Sidechane.com

The timeline behind sidechane.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 FA2608002238604 DECISION SideChannel, Inc. v. Brian Haugli / Sidechannel Claim Number: FA2608002238604 PARTIES Complainant is SideChannel, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Chintan A. Desai of Lippes Mathias LLP, New York, USA. Respondent is Brian Haugli / Sidechannel ("Respondent"), Massachusetts, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <sidechane.com> (the "Disputed Domain Name"), registered with Squarespace Domains II 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 on August 10, 2026; Forum received payment on August 10, 2026. On August 11, 2026, Squarespace Domains II LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <sidechane.com> domain name is registered with Squarespace Domains II LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Squarespace Domains II LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Squarespace Domains II 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 August 13, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 2, 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@sidechane.com. Also on August 13, 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 3, 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 it is a cybersecurity and privacy risk management company founded in 2019, offering virtual Chief Information Security Officer ("vCISO") services and related security software and services to commercial and government customers; that it owns United States Registration Nos. 8,173,853 and 6,260,241 for SIDECHANNEL, registered March 17, 2026 and February 2, 2021, each claiming first use in commerce on September 1, 2017; and that it operates its website at <sidechannel.com>. That the Disputed Domain Name <sidechane.com>, registered on April 16, 2026, is nearly identical to the SIDECHANNEL mark, from which it differs only by the omission of the letters "n" and "l" and the addition of the gTLD ".com", and is a typosquatted variant of Complainant's own domain name. That Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. Respondent registered it without authorization in the name of Complainant's Chief Executive Officer, Brian Haugli, at Complainant's business address, so that the WHOIS record is false and Respondent is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name. The resolving website displays the SIDECHANNEL mark, promotes software and business services, and repeats Complainant's own trademark notice, in order to impersonate Complainant; and it solicits visitors' names, e-mail addresses and telephone numbers through a contact form in furtherance of a phishing scheme. That Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith: with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights; to create a likelihood of confusion for commercial gain and to disrupt Complainant's business within Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv); to pass itself off as Complainant in furtherance of a phishing scheme; and under false WHOIS contact information appropriating the name of Complainant's Chief Executive Officer. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS The Panel finds the following: United States Patent and Trademark Office records in the case file show that Complainant owns United States Registration No. 8,173,853 for the word mark SIDECHANNEL (the "SIDECHANNEL Mark"), registered March 17, 2026 in International Classes 9, 35, 41 and 42 for cybersecurity software and services, with a claimed first use in commerce of September 1, 2017, and United States Registration No. 6,260,241 for SIDECHANNEL in stylized form, registered February 2, 2021 in Class 42 for cyber Internet security consulting services, assigned to Complainant by Sidechannelsec, LLC under an assignment executed October 11, 2022 and recorded December 15, 2022. Press releases in the record, dated between May 2022 and August 2025, report the opening of Complainant's headquarters at 146 Main Street, Worcester, Massachusetts, and identify Brian Haugli as its Chief Executive Officer. Complainant describes itself as well recognized; registered rights and business under the mark since 2017 suffice, and the Panel makes no finding that the mark is famous. The WHOIS record in evidence shows that the Disputed Domain Name was created on April 16, 2026. The Registrar's verification of August 11, 2026 identifies the registrant as "Brian Haugli", organization "Sidechannel", at 146 Main St, Worcester, MA 01608, with a telephone number and a Hotmail e-mail address formed from a misspelling of Mr. Haugli's name. Brian Haugli is Complainant's Chief Executive Officer and the address is Complainant's headquarters. Complainant states, and nothing in the record contradicts, that the telephone number and e-mail address are not his. On the uncontested record the Panel finds that Respondent is not Complainant's Chief Executive Officer and that the registrant identity in the WHOIS record is false. Complainant has not asked that the name be redacted, and the caption follows Forum's record. Nothing in the record indicates that Respondent has been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name otherwise than through that false identity, and on the uncontested record Complainant has never licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use the SIDECHANNEL Mark. Screenshots in the record, captured on July 22 and July 26, 2026, show that the Disputed Domain Name resolves to a website that holds itself out as Complainant (the "Respondent's Website"). It is headed "Sidechannel", names its operator throughout as "Sidechannel, Inc.", gives that operator's address as 146 Main St, Worcester, MA 01608, and carries the footer "© 2026 Sidechannel, Inc. All rights reserved | 'Sidechannel' and logo are registered trademarks of Sidechannel, Inc.", which reproduces, with trivial differences, the trademark notice on Complainant's own website. It offers "prepackaged software and business services" of a general information-technology kind, states that it is "Based in Worcester, MA", and displays the claims "15+ Years of Experience" and "200+ Businesses Served". It does not copy Complainant's website and makes no mention of Complainant's vCISO services or Enclave platform. Nothing on it bears a price, and the record discloses no shopping cart, checkout or payment facility. The one action open to a visitor, reached from the "Request a Consultation" buttons in its header and body, is a form of that name soliciting the visitor's full name, e-mail address, telephone number and a message, with a "Submit Inquiry" button, beside a contact e-mail address at the Disputed Domain Name and the telephone number given in the WHOIS record. The Respondent's Website is not a business trading under a name that happens to resemble Complainant's. It names Complainant as its operator, claims Complainant's registered marks as its own, and asserts more than fifteen years of experience, a history that the company it purports to be, founded in 2019, cannot have. The services it describes are not Complainant's, nothing is sold, and the telephone number and e-mail address on the inquiry form are not Complainant's. The form is thus the one working part of a fabricated identity: a visitor who completes it believes the inquiry is going to Complainant at its Worcester headquarters, and the visitor's details go instead to Respondent. The Panel finds that Respondent uses the Disputed Domain Name and the Respondent's Website for phishing, the solicitation of Internet users' personal information under Complainant's mark and appropriated identity. Complainant also pleads that Respondent presumably receives click-through fees. The screenshots show no advertising or third-party links, and the Panel makes no finding on that question. 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 has established rights in the SIDECHANNEL Mark through its United States registrations, which suffice for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See WIPO Overview 3.1 at ¶ 1.2.1. The Disputed Domain Name <sidechane.com> consists of the SIDECHANNEL Mark with the letters "n" and "l" omitted, together with the ".com" gTLD. The mark remains readily recognizable in the resulting string, and a domain name consisting of an obvious or intentional misspelling of a trademark is considered confusingly similar to that mark. See WIPO Overview 3.1 at ¶ 1.9; Hackensack Meridian Health, Inc. v. Think 7 Inc. / Jeff Weller, FA 2141517 (Forum Mar. 25, 2025) (omitted spaces, transposed letters and a TLD did not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and the mark). The ".com" gTLD is a technical requirement of registration and is disregarded. See WIPO Overview 3.1 at ¶ 1.11.1. The Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's SIDECHANNEL 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, at which point the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests. See WIPO Overview 3.1 at ¶ 2.1. Respondent is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). As found above, the registrant identity in the WHOIS record is Complainant's own, appropriated; a registrant does not become commonly known by a domain name by registering it in the identity of the trademark owner it targets. See Dr. Seuss Enterprises, L.P. v. [Unknown Holder], FA 2214023 (Forum May 6, 2026) (no rights or legitimate interests where false WHOIS information named the complainant's entity as the registrant organization and a former employee of the complainant as the registrant). Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use the SIDECHANNEL Mark. Nor does Respondent's use of the Disputed Domain Name give rise to rights or legitimate interests. The Respondent's Website passes itself off as Complainant and offers software and information-technology services under the SIDECHANNEL Mark, which 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 Target Brands, Inc. v. rizwan shad / Nosheen Rizwan, FA 2174563 (Forum Oct. 1, 2025) (posing as the complainant through imposter websites is neither a bona fide offering nor a fair use). The solicitation of visitors' personal information through the inquiry form likewise confers no legitimate interest. See Agilent Technologies, Inc. v. he jxing, FA 2227099 (Forum July 10, 2026) (no rights or legitimate interests where an impersonating website solicited visitors' names, e-mail addresses and telephone numbers through submission forms). Complainant has made a prima facie showing, which Respondent, by failing to submit a Response, has not rebutted. 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 April 16, 2026, one month after the registration of the SIDECHANNEL word mark and more than eight years after Complainant's first use of it, and used it for a website naming Complainant as its operator and reproducing its trademark notice. None of this is explicable except by reference to Complainant, and it establishes that Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the SIDECHANNEL Mark and with intent to target them. See Farallon Capital Management, L.L.C. v. Farallon Capital Asia (Hong Kong) International, FA 1579916 (Forum Oct. 21, 2014) (inferring actual knowledge from a respondent's attempt to pass itself off as the complainant). Complainant pleads constructive as well as actual notice; the Panel rests its finding on actual knowledge, the Policy not recognizing constructive notice. Respondent's registration of the Disputed Domain Name under the appropriated identity of Complainant's Chief Executive Officer, joined to contact details that are not his, is itself evidence of bad faith. The circumstances enumerated in Policy ¶ 4(b) are not exhaustive, and the appropriation of the identity of an officer of the very company whose mark is targeted, together with its business address, marks a registration made to deceive. See McDermott Will & Schulte LLP v. [Redacted], FA 2231331 (Forum Aug. 6, 2026) (this Panel treating registration under the misappropriated identity of the complainant's employee, with false contact details and the complainant's office address, as evidence of bad faith registration and use); Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP v. Will Brooks, FA 2162571 (Forum July 16, 2025) (bad faith registration and use where the respondent impersonated the complainant and its registration details appeared at least partly fictitious). By operating a website that passes itself off as Complainant, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to it for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the SIDECHANNEL Mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the Respondent's Website, within Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), and, by intercepting the inquiries of prospective customers who believe they have reached Complainant, disrupts Complainant's business within Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Lar David, FA 2220962 (Forum June 4, 2026) (bad faith where the domain name was used for a misleading and likely fraudulent website passing off as the complainant and promoting similar services). The phishing found above is an independent ground of bad faith. The use of a domain name to obtain the personal information of Internet users by impersonating the trademark owner, as the "Request a Consultation" form does under Complainant's name and address, is bad faith registration and use. See WIPO Overview 3.1 at ¶ 3.4; Young Innovations, Inc. v. [unknown holder], FA 2067016 (Forum Nov. 15, 2023) (bad faith where the respondent impersonated the complainant and a named employee of the complainant in furtherance of a phishing scheme); CVector Energy Corp. v. Katie Ormond, FA 2231987 (Forum Aug. 11, 2026) (this Panel finding bad faith where a website reproducing the name of the complainant's Chief Executive Officer collected visitors' information through forms operated under that false identity). 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 <sidechane.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. David L. Kreider, Panelist Dated: September 3, 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.