Draft2digital.co

The timeline behind draft2digital.co

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 Draft2Digital, LLC v. digital info Claim Number: FA2606002227271 PARTIES Complainant is Draft2Digital, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Zachary A.P. Oubre of McAfee & Taft A Professional Corporation, Oklahoma, USA. Respondent is digital info ("Respondent"), California, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <draft2digital.co>, registered with NameCheap, Inc. 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. Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 15, 2026; Forum received payment on June 15, 2026. On June 16, 2026, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <draft2digital.co> 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 June 22, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 13, 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@draft2digital.co. Also on June 22, 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 July 14, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. 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 i) Complainant is an industry-leading provider of online publishing services. Complainant has continuously used the DRAFT2DIGITAL mark in connection with its services since at least as early as March 2012, and has utilized Complainant's domain to offer and advertise its services since the same month. Complainant owns a valid and subsisting trademark registration in the United States, i.e., Reg. No. 4,992,686 for the mark DRAFT2DIGITAL (registered July 5, 2016, in Class 41). The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's DRAFT2DIGITAL mark because it incorporates the mark in its entirety. ii) Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and Complainant has neither authorized nor licensed Respondent to assert any rights in the DRAFT2DIGITAL mark. iii) Given that Complainant's rights in the DRAFT2DIGITAL mark predate Respondent's use and registration of the disputed domain name, it can be inferred that Respondent knew of Complainant's rights in the DRAFT2DIGITAL mark and used the mark despite such knowledge. Respondent passes itself off as Complainant by offering what purports to be Complainant's publishing services on a website that prominently displays the DRAFT2DIGITAL mark. Such use can only be seen as a way to attract consumers to Respondent's website and away from Complainant's website. This alone has been sufficient to show bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). Confusion in this case may result in consumers providing sensitive information, such as their personal login information used in connection with logging into their accounts on Complainant's website. Respondent intended to attract Internet users for commercial gain by trading off the goodwill associated with the DRAFT2DIGITAL mark by creating a likelihood of confusion with the DRAFT2DIGITAL mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the disputed domain name. B. Respondent Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS 1. The disputed domain name was registered on April 28, 2026. 2. Complainant has established rights in the DRAFT2DIGITAL mark based on its USPTO trademark registration, Reg. No. 4,992,686, registered July 5, 2016, in Class 41. 3. Respondent passes itself off as Complainant by offering what purports to be Complainant's online publishing services on a website that prominently displays the DRAFT2DIGITAL mark. 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 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 DRAFT2DIGITAL mark based on USPTO trademark registration, Reg. No. 4,992,686, registered July 5, 2016, in Class 41. Registration of a mark with the USPTO constitutes evidence of valid rights in a mark. Since Complainant has provided evidence of the registration of the DRAFT2DIGITAL mark with the USPTO, the Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Complainant contends that the disputed domain name <draft2digital.co> is confusingly similar to Complainant's DRAFT2DIGITAL mark because it incorporates Complainant's mark in its entirety. The Panel notes that the disputed domain name fully incorporates Complainant's mark, merely adding the ".co" ccTLD. Therefore, the Panel agrees and finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's DRAFT2DIGITAL 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), then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Section 2.1, WIPO Overview 3.1 ("Where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element."). Complainant argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Respondent been authorized by Complainant to use Complainant's mark, and Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant. Relevant information, such as WHOIS information, can be used as evidence to show a respondent is or is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). The Panel notes that the WHOIS data lists "digital info" as the registrant, and there is no evidence in the record to suggest Respondent was authorized to use the mark. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). The Panel observes from the screenshots of the website at the disputed domain name and Complainant's website that Respondent passes itself off as Complainant by offering what purports to be Complainant's publishing services on a website that prominently displays the DRAFT2DIGITAL mark. The Panel concludes that such impersonation does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Ripple Labs Inc. v. Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund, FA 1790949 (Forum July 9, 2018) (finding that the respondent did not use the domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services per Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) where the website resolving from the disputed domain name featured the complainant's mark and various photographs related to the complainant's business); see also Wolverine World Wide, Inc. v. Fergus Knox, FA 1627751 (Forum Aug. 19, 2015) (finding that no bona fide offering of goods or legitimate noncommercial or fair use existed where the respondent used the resolving website to sell products branded with Complainant's MERRELL mark, which were either counterfeit products or legitimate products of Complainant being resold without authorization). Accordingly, Respondent fails to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). The Panel finds that Complainant has established a prima facie case based on the foregoing considerations. All of these factors support the establishment of a prima facie case against Respondent. As Respondent has failed to file a response or attempt to refute the prima facie case by any other means, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant contends that Respondent's registration and use of the disputed domain name constitute bad faith because the domain name resolves to a website that mimics Complainant's website, displaying the DRAFT2DIGITAL mark and purporting to offer online publishing services. The Panel finds that Respondent's manner of operation constitutes a clear case of impersonation and passing off. By prominently displaying Complainant's long-standing trademark, falsely identifying the website as "DRAFT2DIGITAL," mimicking Complainant's official website by displaying Complainant's mark in its stylized form, using similar color schemes to those of Complainant's website, and completely omitting any disclaimer clarifying its lack of affiliation with Complainant, Respondent has created a severe risk of consumer confusion. The Panel finds that such deceptive practices disrupt Complainant's business by unlawfully capturing its goodwill and diverting its user base for commercial gain under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). Complainant further contends that Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith because Respondent knew of Complainant's rights in its mark, in light of Complainant's mark predating the registration of the disputed domain name. The Panel notes that Complainant is an industry-leading provider of online publishing services. Complainant has continuously used the DRAFT2DIGITAL mark in connection with its services since at least as early as March 2012, and has utilized Complainant's domain to offer and advertise its services since the same month. Given the recognition of Complainant's mark and the deceptive manner in which the disputed domain name has been used, the Panel infers that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the DRAFT2DIGITAL mark at the time of registration. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith under 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 <draft2digital.co> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist Dated: July 14, 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.