DECISION

 

Polaris Industries Inc. v. Barbara Blue

Claim Number: FA2507002168080

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Polaris Industries Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Lindsay M.R. Jones of Merchant & Gould, P.C., Minnesota, USA. Respondent is Barbara Blue ("Respondent"), Kansas, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <usa-polaris.com>, registered with Register.com - Network Solutions, 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 July 28, 2025; Forum received payment on July 28, 2025.

 

On July 28, 2025, Register.com - Network Solutions, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <usa-polaris.com> domain name is registered with Register.com - Network Solutions, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Register.com - Network Solutions, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Register.com - Network Solutions, 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 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@usa-polaris.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 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:

 

Polaris is an American automotive manufacturer headquartered in Medina, Minnesota. Polaris was founded in 1943 in Roseau, Minnesota, where it still has engineering and manufacturing facilities. Polaris first adopted the POLARIS Marks in the 1940s when it first began offering powersports products and services, including snowmobiles and parts and services related thereto. Polaris has used and expanded the same consistently, without interruption, since that date and now provides a wide range of powersports products and associated goods and services such as snowmobiles, ATVs and UTVs, and three-wheeled motor vehicles.

 

The at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to the POLARIS marks. The Complaint is based on Complainant's ownership of a wide variety of global trademark registrations for the POLARIS trademarks and service marks and derivatives thereof and corresponding common law rights to the same. Complainant's registrations include multiple USPTO registrations for POLARIS. The domain name includes the dominant portion of the POLARIS marks – the term POLARIS. Accordingly, the domain name is confusingly similar to the POLARIS marks pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Use of the geographically descriptive wording "USA" does not change the fact that the domain prominently features the POLARIS marks. Moreover, addition of the top-level domain ".com" is immaterial under the Policy.

 

Respondent does not have any right or legitimate interest in the domain name. The registration of a domain name for the purpose of diverting online traffic premised on consumer confusion and securing proprietary financial information and data under the guise of another party is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i). A respondent's use of a domain name to trick consumers into visiting its website is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i). Respondent's intent in registering the domain name was to divert traffic away from Complainant, not to legitimately use the names in connection with the sale of goods or services. This is clearly shown by Respondent's use of the POLARIS marks in connection with phishing emails purported to come from Polaris itself and relate to its goods and services, despite the fact that the underlying domain name features a website for unrelated content and is solely used for purposes of an attack intended to seek financial information from Polaris' customers. Unsuspecting consumers attempting to visit Polaris' legitimate website may therefore inadvertently visit Respondent's site because the domain name appears identical or near identical to Complainant's POLARIS marks and ultimately be led to the website offered by Respondent, or worse, because of its use of the at-issue domain name, engage with Respondent and provide it with financial data because it believes Respondent is Complainant vis-à-vis its use of the domain name. Consumers are likely to be confused regarding the content of the site or who Respondent is. Respondent, in turn, profits off of its use of the POLARIS marks in connection with the domain name in its diversion of web traffic and attempts to gain access to confidential financial information of Polaris' consumers. Respondent also has no legitimate right to the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) in that it has not received permission to use the POLARIS marks. Furthermore, Respondent does not use the marks for legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) because Respondent uses the domain name to perpetuate a scheme that involves deceiving consumers seeking Polaris and its products offered under the POLARIS marks and using the domain name to phish for financial information and data under the guise that it is Complainant. Further, Respondent is not using the domain name for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) because the name is used to resolve to a website displaying the sale of unrelated services on the premise the site belongs to Complainant and relates to its authentic POLARIS brand goods and services.

 

The domain name has been registered and used in bad faith. Because the domain name acts to divert Polaris' customers to Respondent's website Respondent has also acted in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). Moreover, and of great importance, Respondent acted in bad faith when it used the domain name to phish for Polaris' consumers' financial information and data. Respondent's registration of the domain name was in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii) because at the time the name was registered, Respondent knew of Polaris' rights and engaged in a pattern of such registration to prevent Polaris from using the domain name. Respondent's diversion of traffic to competitive product offerings also shows bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). Bad faith intent pursuant to Policy ¶4(b)(iv) can be inferred from Respondent's choosing to use a designation that it knows to be similar to another's registered trademark in order to attract consumers to its website. Respondent has also made deliberate use of the <usa-polaris.com> for purposes of gathering financial information and data from consumers of Polaris who believe the domain name is owned by Polaris and subsequently login to the site or provide financial information and data or credit card and payment information to purchase goods or services. Inducing users into disclosing personal information based on a fraudulent scheme from a disputed domain name constitutes phishing. Wrongful use of others' trademarks to extort information from unsuspecting and unwary people, by using the at-issue domain name for phishing activity, is considered abusive registration of the disputed domain name under the Policy.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has rights in the POLARIS mark.

 

Respondent has not been authorized to use Complainant's trademark.

 

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

 

Respondent uses at-issue domain name to divert internet traffic intended for Complainant to Respondent's unrelated website and to facilitate phishing.

 

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 multiple USPTO trademark registration for its POLARIS mark establishes Complainant's rights in such mark for the purposes of 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)).

 

The at-issue domain name consists of Complainant's POLARIS trademark prefixed by the geographic term "usa" and a hyphen with all followed by the ".com" top level domain name. The differences between <usa-polaris.com> and Complainant's POLARIS trademark are insufficient to distinguish the domain name from Complainant's trademark for the purposes of the Policy. Therefore, the Panel finds pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) that Respondent's <usa-polaris.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's POLARIS trademark. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognizable 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.").

 

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 the 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 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 "Barbara Blue" and the record before the Panel contains no evidence tending to suggest that Respondent is commonly known by either the <usa-polaris.com> domain name or by POLARIS. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the <usa-polaris.com> domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Instron Corp. v. Kaner, FA 768859 (Forum Sept. 21, 2006) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain names because the WHOIS information listed "Andrew Kaner c/o Electromatic a/k/a Electromatic Equip't" as the registrant and there was no other evidence in the record to suggest that the respondent was commonly known by the domain names in dispute). 

 

Respondent uses the <usa-polaris.com> domain name to direct internet users seeking Complainant to Respondent's <usa-polaris.com> website where it may then promote services that are unrelated the POLARIS mark as well as obtain confidential information from internet users e.g. Polaris' dealers and consumers, in reference to the very goods sold by Polaris – despite the fact that the associated domain name relates to what appears to be stock content featuring hotel accommodation services. Respondent's use of the <usa-polaris.com> domain name to confuse internet users as to Complainant's association with the domain name so that it might capitalize on internet traffic seeking Complainant shows that Respondent uses <usa-polaris.com> for neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Summit Group, LLC v. LSO, Ltd., FA 758981 (Forum Sept. 14, 2006) (finding that the respondent's use of the complainant's LIFESTYLE LOUNGE mark to redirect internet users to respondent's own website for commercial gain does not constitute either 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)); see also, Enterprise Holdings, Inc. v. I S / Internet Consulting Services Inc., FA 1785242 (Forum June 5, 2018)("On its face, the use of a domain name that is confusingly similar to the mark of another in order to facilitate a phishing scheme cannot be described as either a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶4(c)(iii).").

 

Given the forgoing, Respondent's lacks rights and lacks interests in respect of <usa-polaris.com>.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

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

 

Respondent's use of the confusingly similar at-issue domain name so that it might somehow benefit from traffic intended for Complainant being redirected to Respondent's <usa-polaris.com> website is disruptive to Complainant's business and shows that Respondent is improperly trading off Complainant's POLARIS mark. Such use demonstrates Respondent's bad faith registration and use of <usa-polaris.com> pursuant to Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). See Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Domain ID Shield Service / Domain ID Shield Service CO., Limited, FA1905001841700 (Forum June 21, 2019) (finding that respondent was using "chevronplacement.com" in bad faith in order to "disrupt the business of Complainant by causing internet users to think an affiliation exists between Respondent's domain names and Complainant.).

 

Respondent's misappropriation of Complainant's trademark to form Respondent's <usa-polaris.com> domain name may also be exploited by Respondent via an array of fraudulent activities. Indeed, Respondent's apparent intent to use the at-issue domain name as part of a phishing scheme aimed at collecting private data additionally shows Respondent's bad faith regarding <usa-polaris.com>. See Morgan Stanley v. Bruce Pu, FA 1764120 (Forum Feb. 2, 2018) ("[T]he screenshot of the resolving webpage allows users to input their name and email address, which Complainant claims Respondent uses that to fraudulently phish for information. Thus, the Panel agrees that Respondent phishes for information and finds that Respondent does so in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).").

 

Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the POLARIS mark when it registered the at-issue domain name. Respondent's actual knowledge is evident from the notoriety of Complainant's mark and from Respondent's design to impersonate Complainant in furtherance of fraud as discussed above. Respondent's registration and use of the confusingly similar domain name with knowledge of Complainant's rights in POLARIS further shows Respondent's bad faith. See Norgren GmbH v. Domain Admin / Private Registrations Aktien Gesellschaft, FA1501001599884 (Forum Feb. 25, 2014) (holding that the respondent had actual knowledge of the complainant and its rights in the mark, thus demonstrating bad faith registration under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii), where the respondent was using the disputed domain name to purposely host links related to the complainant's field of operation).

 

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 <usa-polaris.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist

Dated: August 20, 2025