DECISION

 

Contentstack, Inc. v. boy boy

Claim Number: FA2505002157352

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Contentstack, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Lillian G. Fant of Dority & Manning, P.A., South Carolina, USA. Respondent is boy boy ("Respondent"), Arkansas, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <lytics.life>, registered with NameSilo, 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.

 

Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on May 27, 2025; Forum received payment on May 27, 2025.

 

On May 27, 2025, NameSilo, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <lytics.life> domain name is registered with NameSilo, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameSilo, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameSilo, 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 May 28, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 17, 2025 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@lytics.life. Also on May 28, 2025, 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 June 18, 2025, 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.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant contends in part as follows:

Complainant Contentstack, Inc. is a corporate entity incorporated in Delaware that provides a headless content management system and is a composable digital experience platform. Complainant wholly acquired Lytics, Inc. on December 23, 2024. Lytics is a leading real-time customer data platform. Lytics offers an enterprise-grade customer data platform that enables companies to personalize marketing interactions across various channels. The platform integrates existing data to create rich customer profiles, facilitating real-time insights and targeted messaging. As part of the acquisition, Complainant acquired all rights in the LYTICS marks including all associated goodwill.

 

Respondent's at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights. The United States Patent and Trademark Office issued trademark registrations the LYTICS word mark and the LYTICS logo mark. In addition to the trademark registrations, Complainant also uses the <lytics.com> domain name. Respondent's <lytics.life> domain contains Complainant's mark in its entirety, which creates a confusing similarity between the two. With respect to the domain name, Respondent has simply used the entirety of Complainant's LYTICS trademark and the top-level domain ("gTLD") ".life" to form the at-issue domain name. Respondent's registration of the <lytics.life> domain constitutes typosquatting because it is a minor variation of Complainant's registered mark. Evidence of typosquatting supports a finding of confusing similarity, particularly where the disputed domain name incorporates a registered trademark in its entirety.

 

Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent is NOT a licensee of Complainant. Respondent is NOT authorized or permitted to use Complainant's LYTICS marks. Nor is Respondent in privity with Complainant on any other basis. Respondent created the at-issue domain name after Complainant registered the LYTICS marks. Complainant's trademark registrations are sufficient to place Respondent on notice of Complainant's rights. There is no evidence of the Respondent's use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the at-issue domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services before any notice to the Respondent of the Complainant's rights in the LYTICS marks. Indeed, registering a domain name for purposes of typosquatting does not confer rights or legitimate interests in that domain. Additionally, Respondent's use of Complainant's trademark in the at-issue domain name deprives the Complainant of the ability to promote Complainant's services through the reservation of the at-issue domain name co-opted by Respondent. Respondent's use of a domain name that incorporates Complainant's LYTICS marks is interfering with Complainant's legitimate business interests. Thus, Respondent's use of <lytics.life> is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under ¶ 4(c)(i) of the Policy or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under ¶ 4(c)(iii) of the Policy.

 

Respondent registered and used the at-issue domain name in bad faith. Respondent had constructive knowledge of Complainant's rights in the LYTICS marks because the trademark applications for the marks were filed with the USPTO by Complainant prior to Respondent's registration of <lytics.life>. The domain name does not currently resolve to an active webpage. Even if, subsequent to the filing of this Complaint, the domain name remains parked and does not resolve to an active webpage, the domain is still an active threat for the purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(iii). Respondent has also exhibited bad faith under the Policy because it registered a typosquatted domain name. Specifically, Respondent is a typosquatter because, inter alia, the <lytics.life> domain is a nondistinctive typographical variant of the LYTICS marks with gTLD ".life" appended thereto. Registering a typosquatted domain name supports a finding of bad faith under the Policy. In addition, the Respondent never replied to Complainant's cease-and-desist letter notifying the Respondent of Complainant's rights in the LYTICS marks and requesting a reply. Respondent's failure to contest the Complainant's assertion of rights in the LYTICS marks supports a finding of bad faith registration and use. The act of knowingly using the LYTICS marks is itself indicative of bad faith intent on the part of the Respondent. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in LYTICS when it registered the <lytics.life> domain name. Respondent's bad faith is further established by the fact that the <lytics.life> initially addressed a website which mimicked Complainant's website. The fraudulent website has since been removed or deactivated. This demonstrates the Respondent was acting in bad faith by intentionally targeting Complainant and Complaint's customers. Respondent's fraudulent website was intended to and did divert and/or deceive Complainant's legitimate customers. For this reason, it is also clear the <lytics.life> domain was registered and used in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has trademark rights in LYTICS.

 

Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and is not authorized to use trademarks in any capacity.

 

Respondent registered the at‑issue domain name after Complainant acquired trademark rights in LYTICS.

 

Respondent used the at-issue domain name to address a website copying the look and feel of Complainant's genuine website and now holds the at-issue domain name passively.

 

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 3.0 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.

 

Any of Complainant's USPTO trademark registrations for its LYTICS trademark is sufficient to demonstrate Complainant's rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). 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 <lytics.life> domain name contains Complainant's LYTICS trademark followed by the ".life" top-level domain name. Adding a necessary top-level domain name to Complainant's mark to form the at-issue domain name fails to distinguish Respondent's domain name from Complainant's mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent's <lytics.life> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's LYTICS trademark. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Igor Gabrielan, FA 2072420 (Forum Jan. 8, 2024) (Stating: "Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), adding the ".ai" gTLD to a mark does not differentiate the domain name from the mark it incorporates…" and finding the subject domain name confusingly similar to the BLOOMBERG mark); see also, Société Anonyme des Bains de Mer et du Cercle des Etrangers à Monaco v. Qian Ling \u5289, D2024-2152 (WIPO Sept. 23, 2024) (finding <themontecarlo.life> confusingly similar to MONTE CARLO)

 

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). Since Respondent failed to respond, Complainant's prima facie showing acts conclusively.

 

Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. 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 interests in respect of the at‑issue domain name. See Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) ("lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant's mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)").

 

The WHOIS information for the at-issue domain name identifies the domain name's registrant as "boy boy" and the record before the Panel contains no evidence tending to prove that Respondent is commonly known as <lytics.life>.The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the <lytics.life> domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Braun Corp. v. Loney, FA 699652 (Forum July 7, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain names where the WHOIS information, as well as all other information in the record, gave no indication that the respondent was commonly known by the domain names, and the complainant had not authorized the respondent to register a domain name containing its registered mark).

 

Respondent previously used the at-issue domain name to address a website that mimicked Complainant's genuine website thereby Respondent posed as Complainant. Respondent's use of the domain name to impersonate in such manner Complainant indicates neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Ripple Labs Inc. v. NGYEN NGOC PHUONG THAO, FA 1741737 (Forum Aug. 21, 2017) ("Respondent uses the [disputed]domain name to divert Internet users to Respondent's website… confusing them into believing that some sort of affiliation exists between it and Complainant… [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).").

 

Respondent currently holds <lytics.life> passively. Upon browsing to <lytics.life> a network error message is returned stating in part "Bad gateway" while no substantive content is displayed. Respondent's failure to actively use <lytics.life> is not indicative of a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor of a non-commercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See CrossFirst Bankshares, Inc. v Yu-Hsien Huang, FA 1785415 (Forum June 6, 2018) ("Complainant demonstrates that Respondent fails to actively use the disputed domain name as it resolves to an inactive website. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent fails to actively use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).").

 

Given the forgoing, Respondent lacks rights and lacks legitimate interests in respect of <lytics.life>.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

As discussed below without limitation, Respondent has acted in bad faith.

 

Respondent has used the at-issue domain name to address a website mimicking Complainant's genuine website. Using the at-issue domain name to pass itself off as Complainant in this manner demonstrates Respondent's bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (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.")

 

Currently, Respondent holds <lytics.life> passively. Browsing to the domain name returns a network error message and lacks any substantive content. Respondent's passive holding of <lytics.life> demonstrates Respondent bad faith registration and use of <lytics.life>. See VideoLink, Inc. v. Xantech Corporation, FA 1608735 (Forum May 12, 2015) ("Failure to actively use a domain name is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)."). Notably, passive holding of a domain name may be seen as a disruption Complainant's business under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Love City Brewing Company v. Anker Fog / Love City Brewing Company, FA 1753144 (Forum Nov. 27, 2017) (Finding that Respondent disrupts Complainant's business by pointing internet users to an expired webpage. This may create the perception that Complainant is closed, never existed, or is not a legitimate business. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).).

 

Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the LYTICS mark when it registered <lytics.life> as a domain name. Respondent's prior knowledge of Complainant's trademark is evident from the notoriety of Complainant's mark, from the unique spelling of Complainant's mark, and from Respondent's use of the domain name to mimic Complainant's genuine website. Respondent's registration and use of a confusingly similar domain name with knowledge of Complainant's relevant trademark rights further shows Respondent's bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(iii). 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).

 

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 <lytics.life> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist

Dated: June 19, 2025