DECISION

 

Aspen OpCo, LLC v. claude freshour / Aven waller

Claim Number: FA2507002168024

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Aspen OpCo, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Neil Peluchette of Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP, Indiana, USA. Respondent is claude freshour / Aven waller ("Respondent"), USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES

The domain names at issue are <aspenpubilshing.com> and <aspnpublishing.com> ("Domain Names"), registered with Dynadot Inc and 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 July 28, 2025; Forum received payment on July 28, 2025.

 

On July 28, 2025 and July 29, 2025, Dynadot Inc and NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <aspenpubilshing.com> and <aspnpublishing.com> domain names are registered with Dynadot Inc and NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Dynadot Inc and NameCheap, Inc. have verified that Respondent is bound by the Dynadot Inc and NameCheap, Inc. registration agreements 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 29, 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@aspenpubilshing.com, postmaster@aspnpublishing.com. Also on July 29, 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 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 Names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE RESPONDENTS

In the instant proceedings, Complainant has alleged that the entities which control the domain names at issue are effectively controlled by the same person and/or entity, which is operating under several aliases.  Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") provides that a "complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder." 

 

Complainant contends that the registrants for the Domain Names are related because the Domain Names were registered within weeks of each other, both consisting of obvious misspellings of the ASPEN PUBLISHING mark, and both are used for identical illicit phishing purposes. In particular, both of the Domain Names are used for e-mails impersonating the exact same named employee of the Complainant. This evidence, in the Panel's opinion, strongly suggests that the Domain Names are owned/controlled by a single Respondent; were the named Respondents unrelated, it would be unlikely that two unconnected entities would register two domain names each consisting of a misspelling of the ASPEN PUBLISHING mark within weeks of each other and use the domain names to impersonate the same employee of the Complainant.     

 

In light of these contentions, which none of the identified Respondents deny, the Panel concludes that, on the balance of probabilities, the Domain Names are commonly owned/controlled by a single Respondent who is using multiple aliases.  Hereafter the single Respondent will be referred to as "Respondent" in this Decision.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant is the holding company for Aspen Publishing LLC which since 2021 has provided legal educational content and learning solutions under the ASPEN PUBLISHING mark. Complainant has rights in the ASPEN PUBLISHING mark through its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (e.g. Reg. No. 7,233,167 registered December 5, 2023). Respondent's <aspenpubilshing.com> and <aspnpublishing.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant's ASPEN PUBLISHING mark as they consist of minor misspellings of the mark and add a generic top-level domain ("gTLD").

 

Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names. Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Names, nor has Respondent been authorized by Complainant to use the ASPEN PUBLISHING mark. Respondent has not used the Domain Names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Rather, the Domain Names are used for a phishing scheme where Respondent impersonates Complainant to defraud customers of the Complainant.

 

Respondent registered and uses the Domain Names in bad faith. Respondent has used the Domain bad faith by attempting to impersonate Complainant in furtherance of a phishing scheme. Lastly, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the ASPEN PUBLISHING mark prior to registration of the Domain Names given Respondent's use of the Domain Names to pass off as Complainant, indeed a named employee of Complainant.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant holds trademark rights for the ASPEN PUBLISHING mark.  Each of the Domain Names is confusingly similar to the Complainant's ASPEN PUBLISHING mark.  Complainant has established that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names and that Respondent registered and has used the Domain Names 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 ASPEN PUBLISHING mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (e.g. Reg. No. 7,233,167 registered December 5, 2023). 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 each of <aspenpubilshing.com> and <aspnpublishing.com> is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's ASPEN PUBLISHING mark as they each consist of a minor misspelling of the ASPEN PUBLISHING mark (either reversing the order of the letters "li" or removing the letter "e") and add the ".com" gTLD.  Misspelling a mark and adding a gTLD is insufficient to negate confusing similarity between a domain name and the mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).  See Western Alliance Bancorporation v. James Brandon, FA 1783001 (Forum June 5, 2018) ("Respondent's <westernalliancebcorporation.info> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's WESTERN ALLIANCE BANCORPORATION mark because it merely appends the gTLD '.info' to a misspelled version of Complainant's mark.").

 

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 Names. 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 Names 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 Names as Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Names, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the ASPEN PUBLISHING 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, FA 1613011 (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, FA 1621573 (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 lists "claude freshour / Aven waller" as registrant 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 Names in accordance with Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

The Domain Names are presently inactive which by itself does not show a bona fide offering of goods and services. Complainant alleges, and provides evidence supporting its allegations, that Respondent uses email addresses associated with Domain Names to attempt to pass itself off as Complainant in furtherance of a phishing scam, being a scheme where Respondent sends e-mails to Complainant's clients, purportedly from Complainant, with fake invoices directing payment of sums of money into accounts unconnected to Complainant. Respondent's use of the Domain Names to support a scheme to impersonate Complainant for the purpose of engaging in a phishing scheme 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 Emerson Electric Co. v. Adilcon Rocha, FA 1735949 (Forum July 11, 2017) (finding that respondent's attempt to pass off as complainant through emails does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services and, as such, respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name); see also Caterpillar Inc. v. ruth weinstein, FA 1770352 (Forum Mar. 7, 2018) ("Use of a disputed domain name in an attempt to pass itself off as a complainant and to conduct a phishing scheme is indicative of a failure to use said domain name in connection with a bona fide offer of goods and services per Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or otherwise fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).").

 

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

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

The Panel finds that, at the time Respondent registered the Domain Names (June 2025), Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's ASPEN PUBLISHING mark. The Respondent has used the Domain Names to pass itself off as Complainant (indeed a named employee of the Complainant) for financial gain. 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 Names in bad faith as Respondent uses email addresses associated with the Domain Names to attempt to pass itself off as an employee of the Complainant (indeed a named employee of Complainant) to disrupt the Complainant's business or for financial gain. Using a disputed domain name to pass off as an employee of a complainant via email can demonstrate bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b) (iii) and (iv). See Abbvie, Inc. v. James Bulow, FA 1701075 (Forum Nov. 30, 2016) ("Respondent uses the <abbuie.com> domain name to impersonate Complainant's CEO. Such use is undeniably disruptive to Complainant's business and demonstrates bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii), and/or Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)"); see also Qatalyst Partners LP v. Devimore, FA 1393436 (Forum July 13, 2011) (finding that using the disputed domain name as an e-mail address to pass itself off as the complainant in a phishing scheme is evidence of bad faith registration and use).  Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the Domain Names in bad faith pursuant to 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 <aspenpubilshing.com> and <aspnpublishing.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Nicholas J.T. Smith, Panelist

Dated: August 19, 2025