Lightningsourcepublication.com

The timeline behind lightningsourcepublication.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 FA2607002234291 DECISION Lightning Source LLC v. Rafael Tillery Claim Number: FA2607002234291 PARTIES Complainant is Lightning Source LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Ryan D. Levy, Tennessee, USA. Respondent is Rafael Tillery ("Respondent"), Florida, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <lightningsourcepublication.com> (the "Disputed Domain Name"), registered with Cloudflare, 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. David L. Kreider, Chartered Arbitrator (UK), as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum on July 22, 2026; Forum received payment on July 22, 2026. On July 28, 2026, Cloudflare, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <lightningsourcepublication.com> domain name is registered with Cloudflare, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Cloudflare, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Cloudflare, 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"). The Registrar has further confirmed that the registration agreement is in English, and the Panel accordingly conducts this proceeding in English pursuant to Rule 11(a). Complainant submitted an Amended Complaint dated July 31, 2026, following the Registrar's disclosure of the underlying registrant information. The Amended Complaint is the operative pleading, and the caption and Respondent identification in this Decision follow it. On August 3, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 24, 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@lightningsourcepublication.com. Also on August 3, 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 25, 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. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant alleges: That for more than 25 years it has supplied print-on-demand, digital conversion, book distribution, and related publishing services under the LIGHTNING and LIGHTNING SOURCE marks, as a La Vergne, Tennessee company within the Ingram corporate family. That it owns United States registrations for those marks, including Reg. Nos. 2,560,066 and 2,650,440 for LIGHTNING SOURCE and Reg. No. 3,720,428 for the LIGHTNING SOURCE design mark, together with three registrations of LIGHTNING alone, covering print-on-demand and book-printing services, wholesale distributorship services in the field of on-demand printing, and the distribution of books and electronic books. That the Disputed Domain Name <lightningsourcepublication.com> is confusingly similar to the LIGHTNING SOURCE mark because it contains that mark in its entirety and adds only the descriptive term "publication" and the ".com" gTLD, and that the added term increases confusion because it names the field in which Complainant trades. That Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. Respondent is not commonly known by it, is not a licensee of Complainant, and has never been authorized to use the LIGHTNING SOURCE mark in a domain name, on a website, in a logo, or in communications with authors. The website resolving from the Disputed Domain Name holds itself out as "Lightning Source Publication" and solicits authors for publishing services overlapping Complainant's own, which is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. That Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith. Respondent registered it on the same day, and to the same formula, as <lightningsourcepublishers.com>, a domain name a Forum panel has already ordered transferred from this Respondent to Complainant, which establishes a pattern of abusive registration under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). By offering competing publishing services under a name confusingly similar to Complainant's mark, Respondent intentionally attempted to attract Internet users for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) and disrupted Complainant's business under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). Several of the services advertised are ones Complainant's published fraud alert states Complainant does not offer to authors, and Respondent's registration behind a privacy service further supports an inference of bad faith. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS The Panel finds the following: The registration certificates in the record show United States Registration No. 2,560,066 for LIGHTNING SOURCE, registered April 9, 2002 in International Class 35 for wholesale distributorship services in the field of on-demand printing and electronic media, and Registration No. 2,650,440 for the same mark, registered November 12, 2002 in International Class 40. They also show Registration No. 3,720,428, registered December 8, 2009 in International Classes 39, 40, and 42, for a LIGHTNING SOURCE design mark, and three registrations of LIGHTNING alone, the earliest issued April 6, 1999. The certificates name the registrant as Lightning Source Inc., and in the case of the 1999 registration Lightning Print Inc. Complainant states without contradiction that the registrations are its own, and a Forum panel has previously found Complainant to hold rights in the LIGHTNING SOURCE mark on the strength of Registration No. 2,560,066. On the uncontested record, Complainant has supplied print-on-demand, digital conversion, book printing, and distribution services under those marks since the late 1990s, within the publishing and distribution business of Ingram Content Group, whose website identifies Lightning Source as one of its platforms and links to Complainant's customer portal. The record contains Ingram Content Group's published fraud alert, which warns that criminals post fraudulent online materials using Ingram logos, staff names, and domain names closely resembling its official brands and websites, and which states that IngramSpark and Lightning Source do not offer editing, proofreading, or design services to authors and do not require customers to print copies of their books to obtain global distribution. On that evidence, and on Complainant's uncontested evidence of more than 25 years of trading under the mark, the Panel finds the LIGHTNING SOURCE mark to be known within the publishing and author-services sector and to be a target of impersonation. The WHOIS record shows that the Disputed Domain Name was created on September 25, 2025, more than 23 years after the LIGHTNING SOURCE registration issued, and that the registrant's contact data was redacted in the public record by the Registrar. The Registrar's verification confirms that Respondent is the registrant and identifies him as Rafael Tillery of Florida, United States. Nothing in the record suggests that Respondent has been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name or by any LIGHTNING SOURCE-formative name, and Complainant states without contradiction that it has never licensed or authorized Respondent's use of its marks. The record contains the decision in Lightning Source LLC v. Rafael Tillery, FA 2213850 (Forum Apr. 29, 2026), in which a Forum panel ordered the transfer to Complainant of <lightningsourcepublishers.com>, finding it confusingly similar to the LIGHTNING SOURCE mark, held without rights or legitimate interests, and registered and used in bad faith for a website offering competing publishing services under Complainant's mark and device mark. The complaint in that proceeding, also in the record, identifies the respondent as Rafael Tillery of 1309 Rumba Lane, Tallahassee, and gives the same telephone number and e-mail address that the Registrar's verification gives for Respondent here. Both domain names were created on the same day, September 25, 2025, with the same registrar. The Panel finds that the respondent in the earlier proceeding and the Respondent in this one are the same person. Screenshots in the record show that the Disputed Domain Name resolves to an active website (the "Respondent's Website"). Respondent's Website is headed "Lightning Source Publication | Book Publishing & Author Services," pairing those words in its masthead with a lightning-bolt device in yellow and black. It invites authors to "Transform Your Ideas Into Published Success," advertises ghostwriting, proofreading and editing, book cover design, publishing, book marketing, multiple publishing formats, on-demand printing, and global book distribution, and displays the logos of Amazon, Kobo, Rakuten, and Barnes & Noble beneath a claim of worldwide distribution. A form headed "Claim Your Exclusive Limited-Time Offer" collects a visitor's name, e-mail address, telephone number, and project details, a chat window offers the assistance of a "Sr. Book Consultant," and the published terms recite that an order is placed by making payment. Respondent's Website identifies its operator only as "Lightning Source Publication," giving a Houston, Texas street address and telephone number but naming no legal entity, and carries no disclaimer of any relationship with Complainant. The Panel finds that Respondent's Website is presented so as to convey to the visiting author that it is Complainant's, or is authorized by 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 Overview 3.1 at ¶ 4.3; eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003). Identical and/or Confusingly Similar Complainant's United States registration of LIGHTNING SOURCE establishes its rights in that mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See WIPO Overview 3.1 ¶ 1.2.1. The Disputed Domain Name contains the LIGHTNING SOURCE mark in its entirety and adds only the word "publication" and the ".com" gTLD. The mark is not merely recognizable within the string; it is the whole of its distinctive content, and the added word does nothing to separate the two, naming as it does the very activity for which Complainant supplies printing and distribution services under the mark. The gTLD is disregarded in this comparison. See WIPO Overview 3.1 ¶ 1.11.1; Lightning Source LLC v. Rafael Tillery, FA 2213850 (Forum Apr. 29, 2026) (finding <lightningsourcepublishers.com> confusingly similar to LIGHTNING SOURCE, the mark being combined with the descriptive term "publishers" and the gTLD). The Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's LIGHTNING SOURCE 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, whereupon the burden shifts to Respondent to demonstrate such rights or interests. See WIPO Overview 3.1 ¶ 2.1. The Registrar-confirmed registrant is Rafael Tillery, a name bearing no resemblance to the Disputed Domain Name, and there is no evidence that Respondent has been commonly known by it under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent's use of its marks. Respondent's Website trades under Complainant's mark with a single descriptive word added and offers services in Complainant's own field. Use of a confusingly similar domain name to address a website offering services competing with the complainant's, under an appearance of affiliation with it, 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 Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Lar David, FA 2221384 (Forum June 6, 2026). Complainant has made out its prima facie case, and Respondent, having defaulted, has offered nothing in answer to it. 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 Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name on September 25, 2025, more than two decades after Complainant's LIGHTNING SOURCE registrations issued. What Respondent then built at it settles any question of knowledge: a website trading under Complainant's mark, in Complainant's own line of business, addressed to Complainant's own customers. The Panel finds that Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights and in order to exploit them. Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii) treats as bad faith the registration of a domain name to prevent a mark owner from reflecting its mark in a corresponding domain name, where the respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct. The paragraph is engaged here because the earlier registration was this Respondent's own, as the Panel has found. On one day in September 2025 Respondent registered two domain names built to a single formula, Complainant's mark followed by a word describing Complainant's business, and used each for a website soliciting authors under that mark; a Forum panel has held the first of them to have been registered and used in bad faith. See Provide Commerce, Inc. v. Jardimar Holdings Corp / Ernesto Charingola, FA 1502077 (Forum June 27, 2013) ("the existence of previous UDRP decisions where Respondent was found to have registered a domain name in bad faith reveals Respondent's pattern of cybersquatting behavior"). The Panel finds a pattern of conduct within Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). The same conduct falls within Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and 4(b)(iv). Respondent's Website solicits, for payment, the custom of authors seeking printing, publication, and distribution, which is the custom Complainant serves under the LIGHTNING SOURCE mark, and it solicits that custom under the mark itself, giving the arriving author every reason to suppose he is dealing with Complainant and none to doubt it. Respondent thereby intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the services offered, and disrupted Complainant's business. See JUUL Labs, Inc. v. larry goldstein / The Juul Guy, FA 1864469 (Forum Oct. 23, 2019) ("Use of a domain name to create a false impression of affiliation with a complainant in order to compete with and disrupt the complainant's business is behavior indicative of bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv)."). That several of the advertised services are ones Complainant does not offer only deepens the deception. Complainant asks the Panel to draw a further adverse inference from Respondent's use of a privacy service. What the registration record shows is the Registrar's own redaction of the registrant's contact data, which the Registrar lifted on request. The Panel draws no inference from it; the finding of bad faith rests on the use Respondent has made of the Disputed Domain Name. 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 <lightningsourcepublication.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. David L. Kreider, Panelist Dated: August 25, 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.