Enewtondesign.net

The timeline behind enewtondesign.net

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 enewton design, LLC v. DONNA MURPHY Claim Number: FA2607002230799 PARTIES Complainant is enewton design, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by H. Artoush Ohanian of Ohanian IP, Texas, USA. Respondent is DONNA MURPHY ("Respondent"), West Virginia, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <enewtondesign.net>, registered with Dynadot 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. Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on July 3, 2026; Forum received payment on July 3, 2026. On July 7, 2026, Dynadot Inc confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <enewtondesign.net> domain name is registered with Dynadot Inc and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Dynadot Inc has verified that Respondent is bound by the Dynadot 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 July 9, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 29, 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@enewtondesign.net. Also on July 9, 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 30, 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 <enewtondesign.net> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's ENEWTON mark. 2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <enewtondesign.net> domain name. 3. Respondent registered and uses the <enewtondesign.net> domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent did not file a Response. FINDINGS Complainant offers jewelry and holds a registration for the ENEWTON mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (Reg. No. 7,344,609, registered April 2, 2024). Respondent registered the <enewtondesign.net> domain name on June 26, 2026, and uses it to compete with Complainant. 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 The Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the ENEWTON 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 <enewtondesign.net> domain name uses Complainant's ENEWTON mark and simply adds "design" and 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.") The Panel therefore finds that Respondent's <enewtondesign.net> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's ENEWTON 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 contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <enewtondesign.net> domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name. Complainant has not given Respondent permission to use its ENEWTON mark in the disputed domain name. The WHOIS identifies "DONNA MURPHY" as the registrant of the disputed domain name. 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 Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Suzen Khan / Nancy Jain / Andrew Stanzy, FA 1741129 (Forum Aug. 16, 2017) (finding that respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names when the identifying information provided by WHOIS was unrelated to the domain names or respondent's use of the same); see also Navistar International Corporation v. N Rahmany, FA 1620789 (Forum June 8, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name where the complainant had never authorized the respondent to incorporate its NAVISTAR mark in any domain name registration). Complainant argues that Respondent does not use the <enewtondesign.net> domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or service or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use by offering unauthorized ENEWTON products. Using a disputed domain name to sell unauthorized products is not a bona fide offering of goods or service or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Wolverine World Wide, Inc. v. Fergus Knox, FA 1627751 (Forum Aug. 19, 2015) (finding no bona fide offering of goods or services, or legitimate noncommercial or fair use existed where Respondent used the resolving website to sell products branded with Complainant's MERRELL mark, and were either counterfeit products or legitimate products of Complainant being resold without authorization). Complainant provides screenshots of the website at the disputed domain name, which features ENEWTON goods using Complainant's mark and images. The Panel finds that this is not 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 Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant claims that Respondent registered and uses the <enewtondesign.net> domain name in bad faith to pass off as Complainant for Respondent's commercial gain. Using a disputed domain name to pass off as a complainant for commercial benefit evinces bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum Dec. 27, 2017) (finding bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where "Respondent registered and uses the <lbittrex.com> domain name in bad faith by directing Internet users to a website that mimics Complainant's own website in order to confuse users into believing that Respondent is Complainant, or is otherwise affiliated or associated with Complainant.") The Panel thus finds bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). Complainant claims that Respondent registered the <enewtondesign.net> domain name with knowledge of Complainant's rights in the ENEWTON mark based on Respondent's use of the mark to pass off as Complainant and sell unauthorized goods. The Panel agrees and finds further bad faith 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.") 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 <enewtondesign.net> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist Dated: July 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.