Realspaceinc.com

The timeline behind realspaceinc.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.

DECISION Office Depot, LLC and The Office Club, LLC v. xueyuan ning Claim Number: FA2608002237185 PARTIES Complainant is Office Depot, LLC and The Office Club, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Joshua M. Dalton of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Massachusetts, USA. Respondent is xueyuan ning ("Respondent"), China. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <realspaceinc.com>, registered with Dynadot 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. Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on August 4, 2026; Forum received payment on August 4, 2026. On August 5, 2026, Dynadot Inc confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <realspaceinc.com> 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 August 12, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 1, 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@realspaceinc.com. Also on August 12, 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 September 2, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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 In this proceeding there are two Complainants, Office Depot, LLC and The Office Club, LLC. Paragraph 3(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") provides that "[a]ny person or entity may initiate an administrative proceeding by submitting a complaint." 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." Complainant Office Depot, LLC is the parent company of The Office Club, LLC. As a parent company, Office Depot, LLC has rights in the intellectual property holdings of its subsidiaries. Therefore, there is a significant legal relationship between the nominal Complainants. Additionally, there is no objection to the such Complainants proceeding together as if one. Given the foregoing, the Panel finds that the two nominal Complainants have a sufficient nexus to each other and to the matters complained of such that they can be treated herein as if a single Complainant. See Tasty Baking, Co. & Tastykake Invs., Inc. v. Quality Hosting, FA 208854 (Forum Dec. 28, 2003) (treating the two complainants as a single entity where both parties held rights in trademarks contained within the disputed domain names). PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant contends in part as follows: Complainant Office Depot, LLC is a leading retail and B2B integrated distribution company providing business services and supplies, products and technology solutions to individuals and companies of all sizes. Complainant employs approximately 20,000 individuals and operates approximately 916 brick and-mortar locations throughout the United States. Complainant also offers its products and services online through its website located at www.officedepot.com. Complainant's total sales were approximately $7.8 billion in 2023. Complainant has since 2009 continuously used the trademark REALSPACE in the United States in connection with its retail sale of office supplies, office furniture, and related goods and services. Complainant has multiple United States registrations for trademarks comprised of or containing the REALSPACE mark: The <realspaceinc.com> domain name, incorporates the Complainant's REALSPACE trademark in its entirety, with merely the generic term "inc." Furthermore, the at-issue domain name purports to sell the exact office furniture, under the exact marks, using the exact photos taken from Complainant's legitimate website. The Domain Name is Confusingly Similar to Complainant's Marks. Registration of a mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office sufficiently confers a complainant's rights in a mark for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Further, Complainant's rights in the REALSPACE mark predate Respondent's registration of the domain name by many years, as Complainant commenced use of the REALSPACE mark in 2008, more than sixteen years before Respondent registered the domain name on October 10, 2025. A domain name is confusingly similar to a complainant's mark when it fully incorporates such mark. The inclusion of descriptive terms and a gTLD in an at-issue domain name does not diminish the confusing similarity with a complainant's mark. Respondent has No Rights or Legitimate Interests with respect to the Domain Name. Respondent is not licensed or otherwise authorized to use the REALSPACE mark, nor any other trademarks owned by Complainant. Unlicensed, unauthorized use of a third-party trademark in a domain name is strong evidence that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the domain name. A registrant has not been commonly known by a domain name where (1) the WHOIS information and other information in the record do not reflect prior use of the name; and (2) the complainant did not authorize the respondent to register the domain name. Respondent's actions are not a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor is Respondent engaged in a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name. To the contrary, Respondent has used Complainant's well-known REALSPACE mark in the at-issue domain name to divert Internet users seeking Complainant and its products to an unrelated website to ostensibly generate revenue from web traffic and obtain valuable customer information while diverting customers from purchasing Complainant's legitimate REALSPACE products. There can be no rights or legitimate interests under Policy 4(c)(i) when a respondent was on notice that a complainant possesses strong trademark rights in a mark identical or similar to the at-issue domain name. Respondent Registered and Uses the Domain Name in Bad Faith. The notoriety and distinctive qualities of Complainant's REALSPACE mark make it inconceivable that Respondent could have registered the at-issue domain name without actual knowledge of Complainant's trademark rights and demonstrate that Respondent registered the domain name in bad faith to benefit from and trade off the goodwill and consumer recognition that Complainant had created in Complainant's REALSPACE mark. Where a domain name is obviously connected with a well-known name and products, its use by someone with no connection with the products suggests opportunistic bad faith." The domain name displays a webpage incorporating Complainant's REALSPACE mark, several other marks used with Realspace office furniture products, photos of Complainant's products, and clearly attempts to divert traffic from Complainant's legitimate website. The domain name therefore purports to be a legitimate website of Complainant. A potential consumer, looking to purchase goods from what appears to be the Complainant's legitimate website could be misled and provide personal and financial information to Respondent. Given not only the use of Complainant's REALSPACE mark in the domain name but that the entire website claims to be a legitimate website of Complainant, the website is plainly engaged in unlawful phishing. There is no other reason why Respondent would generate this site using various REALSPACE marks and then associate it with a domain name that incorporates the REALSPACE mark, other than to engage in a fraudulent attempt to glean personal information from individuals looking to purchase goods from what appears to be a legitimate website of Complainant. Given Complainant's longstanding use of the REALSPACE mark and the inclusion of the entire mark in the domain name, it follows that Respondent intentionally registered the domain name to improperly exploit Complainant's trademark, rather than for some benign reason. Further, Respondent's use of a proxy service to hide its identity in the WHOIS database is evidence of bad faith in this context. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant has trademark rights in the REALSPACE mark. Complainant's rights in REALSPACE predate Respondent's registration of <realspaceinc.com>. Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant nor authorized to use Complainant's trademarks in any capacity. Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to address a website deceptively looking like it 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 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 at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights. Complainant shows that it has multiple USPTO trademark registrations for REALSPACE. Any of such registrations is sufficient to demonstrate Complainant's rights in a mark under the Policy. See BGK Trademark Holdings, LLC & Beyoncé Giselle Knowles-Carter v. Chanphut / Beyonce Shop, FA 1626334 (Forum Aug. 3, 2015) (asserting that Complainant's registration with the USPTO (or any other governmental authority) adequately proves its rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). Respondent's <realspaceinc.com> domain name consists of Complainant's REALSPACE trademark followed by the suggestive term "inc," with all followed by the confusing similarity analysis irrelevant ".com" top-level. The differences between Complainant's trademark and the at-issue domain name fail to distinguish Respondent's domain name from Complainant's REALSPACE trademark. Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent's <realspaceinc.com> domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights under Policy ¶ 4 (a)(i). See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognizable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element."); see also, Wiluna Holdings, LLC v. Edna Sherman, FA 1652781 (Forum Jan. 22, 2016) (finding the addition of a generic term and gTLD is insufficient in distinguishing a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).) Rights or Legitimate Interests 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. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant's trademark in any capacity and as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in respect of the at‑issue domain name. See Navistar International Corporation v. N Rahmany, FA 1620789 (Forum June 8, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the at-issue domain name where the complainant had never authorized the respondent to incorporate its NAVISTAR mark into any domain name). The WHOIS information for <realspaceinc.com> leads to identifying the domain name's registrant as "xueyuan ning" and the record contains no evidence that tends to otherwise prove that Respondent is commonly known by <realspaceinc.com> or any variation thereof. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶4(c)(ii). See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name). Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to address a website that appears like it may be a genuine or authorized website of Complainant. The <realspaceinc.com> website displays Complainant's REALSPACE trademark and images of an array of Complainant's products as wells as links to purchase the products on Amazon. Respondent's use of <realspaceinc.com> to pose as Complainant and misdirect internet users to Respondent's imposter website is not indicative of a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a non-commercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Insomniac Holdings, LLC v. Mark Daniels, FA 1735969 (Forum July 15, 2017) (refusing to find rights and legitimate interests in a domain name on the part of a respondent when the disputed domain name "resolves to a website that Respondent has designed to mimic Complainant's own in an attempt to pass itself off as Complainant"). Given the foregoing, Respondent lacks rights and lacks legitimate interests in respect of <realspaceinc.com>. Registration and Use in Bad Faith As discussed below without being exhaustive, Respondent acted in bad faith. As mentioned above, Respondent uses <realspaceinc.com> to address a website looking like it might be an authorized website of Complainant. There, Complainant displays text content and images for a number of Complainant's branded products. Respondent's use of <realspaceinc.com> to pass off as Complainant or an authorized agent of Complainant is disruptive to Complainant's business and intended to attract internet users looking for Complainant to Respondent's website so that Respondent might wrongfully capitalize on the confusion it created between its <realspaceinc.com> domain name and Complainant's REALSPACE trademark. Respondent's use of <realspaceinc.com> demonstrates Respondent's bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and 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."); see also, Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Domain ID Shield Service / Domain ID Shield Service CO., Limited, FA 1841700 (Forum June 21, 2019) (finding that respondent was using "chevronplacement.com" in bad faith in order to "disrupt the business of Complainant by causing internet users to think an affiliation exists between Respondent's domain names and Complainant");see also, Xylem Inc. and Xylem IP Holdings LLC v. YinSi BaoHu YiKaiQi, FA 1612750 (Forum May 13, 2015) ("The Panel agrees that Respondent's use of the website to display products similar to Complainant's, imputes intent to attract Internet users for commercial gain, and finds bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)."). Complainant suggests that the domain name and its website facilitate phishing by misleading visitors to provide personal information to Respondent. Respondent's likely intent to use the domain name and its website to phish for private information also indicates Respondent's bad faith registration and use of the at-issue domain name. Such deceitfully harvested information may be used by Respondent for an assortment of malicious purposes including identity theft, unauthorized account entry and various phishing scams. Respondent's presumed intent to phish via the domain name further demonstrates Complainant's bad faith registration and use of the <realspaceinc.com> domain name. See Morgan Stanley v. Bruce Pu, FA 1764120 (Forum Feb. 2, 2018) ("[T]he screenshot of the resolving webpage allows users to input their name and email address, which Complainant claims Respondent uses that to fraudulently phish for information. Thus, the Panel agrees that Respondent phishes for information and finds that Respondent does so in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)."). Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the REALSPACE mark when Respondent registered <realspaceinc.com> as a domain name. Respondent's actual knowledge is evident from the notoriety of Complainant's REALSPACE trademark and from Respondent's use of the domain name to address a website appearing as if it is an authorized website of Complainant. Respondent's registration and use of a confusingly similar domain name with knowledge of Complainant's rights in REALSPACE further demonstrates Respondent's bad faith. See Lemon Inc. v. Sumer Singh, FA 2110519 (Forum Sept. 5, 2024) ("registration of a disputed domain name with actual knowledge of another's trademark rights is sufficient to establish bad faith, and can be shown by the notoriety of the mark and the use the Respondent makes of the disputed domain name"); see also, Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name); see also, Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name). 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 <realspaceinc.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist Dated: September 2, 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.