DECISION
Auctane LLC v. Neel Seth
Claim Number: FA2508002173736
PARTIES
Complainant is Auctane LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Patrick J. Jennings of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Neel Seth ("Respondent"), India.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <shipstation.ai>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
PANEL
Alan L. Limbury, as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on August 26, 2025. Forum received payment on August 26, 2025.
On August 27, 2025, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <shipstation.ai> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, 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 August 28, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 17, 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@shipstation.ai. Also on August 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 September 18, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Alan L. Limbury 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
Founded in 2011, Complainant, Auctane LLC, is a leading global shipping and logistics company. Its software supports and facilitates billions of shipments each year. Complainant's services enable businesses to manage complex logistics channels. One of Complainant's service offerings is provided under the mark SHIPSTATION. Complainant's SHIPSTATION services streamline shipping and fulfillment for businesses of all sizes, from ecommerce startups to global enterprises. Those services help businesses scale up their delivery services, create integrated warehouse networks, and build customer loyalty via efficient shipping.
Complainant owns and uses the domain name <shipstation.com> in connection with its business and owns federal registrations in the United States of America for the SHIPSTATION word and SHIPSTATION design marks.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <shipstation.ai> domain name or any SHIPSTATION names or trademarks. Respondent does not have any connection with Complainant, yet is using the domain name in connection with a website that contains the SHIPSTATION mark and purports to offer website design services. Respondent is using a confusingly similar domain name to divert Internet users seeking Complainant's <shipstation.com> website to Respondent's website. Such use does not constitute a bona fide offering or a legitimate noncommercial use. Respondent is not commonly known or identified by the domain name or SHIPSTATION mark. Respondent's registration of the domain name does not automatically establish a legitimate interest in that domain. Respondent is not a licensee or partner of Complainant, nor is it otherwise authorized to use any of Complainant's marks.
The <shipstation.ai> domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith to falsely suggest a partnership, connection, and affiliation with Complainant; to confuse and defraud consumers; and to capitalize on Complainant's reputation.
Respondent is using the domain name in connection with a website that contains the SHIPSTATION mark and purports to offer website design services. The Terms of Service for the domain name show that the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The address listed in the Terms of Service (https://shipstation.ai/terms.html) is obviously fake, referring to a country that does not exist: Karnataka. These sorts of fake addresses are common evidence of bad faith domain name registration.
Upon information and belief, Respondent registered the domain name for an unlawful purpose and knew that it would be infringing Complainant's rights in the SHIPSTATION mark at the time the domain name was registered.
Respondent had constructive notice of Complainant's federally registered SHIPSTATION marks when it registered the domain name. Respondent is using the domain name to defraud consumers and pass themselves off as Complainant. Respondent's use of the domain name is likely to continue to cause confusion in the marketplace and lead consumers to mistakenly believe that Respondent is affiliated with Complainant. While some consumers may eventually figure out that Respondent does not actually have any connection with Complainant, Respondent will have already succeeded in using a confusingly similar domain name to attract and redirect those consumers for commercial gain. Respondent's intentional effort to attract and mislead consumers for commercial gain depends entirely upon its use of a domain that is confusingly similar to Complainant's trademarks and domain name. Respondent's behavior constitutes cybersquatting under Section 43(a)(d)(1)(A) of the Lanham Act, trademark infringement under Sections 32(1)(a) and 43(a) of the Lanham Act, unfair competition, and bad faith registration and use of the domain name under Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
FINDINGS
Complainant has failed to establish all the elements entitling it to relief.
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 shown that it has rights in the word mark SHIPSTATION , namely USPTO Reg. No. 4,121,835, registered on April 3, 2012, and the design mark consisting of the word SHIPSTATION with a gear symbol in the place of the letter "O", Reg. No. 5,174,805, registered on April 4, 2017, both for "Application service provider (ASP) featuring software for use in managing online and offline sales transactions, customer records, and shipments", in International Class 42,
The Panel finds Respondent's <shipstation.ai> domain name to be confusingly similar to Complainant's SHIPSTATION word mark, since the inconsequential ".ai" generic top-level domain ("gTLD") may be ignored under this element. See, for example, Rollerblade, Inc. v. Chris McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000).
Complainant has established this element.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
(ii) Respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert customers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
The <shipstation.ai> domain name was registered on August 23, 2023, several years after the registration of Complainant's marks. It resolves to a website prominently displaying the "ShipStation.AI" domain name and uses SHIPSTATION as its name. The website promotes website design services. Its look and feel are entirely different from those of Complainant's website.
The SHIPSTATION mark comprises two dictionary words and the Panel is not persuaded that Respondent, located in India, was likely to have been aware of Complainant or its SHIPSTATION marks when registering the domain name. Even if Respondent was so aware, its use of the domain name in connection with website generation services, which are entirely different from those for which Complainant's marks are registered, does not establish intent on the part of Respondent to trade off the reputation of Complainant's marks. Accordingly, the Panel finds that, before any notice to Respondent of this dispute, Respondent has used the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of services, and that Respondent has rights and legitimate interests in the <shipstation.ai> domain name for purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(ii).
Complainant has failed to establish this element.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
In light of the Panel's finding above, it is unnecessary to consider this element.
Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
Reverse Domain Name Hijacking ("RDNH") is defined in Rule 1 as "using the Policy in bad faith to attempt to deprive a registered domain-name holder of a domain name". Rule 15(e) provides, in part:
"If after considering the submissions the Panel finds that the complaint was brought in bad faith, for example in an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking or was brought primarily to harass the domain-name holder, the Panel shall declare in its decision that the complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding."
As noted above, Complainant, through its Counsel, submits that the Terms of Service for the Domain Name show that the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith because the address listed in the Terms of Service is "obviously fake, referring to a country that does not exist: Karnataka, and that these sorts of fake addresses are common evidence of bad faith domain name registration".
The Panel considers this to be a knowingly false statement because Karnataka is an Indian State and Respondent's address, set out in the Complaint, namely [number] Sobha Garnet, Bengaluru, Karnataka, 560103, India is a genuine address.
The Panel therefore finds that the Complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding.
DECISION
Complainant having not established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <shipstation.ai> domain name REMAIN WITH Respondent.
Alan L. Limbury, Panelist
Dated: September 22, 2025
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page