DECISION

 

Actian Corporation v. ddffd gfgfdg / hjjtntyjtyjytj

Claim Number: FA2506002161545

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Actian Corporation ("Complainant"), represented by Edmond DeFrank, California, USA. Respondent is ddffd gfgfdg / hjjtntyjtyjytj ("Respondent"), China.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <actian1.com>, registered with Tucows Domains Inc.

 

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 June 18, 2025; Forum received payment on June 18, 2025.

 

On June 19, 2025, Tucows Domains Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <actian1.com> domain name is registered with Tucows Domains Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Tucows Domains Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Tucows Domains 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 23, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 14, 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@actian1.com. Also on June 23, 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 15, 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 followed:

 

Complainant owns a robust and enforceable portfolio of intellectual property rights in the ACTIAN brand, including registered trademarks, common law rights, and domain name usage that long predates the Respondent's registration of <actian1.com>.

 

Complainant owns a USPTO federally registered trademark for ACTIAN as well as the A logo mark. In addition, Complainant has developed significant goodwill and enforceable common law rights in the ACTIAN mark through continuous use in commerce since at least March 4, 2000.

 

The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights. Complainant owns the federally registered trademark ACTIAN. Complainant's relevant trademark and service mark rights were established many years before Respondent's registration of the at-issue domain name.  Respondent's adoption of a domain name that incorporates Complainant's well-known ACTIAN mark, with only the addition of a single character—the numeral "1" is a deliberate attempt to exploit Complainant's goodwill and brand recognition. It is a classic example of domain squatting, more specifically "typosquatting," where an infringer relies on minimal variations of a well-established mark to mislead internet users and divert traffic for illegitimate purposes.

 

Respondent has no legitimate interests in respect of the domain name. Respondent is not now, nor has it ever been, affiliated with Complainant. Complainant has never granted Respondent permission to use the ACTIAN name, the A logo, or any variation thereof. Complainant has never authorized Respondent to act on its behalf, to distribute its products or services, to operate under its name, or to promote or represent itself as being associated with Complainant. There exists no license, no partnership, no vendor relationship, no reseller agreement, and no informal or implied understanding between the parties. Respondent is a total stranger to Complainant and has never been entitled to use any mark, brand, domain, or content that references or copies Complainant's identity. Respondent went further and used the at-issue domain name <actian1.com> to impersonate Complainant and deceive consumers. Evidence confirms that Respondent previously operated a website at that domain name which not only mimicked the visual design of Complainant's official website but also contained unauthorized use of Complainant's registered trademarks ACTIAN and A. The site falsely presented itself as affiliated with Complainant and solicited payments from users under that false pretense. At least one documented customer was misled into paying one thousand dollars for services that were never provided. When the fraud was discovered, the Respondent refused to provide a refund. The website associated with the at-issue domain name is currently blank. The mere absence of current content does not negate the history of bad faith. On the contrary, it confirms that the domain remains a latent threat. The addition of a single digit to a well-known brand name is a classic example of what is known in domain law as typographical squatting. Respondent's prior website also included multiple false and fraudulent representations. These included the use of Complainant's federally registered trademarks in promotional graphics, including mobile interface imagery, and false claims that Respondent had received payment from users for employment opportunities or commissions. These statements were entirely fabricated and clearly intended to deceive. At no point has Complainant offered or permitted such programs. Respondent's objective is clear: to profit commercially by diverting traffic and trust away from Complainant and toward its own illegitimate scheme. There is no good faith explanation for the Respondent's conduct. The Respondent is not commonly known by the name ACTIAN, has not used the domain name for any legitimate business purpose, and has not operated a noncommercial or educational site that might invoke a fair use defense. Instead, the Respondent's actions fall squarely within the definition of bad faith and trademark abuse contemplated by the UDRP.

 

The domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.  Respondent's registration and use of the domain name reflect a calculated and sustained pattern of bad faith conduct. The record shows that the domain was not registered innocently or arbitrarily, but rather with the specific intent to impersonate Complainant, mislead consumers, divert commercial opportunities, and cause harm to Complainant's brand reputation. This conduct falls squarely within the bad faith scenarios outlined in Policy Paragraph 4(b)(iv). Respondent has engaged in the illegal trafficking of counterfeit goods and services under the ACTIAN name. This activity is not only unlawful but also deeply harmful to Complainant. Respondent has further used the at-issue domain name as a deceptive tool to mislead consumers and divert them away from Complainant's official website at <actian.com>. Respondent's conduct also violates Complainant's posted Terms and Conditions, as published on its official website.  Respondent is not acting in isolation but may be part of a broader scheme organized outside the United States to profit from the sale of counterfeit products that infringe Complainant's trademarks. The use of Complainant's trademarks and corporate identity in connection with counterfeit goods and misleading statements confirms Respondent's intent to deceive consumers. Respondent is not merely a passive holder of an at-issue domain. It has actively used the domain to mislead, defraud, and confuse.  Respondent has used that domain to promote unauthorized and unlawful goods, impersonate Complainant, and exploit consumer trust for commercial gain. Complainant respectfully submits that such conduct meets every definition of bad faith under Policy Paragraph 4(b)

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has rights in the ACTIAN trademark.

 

Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and had not been authorized to use Complainant's trademark in any capacity.

 

Respondent registered the at-issue domain name after Complainant acquired rights in the ACTIAN trademark.

 

Respondent's at-issue domain name addressed a website made to appear like it might be Complainant's genuine website so that Respondent might pass itself off as Complainant and divert consumers to Respondent's sham website in furtherance of fraud.

 

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.

 

Complainant's USPTO registration for ACTIAN 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 <actian1.com> domain name contains Complainant's ACTIAN mark followed by the numeral "1," with all followed by the ".com" top-level. The differences between Respondent's domain name and Complainant's trademark are insufficient to distinguish such domain name from Complainant's ACTIAN mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent's at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights. See HDR Global Trading Limited v. Jacob Tan Zhang En, Perfso Technology, FA 2007571 (finding <bitmex1.xyz> to be confusingly similar to Complainant's BITMEX trademark).

 

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, absent evidence of Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances Complainant's prima facie showing acts conclusively.

 

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 Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC v. Taha Shaikh / Tskdesigners, FA 1814475 (Forum Nov. 25, 2018) (finding no rights or legitimate interests in <spectrumfeature.com> because complainant never gave respondent permission to use the mark in any manner and "Panels may use these assertions as evidence that no rights or legitimate interests exist in a disputed domain name.")

 

The WHOIS information for <actian1.com> indicates that "ddffd gfgfdg / hjjtntyjtyjytj" is the domain name's registrant and there is nothing in the record that tends to prove that Respondent is known by the <actian1.com> domain name. As such, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).

 

Respondent used the confusingly similar <actian1.com> domain name to direct internet consumers to a website posing as if it is an official website of Complainant. Respondent's use of <actian1.com> to pass itself off as Complainant and thereby divert internet traffic to Respondent's website and offer counterfeit goods or services, or any goods or services, for-sale 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 Glaxo Group Ltd. v. WWW Zban, FA 203164 (Forum Dec. 1, 2003) (finding that the respondent was not using the domain name within the parameters of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii) because the respondent used the domain name to take advantage of the complainant's mark by diverting internet users to a competing commercial site); see also, Insomniac Holdings, LLC v. Mark Daniels, FA 1735969 (Forum July 15, 2017) (refusing to find rights and legitimate interests in a domain name on the part of a respondent when the disputed domain name "resolves to a website that Respondent has designed to mimic Complainant's own in an attempt to pass itself off as Complainant").

 

Given the forgoing, Respondent lacks rights and lacks legitimate interests in respect of <actian1.com>.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

As discussed below without being exhaustive, Respondent acted in bad faith.

 

As mentioned above, Respondent's at-issue domain name addressed Respondent's <actian1.com> website. The website mimicked the design of Complainant's official website and was used to facilitate Respondent passing itself off as Complainant so that it might deceive internet users into falsely believing that the domain name and its associated website were sponsored by Complainant. There, Respondent purported to offer products and/or services for-sale. However, although Respondent collected payments Respondent failed to delivered any products or services whatsoever. Respondent's fraudulent use of the confusingly similar domain name in this manner was disruptive to Complainant's business and designed to attract internet users so that Respondent might capitalize on the confusion Respondent created between its <actian1.com> domain name and Complainant's ACTIAN trademark. Respondent's prior use of <actian1.com> thus demonstrates the domain name's bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and Policy ¶ 4(b)(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.")

 

Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the ACTIAN mark when it registered <actian1.com> as a domain name. Respondent's prior knowledge of Complainant's trademark is evident from the notoriety of Complainant's mark and from Respondent's prior use of <actian1.com> to pass itself off as Complainant. Respondent's registration and use of the confusingly similar <actian1.com> domain name with knowledge of Complainant's rights in ACTIAN further shows Respondent's bad faith registration and use of <actian1.com> pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Lemon Inc. v. Sumer Singh, FA 2110519 (Forum September 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); see also, Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION 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 <actian1.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist

Dated: July 16, 2025