DECISION

 

Ingram Book Group LLC v. KDP Officials

Claim Number: FA2506002159085

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Ingram Book Group LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Ryan D. Levy, Tennessee, USA. Respondent is KDP Officials ("Respondent"), Illinois, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <ingrambookpublishing.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 June 4, 2025; Forum received payment on June 4, 2025.

 

On June 5, 2025, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <ingrambookpublishing.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 June 9, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 30, 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@ingrambookpublishing.com. Also on June 9, 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 July 1, 2025, 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

Complainant is a leading publishing and book distribution conglomerate, that has been a service leader in in the American book distribution market since the 1960s. Complainant has rights in the INGRAM mark based on registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (e.g., Reg. No. 1,173,201 registered October 13, 1981). Respondent's <ingrambookpublishing.com> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's INGRAM mark as it wholly incorporates the INGRAM mark and adds generic or descriptive terms and the ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD").

 

Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <ingrambookpublishing.com> domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name and is neither an authorized user or licensee of Complainant's INGRAM mark. Additionally, Respondent does not use the Domain Name for either a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor for any legitimate noncommercial or fair use, but instead uses the Domain Name to resolve to a website ("Respondent's Website") that purports to offer competing publishing services and book distribution services under the Complainant's mark in the United States, indicating that Respondent is passing off as Complainant or being associated with Complainant.

 

Respondent registered and uses the <ingrambookpublishing.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent uses the Domain Name to disrupt Complainant's business and to attract visitors for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant. Given the use of the Respondent's Website to offer competing publishing services under the Complainant's well-known INGRAM mark, Respondent likely registered the Domain Name with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the INGRAM mark.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant holds trademark rights for the INGRAM mark. The Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's INGRAM 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 3.0 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

Complainant has rights in the INGRAM mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its registration of the mark with the USPTO (e.g. Reg. No. 1,173,201 registered October 13, 1981). Registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to establish rights in that mark. 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 Domain Name is confusingly similar to the INGRAM mark as it incorporates the INGRAM mark and adds the descriptive terms "book" and "publishing" and the ".com" gTLD. Addition of generic or descriptive terms and a gTLD to a trademark is generally insufficient to negate confusing similarity between a domain name and a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Dell Inc. v. pushpender chauhan, FA 1784548 (Forum June 11, 2018) ("Respondent merely adds the term 'supports' and a '.org' gTLD to the DELL mark. Thus, the Panel finds Respondent's disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's DELL mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)."); see also Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognisable 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.").

 

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 INGRAM 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, FA1504001613011 (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, FA1505001621573 (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 information of record lists "KDP Officials" as the registrants 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 resolves to the Respondent's Website which purports to offer competing publishing services in the United States under the Complainant's INGRAM mark. The use of a confusingly similar domain name to divert internet users to a website offering services in competition with a complainant is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per 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).").  Furthermore, the use of a confusingly similar domain name to pass off as Complainant or as associated with a Complainant 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 Am. Int'l Group, Inc. v. Busby, FA 156251 (Forum May 30, 2003) (finding that the respondent attempts to pass itself off as the complainant online, which is blatant unauthorized use of the complainant's mark and is evidence that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name). 

 

The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

The Panel finds on the balance of probabilities that, at the time of registration of the Domain Name (October 25, 2024), Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's INGRAM mark since the Complainant has developed a significant reputation in the INGRAM mark in the publishing space over at least the last 60 years, Respondent purports to offer competing publishing services and the Respondent's Website reproduces the Complainant's INGRAM mark. There is no obvious explanation, nor has one been provided, for an entity to register a domain name that contains the INGRAM mark and use it to redirect visitors to a website purportedly offering publishing services in direct competition with the Complainant other than to take advantage of Complainant's reputation in the INGRAM 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 it seeks to create confusion with Complainant's INGRAM mark for commercial gain by the confusingly similar Domain Name to resolve to a website that purports to offer competing publishing services.  Using a confusingly similar domain name to trade upon the goodwill of a complainant can evince bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Xylem Inc. and Xylem IP Holdings LLC v. YinSi BaoHu YiKaiQi, FA1504001612750 (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).").

 

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 <ingrambookpublishing.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

 

Nicholas J.T. Smith, Panelist

Dated: July 2, 2025