demonstrates bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Ulta Beauty, Inc. v. cao min yu / shen zhen hui cui yun ji ke ji you xian gong si, FA 2075671 (Forum Jan. 19, 2024) ("There is no obvious explanation for a party to register a domain name that consists of the registered ULTA mark and the words 'beauty' and 'us' and passively hold the Domain Name other than with an intention to capitalize on Complainant's reputation in its ULTA mark."); see also Regions Bank v. Darla atkins, FA 1786409 (Forum June 20, 2018) ("Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) because Respondent uses the domain name to host an inactive website."). The Panel therefore finds bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). The Panel also notes that the <cabrasoft.org> domain name constitutes deliberate misspelling of Complainant's CARAHSOFT mark, or typosquatting, and finds further bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See First Republic Bank v. Host Master / Transure Enterprise Ltd, FA 1887104 (Forum April 12, 2020) ("Respondent is also engaging in typosquatting. Respondent formed the at-issue domain name, inter alia, by striking the letter "t" from Complainant's mark. . . . Typosquatting, in itself, indicates bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)."). 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 <cabrasoft.org> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist Dated: March 29, 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.