Compucomsystems.com

The timeline behind compucomsystems.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.

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION CompuCom Systems, Inc. v. Kalid Kabir Claim Number: FA2608002239738 PARTIES Complainant is CompuCom Systems, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Griffin Barnett of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Kalid Kabir ("Respondent"), India. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <compucomsystems.com> ("Domain Name"), registered with NameCheap, 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. Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on August 14, 2026; Forum received payment on August 14, 2026. On August 18, 2026, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <compucomsystems.com> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, 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 19, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 8, 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@compucomsystems.com. Also on August 19, 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 9, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Nicholas J.T. Smith 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 Since 1987, Complainant has provided a range of IT services and solutions under the COMPUCOM mark, including from its website at www.compucom.com. Complainant asserts rights in the COMPUCOM mark based upon registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (e.g. Reg. No. 1,784,614, registered July 27, 1993). The <compucomsystems.com> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's mark because the disputed domain name consists of the COMPUCOM mark with the addition of the generic term "systems" and the generic top-level domain ("gTLD") ".com". Respondent has no legitimate interests in the <compucomsystems.com> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name and Complainant has not authorized or licensed Respondent any rights in the COMPUCOM mark. Additionally, Respondent does not use the Domain Name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather the Domain Name resolves to a website ("Respondent's Website") that purports to offer competing IT services under the COMPUCOM mark but is actually a façade as it lists a fake address, fake phone number, and text obviously copied from third party websites. Respondent has also offered to sell the Domain Name to Complainant. Respondent registered and uses the <compucomsystems.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent is misleading visitors into believing Respondent is affiliated with Complainant. Respondent registered the Domain Name to create confusion with Complainant's mark for commercial gain. Respondent offered to sell the Domain Name to Complainant. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant holds trademark rights for the COMPUCOM mark. The Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's COMPUCOM mark. Complainant has established that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name and that Respondent registered and has used the Domain Name in bad faith. 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 Complainant has rights in the COMPUCOM mark through its registration of the mark with the USPTO (e.g. Reg. No. 1,784,614, registered July 27, 1993). Registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to demonstrate rights in the mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See DIRECTV, LLC v. The Pearline Group, FA 1818749 (Forum Dec. 30, 2018) ("Complainant's ownership of a USPTO registration for DIRECTV demonstrate its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)."). The Panel finds that the <compucomsystems.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's COMPUCOM mark because it merely adds the generic term "systems" to the wholly incorporated mark and adds the ".com" gTLD. Adding a generic term and a gTLD to a mark fails to sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See MTD Products Inc v J Randall Shank, FA 1783050 (Forum June 27, 2018) ("The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark as it wholly incorporates the CUB CADET mark before appending the generic terms 'genuine' and 'parts' as well as the '.com' gTLD."). The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant alleges that Respondent holds no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. In order for Complainant to succeed under this element, it must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the Domain Name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006) and AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Forum Sept. 25, 2006) ("Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names."). The Panel holds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case. Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name as Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the COMPUCOM mark. Respondent has no relationship, affiliation, connection, endorsement or association with Complainant. WHOIS information can help support a finding that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, especially where a privacy service has been engaged. See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Dale Anderson, FA 1613011 (Forum May 21, 2015) (concluding that because the WHOIS record lists "Dale Anderson" as the registrant of the disputed domain name, the respondent was not commonly known by the <statefarmforum.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)); see also Kohler Co. v. Privacy Service, FA 1621573 (Forum July 2, 2015) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) where "Privacy Service" was listed as the registrant of the disputed domain name). The WHOIS lists "Kalid Kabir" as registrant of record. Coupled with Complainant's unrebutted assertions as to absence of any affiliation or authorization between the parties, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name in accordance with Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). The Domain Name redirects to the Respondent's Website where Respondent purported to offers services in direct competition with Complainant by reference to Complainant's COMPUCOM mark. Furthermore, the Respondent's Website also contains an obviously fake address and phone number and has material copied from third party websites, indicating its use is not bona fide, and instead seeks to gain the benefit of confusion with the Complainant. The use of a confusingly similar domain name to redirect to a competing website does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the name under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See General Motors LLC v. MIKE LEE, FA 1659965 (Forum Mar. 10, 2016) (finding that "use of a domain to sell products and/or services that compete directly with a complainant's business does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)."). is presently inactive which by itself does not demonstrate rights or legitimate interests. Moreover, Respondent has sent an email to Complainant seeking payment in exchange for transferring the Domain Name.1 Absent any other explanation, this indicates that the Domain Name was registered for the purpose of selling it to Complainant, for a sum in excess of any out-of-pocket costs that could have been incurred by Respondent. Absent any explanation by Respondent for its conduct, such conduct is not by itself a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See AOL Inc. v. YourJungle Privacy Protection Service aka Whois Agent, FA 1533324 (Forum Jan. 17, 2014) ("Respondent has offered the <aoljobsweek.com> domain name for sale to the general public, which demonstrates that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)."). The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith The Panel finds that, at the time Respondent registered the Domain Name, July 25, 20262, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's COMPUCOM mark which had been in use for over 30 years at the time. Furthermore, there is no obvious explanation, nor has one been provided, for an entity to register a domain name that wholly incorporates the COMPUCOM mark and use it to redirect visitors to a website selling services that compete with the services sold by Complainant (while containing to an obviously fake address and phone number) other than to take advantage of Complainant's reputation in the COMPUCOM Mark. In the absence of rights or legitimate interests of its own this demonstrates registration in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). The Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the Domain Name in bad faith as Respondent used the Domain Name to redirect Internet users to Respondent's own website where Respondent, using the COMPUCOM Mark, purports to offer a variety of services in direct competition with Complainant. Using a confusingly similar domain name to divert Internet users to a respondent's competing website can show bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See ZIH Corp. v. ou yang lin q, FA1761403 (Forum Dec. 29, 2017) (finding bad faith where the respondent used the infringing domain name to disrupt the complainant's business by diverting Internet users from the complainant's website to the respondent's website where it offered competing printer products). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the Domain Name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). Furthermore, Respondent has, without legitimate use of the Domain Name, acquired a domain name that is confusingly similar to the COMPUCOM mark and offered it for sale to the Complainant, likely for a sum exceeding any likely out-of-pocket costs incurred in the registration of the Domain Name. An offer to sell a disputed domain name may be evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(i). See Capital One Financial Corp. v. haimin xu, FA 1819364 (Forum Jan. 8, 2019) ("A general offer to sell a domain name can be evidence the respondent intended to make such an offer at the time it registered the name, supporting a finding of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(i)."). In the present case, given the nature of the Domain Name, the manner in which it has been used, and the lack of alternative explanation provided by Respondent, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(i). The Panel finds 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 <compucomsystems.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Nicholas J.T. Smith, Panelist Dated: September 9, 2026 [1] The initial communication offering the Domain Name for sale occurred prior to the date of registration of the Domain Name. It can be presumed that the Respondent previously held the Domain Name, the Domain Name's registration expired, and the Respondent re-registered it, and on August 10, 2026, after the Domain Name was re-registered by the Respondent, the Respondent sent a follow-up e-mail (from the same e-mail address). [2] As noted in the previous endnote, the Respondent may have previously registered the Domain Name, let it expire, and re-registered it but for the purpose of the Policy on the present registration date as disclosed in the Whois report is relevant. 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.