DECISION

 

IZEA Worldwide, Inc. v. Muhammad Amjad

Claim Number: FA2507002167789

 

PARTIES

Complainant is IZEA Worldwide, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Terry M. Sanks of Beusse Sanks, PLLC, Florida, USA. Respondent is Muhammad Amjad ("Respondent"), Pakistan.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <izeatrades.com>, registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com.

 

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.

 

Charles A. Kuechenmeister, Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on July 25, 2025; Forum received payment on July 25, 2025.

 

On July 28, 2025, PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <izeatrades.com> domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com 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 July 28, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint setting a deadline of August 18, 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@izeatrades.com. Also on July 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 August 19, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Charles A. Kuechenmeister 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 a Response or any other submittal from Respondent.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant disseminates advertising material for others. It has rights in the IZEA mark based upon its registration of that mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's mark as it fully incorporates the IZEA mark as the dominant element.

 

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. It is not commonly known by the domain name, Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its IZEA mark, Respondent registered the domain name long after Complainant acquired its rights in the IZEA mark, Respondent is not using the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use but instead uses it to attract Internet users to its own website where it conducts scam and/or fraudulent activities, and "simply to sale them," and Respondent is attempting to have consumers believe that Respondent and Complainant "were one in the same and collect money consumers based on this false belief."

 

Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith. It registered the domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant and its rights in the IZEA mark, it attempts to attract Internet users to its websites by causing confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship affiliation or endorsement of its website, and it registered and is using the domain name to perpetuate [sic] fraud on consumers.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

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 a Complainant to prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order cancelling or transferring a domain name:

 

(1)       the domain name registered by the respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and

(2)       the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

(3)       the domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith.

 

In view of Respondent's failure to submit a Response, pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules the Panel will decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations 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 as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent's failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true). Nevertheless, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. 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"), WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (WIPO Overview 3.0), at ¶ 4.3 ("In cases involving wholly unsupported and conclusory allegations advanced by the complainant, . . . panels may find that—despite a respondent's default—a complainant has failed to prove its case.").  The WIPO Overview is not a definitive statement of applicable law which governs any particular issue, but it does express a consensus among a significant number of UDRP panelists as to how particular issues typically are and should be resolved. This Panel accepts that consensus on this and other issues addressed later in this Decision.

 

The Panel finds as follows with respect to the matters at issue in this proceeding:

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The IZEA mark was registered to IZEA, Inc. with the USPTO (Reg. No. 3,528,739) on November 4, 2008 (USPTO registration certificate submitted as Complaint Exhibit C). There is no evidence of any corporate relationship between IZEA, Inc. and Complainant. Indeed, the Complaint states that Complainant was incorporated in Nevada in 2010 and thereafter registered its business in Florida. It submitted a copy of a printout from the Florida Division of Corporations (Complaint Exhibit A) verifying Complainant's registration in Florida as a foreign corporation in 2014. IZEA, Inc., the company that registered the mark with the USPTO, is identified in the USPTO registration certificate as a Delaware corporation, so it appears that the registered owner of the mark is not the same entity as Complainant. Nor is there any evidence of an assignment of the mark from IZEA, Inc. to Complainant or authorization from IZEA, Inc. for Complainant to bring this proceeding. Complainant's registration of the <izea.com> domain name, as evidenced by a WHOIS printout submitted as Complaint Exhibit D, is not in and of itself conclusive evidence of its ownership of the mark itself. In short, Complainant has offered no persuasive evidence that it owns or has rights in the IZEA mark. Complainant has failed to meet the requirements of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). 

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests, Registration or Use in Bad Faith

As Complainant has failed to satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), the Panel may decline to analyze the other elements of the Policy.  Netsertive, Inc. v. Ryan Howard / Howard Technologies, Ltd., FA 1721637 (Forum Apr. 17, 2017) (finding that because the complainant must prove all three elements under the Policy, the complainant's failure to prove one of the elements makes further inquiry into the remaining element unnecessary), Wasatch Shutter Design v. Duane Howell / The Blindman, FA 1731056 (Forum June 23, 2017) (deciding not to inquire into the respondent's rights or legitimate interests or its registration and use in bad faith where the complainant could not satisfy the requirements of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). The Panel elects to adopt this approach and does not analyze the other two elements in detail. The Panel does note, however, that the evidence submitted in support of the Policy ¶¶ 4(a)(ii) and 4(a)(iii) elements also falls short of proving either of those elements. The only evidence of Respondent's use of the domain name is what the Complaint describes as an email (Complaint Exhibit E) Complainant received from a person who was deceived by the Respondent's website into thinking it was associated with Complainant. Exhibit E is not a copy of the entire email itself, showing date, identity of the sender and the addressee, or the entire body of the communication. The portion that is submitted states in its entirety as follows:

 

They uses this link https://izeatrades.com and told to sign in on izea traders... please blet me know if it is real or fakeand secondly i am sending you the picture of dashboard please let me know if it is real or fake

 izeatrades.com

Start Trading Crypto Securely on izeatrades.com - Your Trusted Crypto Platform Trade crypto securely and easily on izeatrades.com. Start buying, selling, and managing digital assets today on a trusted platform. Join now! (450 kB)

 

Below the text is a photo of the dashboard for the <izeatrades.com> website, which appears to offer trading opportunity, but nowhere is there any evidence of the fraudulent conduct alleged by Complainant.  Without a screenshot of Respondent's website or some other competent evidence of Respondent's use of the domain name, it is not possible for the Panel to make any determination as to the truth of Complainant's allegations relevant to these elements of its case. It has failed to meet the requirements of Policy ¶¶ 4(a)(ii) and 4(a)(iii) as well.

 

DECISION

Complainant having failed to establish all three elements required under the Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <izeatrades.com> domain name shall REMAIN WITH Respondent.

 

 

 

Charles A. Kuechenmeister, Panelist

August 22, 2025