Cfnafirestone.com

The timeline behind cfnafirestone.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 FA2609002245266 DECISION Bridgestone Americas, Inc. and Bridgestone Retail Operations, LLC v. tanakorn dedtaveesub Claim Number: FA2609002245266 PARTIES Complainant is Bridgestone Americas, Inc. and Bridgestone Retail Operations, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Jonathan Uffelman of Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is tanakorn dedtaveesub ("Respondent"), Thailand. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <cfnafirestone.com> (the "Disputed Domain Name"), registered with NICENIC INTERNATIONAL GROUP CO., LIMITED. 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 September 14, 2026; Forum received payment on September 15, 2026. On September 15, 2026, NICENIC INTERNATIONAL GROUP CO., LIMITED confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <cfnafirestone.com> domain name is registered with NICENIC INTERNATIONAL GROUP CO., LIMITED and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NICENIC INTERNATIONAL GROUP CO., LIMITED has verified that Respondent is bound by the NICENIC INTERNATIONAL GROUP CO., LIMITED 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"). Complainant submitted an Amended Complaint on September 16, 2026, following the Registrar's disclosure of the underlying registrant information. On September 16, 2026, Forum served the Amended Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 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@cfnafirestone.com. Also on September 16, 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 October 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 Bridgestone Americas, Inc. and Bridgestone Retail Operations, LLC, which the Amended Complaint states is the wholly owned subsidiary of Bridgestone Americas, Inc. 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." A corporate parent and its wholly owned subsidiary have that nexus, and a subsidiary of a trademark owner has rights in the mark for the purpose of standing. See WIPO Overview 3.1 at ¶ 1.4.1; Rite Aid Corporation and Name Rite, L.L.C. v. Jan Everno / The Management Group II, FA 1850953 (Forum Aug. 2, 2019) (a corporate parent and its wholly owned subsidiary had a sufficient nexus to each other and to the matters complained of to be treated as a single complainant). The nexus is made out: the Complainants share a mailing address in Nashville, Tennessee, the trademark records in evidence show Bridgestone Americas, Inc. as owner of the FIRESTONE registrations and Bridgestone Retail Operations, LLC as owner of the CFNA registration, and the Disputed Domain Name combines those two marks. 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 Bridgestone Americas, Inc. and its predecessors have used the FIRESTONE mark for tires for more than a century; that Bridgestone Retail Operations, LLC operates more than 1,700 FIRESTONE COMPLETE AUTO CARE stores; that credit card services have been offered for decades through the related company CFNA; that tens of millions of dollars are spent annually promoting the FIRESTONE mark, which three United States district courts and the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board have held famous; and that Complainant owns United States registrations for both marks, among them Reg. No. 140,804 for FIRESTONE, registered March 29, 1921, and Reg. No. 1,883,103 for CFNA, registered March 7, 1995. That the Disputed Domain Name <cfnafirestone.com>, created on May 1, 2026, is confusingly similar to the CFNA and FIRESTONE marks, which it incorporates in their entirety, adding only the gTLD ".com," and that combining two of a complainant's marks does not distinguish a domain name from either of them. That Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. Respondent used it for a fraudulent website purporting to offer CFNA Firestone credit cards, which displayed the CFNA and FIRESTONE marks throughout and required applicants to supply their date of birth, bank routing number, and the last four digits of their social security number, which Complainant believes to be a phishing scheme; such impersonation is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use; the small-print disclaimer at the foot of the site failed to dispel confusion and shows that Respondent targeted Complainant; the website is now inactive; and Respondent is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name and has never been authorized to use the marks. That Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith. By passing its website off as Complainant's to offer credit card services, Respondent created a likelihood of confusion within Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) and disrupted Complainant's business within Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii); the disclaimer is an admission that users would be confused; the present inactivity of the website further evidences bad faith; Respondent is a serial cybersquatter, found to have acted in bad faith in at least four prior UDRP proceedings, which establishes a pattern within Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii); and, given the registrations, the fame of the FIRESTONE mark, and the impersonation, Respondent knew of Complainant's rights when it registered the Disputed Domain Name. After Complainant's demand letter to the Registrar of September 2, 2026, the website was disabled. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS The Panel finds the following: Complainant, through Bridgestone Americas, Inc., makes and sells FIRESTONE tires and, through Bridgestone Retail Operations, LLC, operates FIRESTONE COMPLETE AUTO CARE stores; a related company, CFNA, issues a Firestone credit card, which screenshots in the record show promoted at <cfna.com> with an "Apply Now" invitation. The United States Patent and Trademark Office records in evidence show FIRESTONE registered on March 29, 1921 under Reg. No. 140,804 for tires, with later registrations extending to retail automotive store and credit card services (together, the "FIRESTONE Mark"), and CFNA registered on March 7, 1995 under Reg. No. 1,883,103 for banking and credit card services (the "CFNA Mark"). On the registrations, the century of use they reflect, and Complainant's uncontested account of its sales, advertising, and the judicial findings of fame it has obtained, the Panel finds that the FIRESTONE Mark is well known in the United States for tires and automotive services and that the CFNA Mark is established for automotive credit cards. The WHOIS record shows that the Disputed Domain Name was created on May 1, 2026, and the Registrar's verification identifies the registrant as tanakorn dedtaveesub. Nothing in the record indicates that Respondent has been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name or by either mark, and on the uncontested record Complainant has never authorized Respondent to use the CFNA or FIRESTONE Marks. The Amended Complaint identifies, and Respondent has not disputed, four earlier proceedings under the Policy against a respondent of the same name, each brought by a consumer-finance business and each, as the published decisions confirm, ending in a transfer order on a finding of bad faith registration and use: Bread Financial Payments, Inc. v. tanakorn dedtaveesub, D2026-2584 and D2026-2716 (WIPO Aug. 4, 2026), concerning <breadfinancialapply.com> and <breadfinancialus.com>; Scratch Financial, Inc. v. tanakorn dedtaveesub, FA 2226273 (Forum July 8, 2026); and Ascend Loans, LLC v. tanakorn dedtaveesub, FA 2129469 (Forum Jan. 8, 2025). On the uncontested record the Panel finds that Respondent was the respondent in each. Screenshots in the record show that, before it was disabled, the Disputed Domain Name resolved to a website headed "CFNA FIRESTONE CREDIT CARD" (the "Respondent's Website"), which presented itself as the application page for a card issued by CFNA and carried in its footer, in type smaller than the rest of the page, the words "Independent information resource. Not affiliated with CFNA or Firestone Complete Auto Care." Its "Apply Now" button opened a multi-step application form that asked for, among other particulars, the applicant's date of birth, bank routing number, and the last four digits of the applicant's social security number. After Complainant's counsel wrote to the Registrar on September 2, 2026, demanding that the site be disabled, the Disputed Domain Name ceased to resolve. The record contains no fraudulent e-mail and no solicitation directed at identified persons. The Panel finds that the Respondent's Website was used for phishing: under Complainant's marks, in the guise of an application for Complainant's credit card, it solicited from visitors, as if on Complainant's behalf, the personal and bank-account identifiers that enable financial fraud. What was done with any information collected is not shown, 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's rights in the FIRESTONE Mark and the CFNA Mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) rest on the United States registrations found above; a nationally registered trademark prima facie satisfies the first element's requirement of rights, and the registrations of each complainant are available to Complainant as a single entity. See WIPO Overview 3.1 at ¶¶ 1.2.1 and 1.4.1. The Disputed Domain Name <cfnafirestone.com> consists of the CFNA Mark followed by the FIRESTONE Mark and nothing else but the gTLD. Each mark is recognizable within the name, and joining two marks in which Complainant has rights does not distinguish the name from either. See WIPO Overview 3.1 at ¶ 1.7; Morgan Stanley v. Li Jiang, FA 1905435 (Forum Aug. 16, 2020) (a domain name combining two marks associated with the complainant or members of its financial group was not distinguished from either mark by the combination). The gTLD ".com" 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 CFNA and FIRESTONE Marks 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. The Registrar's verification identifies the registrant as "tanakorn dedtaveesub," a name bearing no resemblance to "cfnafirestone," and on the findings above Respondent has not been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) and holds no authorization from Complainant. See Illumina, Inc. v. Melanie Taylor, FA 1693464 (Forum Oct. 12, 2016) (no basis in the record to find the respondent commonly known by the disputed domain name where the WHOIS information listed only an unrelated personal name). Respondent's only established use of the Disputed Domain Name was the Respondent's Website, which, as found above, passed itself off as the application page for Complainant's credit card. The use of a domain name for phishing, or otherwise to impersonate the trademark owner, can never confer rights or legitimate interests, and such a site 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 WIPO Overview 3.1 at ¶ 2.13.1; LF, LLC v. Wei Lou Chang / DWB Co. Ltd, FA 1833702 (Forum Apr. 14, 2019) (a domain name incorporating the complainant's LOWE'S mark, used for a fake survey website that passed off as the complainant and phished for personal information, was 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)). Neither the footer disclaimer nor the later inactivity of the website, both addressed below, alters that conclusion. Complainant has made its prima facie showing, which Respondent 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 May 1, 2026, more than a century after the first FIRESTONE registration and three decades after the CFNA registration. The name joins the two marks that together identify Complainant's CFNA-issued Firestone credit card, and within months it was in use for an application page for that card which, like Complainant's own page at <cfna.com>, invited visitors to "Apply Now." On the renown of the FIRESTONE Mark found above, the composition of the name, and the use made of it, the Panel infers that Respondent knew of Complainant and its marks when it registered the Disputed Domain Name and chose the name for that reason. See Coupang Corporation v. jin yong lv, FA 1936241 (Forum Apr. 12, 2021) (prior knowledge of the complainant's mark was evident from its notoriety and from a website displaying the complainant's logo and mimicking its official site, supporting bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)). By operating the Respondent's Website as found above, Respondent intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to it by creating a likelihood of confusion with the CFNA and FIRESTONE Marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website and of the card it purported to offer. The gain sought was the financial information of the visitors it set out to deceive; Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) does not require that the gain be realized, and the collection of strangers' bank routing numbers and social security digits under an appropriated identity has no evident object other than financial exploitation. That is bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Home Depot Product Authority, LLC v. Amruth Raj, FA 2097544 (Forum June 8, 2024) (bad faith registration and use indicated where a domain name incorporating the complainant's mark was used for a misleading website passing itself off as the complainant to exploit confusion with the mark). The same use is bad faith on a second footing. As found above, the Respondent's Website was a phishing site, and panels treat the use of a domain name for phishing as bad faith registration and use in itself, whether the deception is worked by e-mail or, as here, by a web page. See WIPO Overview 3.1 at ¶ 3.4; Target Brands, Inc. v. syed Naqvi / targetreddcard.com, FA 2202570 (Forum Feb. 25, 2026) (a domain name combining the complainant's TARGET and REDCARD marks and used for a fake credit-card login page collecting login credentials, account numbers, and personal identifying information was registered and used in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)). That finding sustains the third element independently of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). The footer disclaimer does not mitigate that bad faith. Where the circumstances as a whole point to bad faith, a disclaimer cannot cure it, and panels may treat it as the respondent's own acknowledgment that users are likely to be confused. See WIPO Overview 3.1 at ¶ 3.7. A line in reduced type beneath a page soliciting credit-card applications under the very names it disclaimed dispelled nothing, and its presence shows that Respondent anticipated the confusion. See Zebra A/S v. Slavko Malevic / The Wayward Folk, FA 1922006 (Forum Dec. 7, 2020) (a non-affiliation statement buried in the resolving website showed that the respondent had targeted the complainant's mark, supporting bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)). Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii) treats as bad faith the registration of a domain name in order to prevent the trademark owner from reflecting its mark in a corresponding domain name, where the respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; as few as two abusive registrations, including registrations directed at the distinct marks of other brand owners, may establish the pattern, and earlier decisions under the Policy against the same respondent are a recognized means of showing it. See WIPO Overview 3.1 at ¶ 3.1.2; Lockheed Martin Corporation v. jiang li, FA 1889041 (Forum Apr. 22, 2020) (half a dozen earlier findings of bad faith against the same respondent were persuasive evidence that the domain name at issue had been registered and used in bad faith). As found above, Respondent was the respondent in four such proceedings decided in 2025 and 2026, each over a consumer-finance mark, and the Disputed Domain Name, which takes two of Complainant's marks and leaves Complainant unable to reflect their combination in the corresponding ".com" name, follows the same course. The Panel finds a pattern of conduct within Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii), a further and independent ground of bad faith. Complainant also invokes Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii), but the record does not show that the parties are competitors or that the Disputed Domain Name was registered primarily to disrupt Complainant's business, and the Panel makes no finding under that paragraph. The present inactivity of the Disputed Domain Name, which followed Complainant's demand to the Registrar, adds nothing: the bad faith lies in the use already made, and a respondent does not improve its position by ceasing a fraudulent use once challenged. 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 <cfnafirestone.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. David L. Kreider, Panelist Dated: October 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.