Passportofficedepot.com

The timeline behind passportofficedepot.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.

UDRP Decision - Claim Number FA2607002232649 DECISION Office Depot, LLC and The Office Club, Inc. v. David Hazan Claim Number: FA2607002232649 PARTIES Complainants are Office Depot, LLC and The Office Club, Inc. (collectively, "Complainant"), represented by Joshua M. Dalton of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Massachusetts, USA. Respondent is David Hazan ("Respondent"), New York, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <passportofficedepot.com> (the "Disputed Domain Name"), registered with GoDaddy.com, 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. David L. Kreider, Chartered Arbitrator (UK), as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on July 14, 2026; Forum received payment on July 14, 2026. Complainant submitted an Amended Complaint on July 16, 2026, following the Registrar's disclosure of the underlying registrant information. On July 15, 2026, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <passportofficedepot.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, 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 July 17, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 6, 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@passportofficedepot.com. Also on July 17, 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 August 7, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed David L. Kreider 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. PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE COMPLAINANTS The Complaint is brought jointly by Office Depot, LLC and The Office Club, Inc., which Office Depot, LLC states is its wholly owned subsidiary. Forum's Supplemental Rule 1(e) defines "The Party Initiating a Complaint Concerning a Domain Name Registration" as a "single person or entity claiming to have rights in the domain name, or multiple persons or entities who have a sufficient nexus who can each claim to have rights to all domain names listed in the Complaint." Where the complainants comprise a corporate parent and its wholly owned subsidiary, panels find a sufficient nexus to treat them as a single entity. See Sub-Zero, Inc. & Wolf Appliance, Inc. v. Rinat Bermileev, FA 2201553 (Forum Feb. 27, 2026); see also Office Depot, LLC and OMX, Inc. v. Zeeshan Arain, FA 2213972 (Forum Apr. 29, 2026) (same parent Complainant joined with a wholly owned subsidiary). The nexus is made out here: the Complainants share a principal place of business in Boca Raton, Florida, and the USPTO records in evidence show The Office Club, Inc. to be the record owner of U.S. Reg. No. 6,625,683 for OFFICE DEPOT, one of the registrations on which the Complaint relies. The Panel accepts that the Complainants are properly joined in this proceeding and refers to them collectively as "Complainant." PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant alleges: That Complainant is a retail and B2B integrated distribution company supplying business services, products, and technology solutions to individuals and companies of all sizes, employing approximately 37,000 individuals and operating approximately 1,154 retail locations throughout the United States, as well as its online store at www.officedepot.com. That Complainant has used the trademark OFFICE DEPOT (the "OFFICE DEPOT Mark") continuously in the United States since 1986 for its retail office supply stores and related goods and services, and owns U.S. federal registrations for marks comprising or containing it, namely U.S. Reg. Nos. 1,449,065 (registered July 21, 1987), 1,939,705 (Dec. 5, 1995), 2,659,506 (Dec. 10, 2002), 3,105,571 (June 20, 2006), 4,411,400 (Oct. 1, 2013) for OFFICE DEPOT REWARDS, 4,451,866 (Dec. 17, 2013) for OFFICE DEPOT BUSINESS SELECT, and 6,625,683 (Jan. 25, 2022). That the Disputed Domain Name <passportofficedepot.com> is confusingly similar to the OFFICE DEPOT Mark, incorporating it in its entirety and adding only the descriptive term "passport," which corresponds to the passport photo printing services Complainant offers, and the ".com" gTLD. That Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name: Respondent is not commonly known by it or by "PASSPORTOFFICEDEPOT," Complainant has never licensed or authorized Respondent to use the OFFICE DEPOT Mark, and the parties have no business relationship. That Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith. Given the notoriety of the OFFICE DEPOT Mark, Respondent cannot have registered the Disputed Domain Name without actual knowledge of Complainant's rights. The website resolving from the Disputed Domain Name holds itself out as a genuine Office Depot website, invokes passport services of the kind Complainant offers, and seeks consumers' personal information. Respondent's use of a privacy protection service further supports a finding of bad faith. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS The Panel finds the following: Complainant owns a series of U.S. federal trademark registrations for the OFFICE DEPOT Mark. The earliest in evidence, U.S. Reg. No. 1,449,065, issued on July 21, 1987 for retail office supply store services and records first use in commerce on October 9, 1986. The most recent, U.S. Reg. No. 6,625,683, issued on January 25, 2022 in the name of the second Complainant, The Office Club, Inc. Each predates the registration of the Disputed Domain Name by decades. On the uncontested record, Complainant has used the OFFICE DEPOT Mark continuously in the United States since 1986, operates approximately 1,154 retail locations and an online store at www.officedepot.com, recorded total sales exceeding $9 billion in 2020, and spent $179 million advertising its goods and services in that year. On that evidence, and on a registration history running back to 1987, the Panel finds that the OFFICE DEPOT Mark was widely known to the United States consuming public before the Disputed Domain Name was registered. The services Complainant offers under the mark include, again on the uncontested record, passport photo printing. The Registrar's verification confirms that Respondent, David Hazan of Brooklyn, New York, is the registrant of the Disputed Domain Name and that the registration was created on May 29, 2026. The WHOIS record before Forum at the outset named the registrant only as "Registration Private," of Domains By Proxy, LLC; Respondent's identity emerged on the Registrar's verification. Nothing in the record indicates that Respondent has been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name or by "PASSPORTOFFICEDEPOT," and Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use the OFFICE DEPOT Mark. The printout of the resolving website in the record shows that the Disputed Domain Name resolves to an active website (the "Respondent's Website") headed "PASSPORT OFFICE DEPOT" above the tagline "Fast Passports, Happy Journeys," set against an image of a United States passport application form. The Respondent's Website names no operator other than "Passport Office Depot," claims copyright in that name, and carries no disclaimer of any connection with Complainant. It quotes no prices; its one functional element is a "Contact Us" form inviting each visitor to submit a name, an e-mail address, and a message, with a further option to join an e-mail list. 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). Identical and/or Confusingly Similar Complainant has established its rights in the OFFICE DEPOT Mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its U.S. federal trademark registrations, the earliest of which issued in 1987. See Humor Rainbow, Inc. v. James Lee, FA 1626154 (Forum Aug. 11, 2015) (registration with the USPTO is sufficient to demonstrate a complainant's rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also WIPO Overview 3.1, ¶ 1.2.1. The Disputed Domain Name reproduces the OFFICE DEPOT Mark in full and adds only the term "passport" and the ".com" gTLD. The mark remains the recognizable core of the string, and the added term does not distinguish the Disputed Domain Name from it: "passport" describes a service Complainant offers under the mark, tying the Disputed Domain Name more closely to Complainant's business. See PULSUP LTD v. Eugene Gonzales, FA 2169606 (Forum Sept. 2, 2025) (the addition of a generic word naming the goods or services offered under the mark does not negate confusing similarity, because Internet users would see the domain name as invoking the trademark and the goods and services offered under it). The ".com" gTLD is a technical requirement of registration and is disregarded for the purposes of the confusing similarity analysis under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See WIPO Overview 3.1, ¶ 1.11.1. The Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's OFFICE DEPOT Mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name, at which point the burden shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of such rights or interests. See Publix Asset Mgmt. Co. v. ieWeb, FA 1282607 (Forum Oct. 6, 2009); see also WIPO Overview 3.1, ¶ 2.1. The Registrar-supplied WHOIS information identifies Respondent as "David Hazan." On the findings above, Respondent is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), and is neither licensed nor otherwise authorized to use the OFFICE DEPOT Mark. See Kohler Co. v. Privacy Service, FA 1621573 (Forum July 2, 2015). Nor does the use to which the Disputed Domain Name has been put confer any right or legitimate interest. The Respondent's Website takes Complainant's mark as the dominant element of its own trading name and solicits each visitor's name and e-mail address, while disclosing nothing about who operates it and disclaiming no connection with Complainant. A visitor arriving there in search of Complainant's passport photo services has no means of discovering that Respondent is a stranger to Complainant. Such use is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Guitar Center, Inc. v. Eveline Simon, FA 2150637 (Forum May 14, 2025). Respondent, having filed no Response, has come forward with no evidence to rebut Complainant's prima facie showing. The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant's rights in the OFFICE DEPOT Mark, registered since 1987 and used in commerce since 1986, predate the registration of the Disputed Domain Name on May 29, 2026 by some four decades. Respondent combined a mark of that standing with a term describing one of the services sold under it, then carried the combination through the Respondent's Website, adopting "Passport Office Depot" as a trading name and claiming copyright in it. The Panel finds that Respondent knew of Complainant and of its rights in the OFFICE DEPOT Mark when the Disputed Domain Name was registered. See WIPO Overview 3.1, ¶ 3.1.4. The Respondent's Website is commercial in substance: it holds itself out as offering passport services under Complainant's mark and gathers from each visitor the contact details by which a prospective customer may be solicited. Respondent thereby attempted to attract Internet users to the Respondent's Website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the OFFICE DEPOT Mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of that website, within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Aéropostale Procurement Company, Inc. v. Domenico Piscicelli, FA 1462788 (Forum Nov. 6, 2012) (commercial gain derived through deception evidences bad faith registration and use). Complainant asks the Panel to go further and to find the Respondent's Website a device for extracting consumers' personal information by deception. The Panel makes no finding of phishing: the record contains no fraudulent e-mail, no solicitation directed to any identified recipient, and no mail exchange configuration for the Disputed Domain Name, the DNS records in evidence showing none. The contact form matters here as the means by which the confusion already found is turned to Respondent's account, and the bad-faith finding rests on the grounds stated above. Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name behind a privacy service, its identity emerging only on the Registrar's verification. That circumstance is not bad faith in itself, but alongside the findings above it lends further support to the Panel's conclusion. See Microsoft Corporation v. Arif Khan, FA 1907105 (Forum Aug. 31, 2020). The Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using 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 <passportofficedepot.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. David L. Kreider, Panelist Dated: August 7, 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.