Carrierstextron.com

The timeline behind carrierstextron.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 Textron Innovations Inc. v. Randy Nelson Claim Number: FA2604002219019 PARTIES Complainant is Textron Innovations Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Jeremiah A. Pastrick, Indiana, USA. Respondent is Randy Nelson ("Respondent"), Minnesota, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <carrierstextron.com>, 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. Steven M. Levy as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on April 30, 2026; Forum received payment on April 30, 2026. On May 4, 2026, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <carrierstextron.com> 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 May 8, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 28, 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@carrierstextron.com. Also on May 8, 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 May 29, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Steven M. Levy 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 Founded in 1923, Complainant is part of one of the world's best known multi-industry companies whose business lines include some of the most respected global brands in transportation such as Bell, E-Z-GO golf carts and Cessna aircraft. Complainant operates a web site at <textron.com> that features information regarding the company, its products, businesses and subsidiaries. Complainant, Textron Innovations Inc., is the owner of the TEXTRON trademark that it licenses to Textron Inc. Textron Innovations Inc. is an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Textron Inc. Textron Aviation Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Textron Inc. and an affiliate of Textron Innovations Inc. The <carrierstextron.com> domain name, registered on April 10, 2026, is confusingly similar to the TEXTRON mark as it incorporates the entirety of the mark adding only the generic word "carriers" and the ".com" TLD. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name where it is not commonly known by the domain name and where Complainant has received reports that the domain name was being utilized to create email extensions to promote fraudulent shipping orders to potential business partners. The disputed domain name was registered and is used in bad faith where Respondent had prior knowledge of the TEXTRON mark and based on the above-mentioned fraudulent email activity. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS - Complainant owns rights to the TEXTRON mark and the <carrierstextron.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the mark; - Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and its perpetuation of a phishing scheme indicates that it is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services and that it is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use; and - The disputed domain name was registered and is used in bad faith based on Respondent's impersonation of Complainant through 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 3.1 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 asserts rights in its TEXTRON mark through its registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO"). Registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to demonstrate rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See DIRECTV, LLC v. The Pearline Group, FA 1818749 (Forum Dec. 30, 2018) ("Complainant's ownership of a USPTO registration for DIRECTV demonstrate its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).") Here, Complainant provides screenshots from the USPTO website detailing its registrations (e.g., Reg. Nos. 1090704, 1090737, and 1090806, all dated May 9, 1978. Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the TEXTRON mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Next, Complainant argues that Respondent's <carrierstextron.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the TEXTRON mark because it incorporates the mark in its entirety and adds only the generic word "carriers" as well as the ".com" TLD. The addition of generic terms and a TLD to a trademark is typically not sufficient to distinguish a disputed domain name from that mark. See Morgan Stanley v. Eugene Sykorsky / private person, FA 1651901 (Forum Jan. 19, 2016) (concluding that the addition of a generic term and top level domain to a trademark is inconsequential under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis.) As the <carrierstextron.com> domain name incorporates the entirety of Complainant's mark and adds only a generic word and a TLD, the Panel finds that it is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Should it succeed in this effort, the burden then shifts to Respondent to show that 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 names and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests"). Complainant first argues that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name nor has Respondent been given license or consent to use the TEXTRON mark. In considering this issue, WHOIS information may be reviewed to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. LY Ta, FA 1789106 (Forum June 21, 2018) (concluding that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name where the complainant asserted it did not authorize the respondent to use the mark, and the relevant WHOIS information bore no resemblance to the domain name). Additionally, lack of authorization to use a complainant's mark may indicate that the respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) ("lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant's mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)"). The WHOIS record for the disputed domain name, as revealed by the concerned Registrar after the Complaint was filed, identify Respondent as "Randy Nelson" and Respondent has not participated in these proceedings to claim that it is known otherwise. Further, Complainant specifically states that it "has not licensed nor otherwise permitted any organization to utilize its TEXTRON marks in connection with any goods or services or to own any domain names incorporating the TEXTRON mark" and Respondent has not made any claim to the contrary. Therefore, the Panel finds insufficient evidence upon which to conclude that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name or that it has been granted any rights relevant thereto under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Next, Complainant notes that the disputed domain name resolves to a website that displays the message "This site can't be reached" and also claims that Respondent has used the disputed domain name to send emails that impersonate Complainant in an attempt to defraud potential business partners. A Respondent failing to make use of a confusingly similar domain name in relation to a website typically indicates a lack of a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Kohler Co. v xi long chen, FA 1737910 (Forum Aug. 4, 2017) ("Respondent has not made a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the domain. Respondent's <kohler-corporation.com> resolves to an inactive webpage displaying the message 'website coming soon!'"). See also Activision Blizzard, Inc. / Activision Publishing, Inc. / Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. v. Cimpress Schweiz GmbH, FA 1737429 (Forum Aug. 3, 2017) ("Complainant insists that Respondent has made no demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name. When Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with an active website, the Panel may find that Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services… As Respondent has not provided a response to this action, Respondent has failed to meet its burden regarding proof of any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain.") Here, the disputed domain resolves to an error page and so this provides no help to Respondent. Additionally, using a confusingly similar domain name to impersonate a complainant in an attempt to defraud its customers, vendors, or other business partners is clearly not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Goodwin Procter LLP v. GAYLE FANDETTI, FA 1738231 (Forum Aug. 8, 2017) (Where "Respondent has used the name to pass themselves off as an employee of the Complainant in an attempt to commit fraud by redirecting a legitimate wire of funds", the Panel concluded that "it cannot have been registered for a legitimate purpose."). Here, Complainant submits a copy of a phishing email that the Respondent sent using an address which incorporates the disputed domain name. This was sent to shipping company and Respondent uses a signature block naming an individual that is claimed to have the title of Project Manager followed by the TEXTRON mark and Complainant's postal address. The message states, in part, "Reaching out on behalf of Textron, Inc. We are seeking a dependable transportation partner (carrier or brokerage) to move approximately 60 loads per month from our Hurst, TX 76053 location to [REDACTED]. * * * Kindly advise if you have capacity for this lane and share your all-in rate per load." Complainant asserts that Respondent is engaging in impersonation and, based on the submitted evidence, the Panel agrees. As Complainant has made out a prima facie case that has not been rebutted by Respondent, upon a preponderance of the available evidence the Panel finds that Respondent fails to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant contends that Respondent registered the <carrierstextron.com> domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the TEXTRON mark. A respondent's actual knowledge can form a solid foundation upon which a case for bad faith may be built under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014) ("the Panel here finds actual knowledge through the name used for the domain and the use made of it.") Complainant claims that it is "one of the world's best known multi-industry companies" which include "some of the most respected global grands in transportation…" In support, it submits screenshots of its <textron.com> website which notes that "Textron is a $12.9 billion, multi-industry company employing 34,000" employees. The page also states that it was named to the list of Forbes 2022 World's Best Employers and received a 2023 Handshake Early Talent Award. It further mentions its participation in a Military Sales Development Program and a Spring Clean Up at a local park. Finally, it lists the brands within the Textron family of companies including Bell, Beechcraft, Lycoming, Arctic Cat, and Cushman. As this evidence is rather limited, the Panel finds it to be somewhat wanting in supporting the broad claim that "Complainant's Textron marks are so well-known that the only plausible inference that can be derived from Respondent's registration of the disputed domain name is that Respondent registered the disputed domain name to take advantage of and intentionally trade on the goodwill associated with Complainant's marks." The Panel finds far more persuasive Respondent's use of the mark for a phishing email which clearly shows its familiarity with Complainant and its business. Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent did have actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in its mark at the time that it registered the disputed domain name. Next, bad faith and business disruption is asserted based on Respondent's use of the disputed domain name in furtherance of a phishing scheme. A Respondent's use of a disputed domain name in an e-mail address to pass itself off as a complainant in a phishing scheme is persuasive evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). See Smiths Group plc v. Snooks, FA 1372112 (Forum Mar. 18, 2011) (finding that the respondent's attempt to impersonate an employee of the complainant was evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)); see also SHUAA Capital psc v. Oba Junkie / shuaa capital psc, FA 1581255 (Forum Oct. 29, 2014) ("The Panel finds that Respondent's use of the domain name's e-mail suffix for fraudulent purposes illustrates Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith.") Here, as noted above, the submitted email sent from the disputed domain name shows an attempt to impersonate Complainant and engage a potential business partner in a shipping arrangement that is very likely fraudulent. This evidence leads the Panel to determine that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith to disrupt Complainant's business and to attract commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark under ¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). Finally, the Complaint states that "The Carrierstextron.com domain is a classic case of 'typosquatting' – i.e. intentionally slightly misspelling or modifying of a mark…" As the Panel is unable to discern any misspelling of the TEXTRON mark in the disputed domain name, it assumes that this claim was made in error, perhaps as the result of using a prior complaint as a template. 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 <carrierstextron.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Steven M. Levy, Panelist Dated: May 31, 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.