DECISION

 

Auctane LLC v. Brett Bloom

Claim Number: FA2508002173738

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Auctane LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Patrick J. Jennings of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Brett Bloom ("Respondent"), represented by Jodi-Ann Tillman of Shutts & Bowen LLP, Florida, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <stamps.ai>, registered with Key-Systems GmbH.

 

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.

 

Paddy Tam 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, Key-Systems GmbH confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <stamps.ai> domain name is registered with Key-Systems GmbH and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Key-Systems GmbH has verified that Respondent is bound by the Key-Systems GmbH 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 27, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 16, 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@stamps.ai. Also on August 27, 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.

 

A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on September 16, 2025.

 

On September 17, 2025, pursuant to the Parties' requests to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Paddy Tam 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

The Complainant, founded in 2011, is a global shipping and logistics company whose software supports billions of shipments annually. One of its key offerings is STAMPS.COM, a platform with over four million customers that provides postage printing, shipping label services, online postage discounts, and integration with major carriers and leading e-commerce platforms.

 

The company owns and uses the STAMPS.COM mark and domain name, as well as the SHIPSTATION mark (in use since 1998). It also holds multiple valid U.S. federal registrations for the STAMPS.COM, STAMPS.COM ONLINE, and STAMPSCOM marks, many of which are legally incontestable, making the marks distinctive and entitled to broad protection.

 

The Disputed Domain Name fully incorporates and prominently features Complainant's STAMPS.COM mark, and the ".ai" TLD does not affect the confusing similarity analysis.

 

The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the STAMPS.COM mark or the Disputed Domain Name. Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant, nor authorized to use its marks. Instead, Respondent is using a confusingly similar domain to divert users seeking Complainant's website, which is neither a bona fide offering nor a legitimate noncommercial use. Respondent is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name, its registration alone does not create rights, and it has no license, partnership, or authorization from Complainant. The Disputed Domain Name is not used for a bona fide offering or legitimate noncommercial purposes and is likely to cause ongoing marketplace confusion.

 

The Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith to falsely suggest a connection with Complainant, confuse consumers, and profit from Complainant's reputation. The registration was made with knowledge of Complainant's federally registered STAMPS.COM mark and without authorization, license, or partnership.

 

B. Respondent

The Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name stamps.ai on December 16, 2017, for a legitimate business, STAMPS.AI, INC., incorporated in Delaware on January 4, 2017. The business provides a software-as-a-service application for stamp collectors to manage, analyze, and organize their collections. At the time of registration, Respondent was unaware of Complainant or its trademarks and only became aware upon receiving the Complaint on August 27, 2025, nearly eight years later.

 

Complainant asserts trademarks including STAMPS.COM, STAMPS.COM ONLINE, STAMPSCOM, and SHIPSTATION for shipping and printing services. The Disputed Domain Name is not identical to any of these marks, as it consists solely of the word "stamps," which Complainant does not claim as a standalone trademark. Respondent's use is for a stamp-collecting software service, entirely different in purpose from Complainant's shipping and printing services. Therefore, the Disputed Domain Name is not likely to cause confusion, and Complainant has not shown it is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which it holds rights.

 

Respondent has rights and a legitimate interest in the Disputed Domain Name, having registered it in 2017 for a bona fide business, STAMPS.AI, INC., which provides software for stamp collectors. At registration, Respondent was unaware of Complainant and did not target, pass off, or attempt to sell the Disputed Domain Name to Complainant. The Disputed Domain Name has been used legitimately, including passive use, and Respondent has not engaged in bad-faith practices. Complainant's allegations of consumer confusion are unsubstantiated, and its near-decade delay in filing this complaint further undermines claims of harm. Panels have consistently denied relief in similar circumstances where respondents hold legitimate interests and no evidence of bad faith exists.

 

Complainant has not shown that Respondent had knowledge of Complainant or its trademarks at the time of registration, and mere passive holding of the domain does not establish bad faith. The Disputed Domain Name stamps.ai is not identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's marks or domain shipstation.com, and the website does not reference Complainant, making consumer confusion unlikely. Respondent's use of the descriptive term "stamps" aligns with its stamp-collecting services and does not indicate bad faith. Complainant provides no evidence of intent to sell, divert, or harm Complainant, and unsupported allegations of trademark infringement, cybersquatting, or unfair competition are insufficient. Consequently, there is no basis for finding bad faith.

 

FINDINGS

The Complainant's STAMPS.COM, STAMPS.COM ONLINE, STAMPSCOM trademarks (hereinafter STAMPS.COM trademarks) have been registered since 2003, 2012 and 2019 respectively.

 

The Respondent's Disputed Domain Name was registered on December 16, 2017 and STAMPS.AI, INC., was incorporated on January 4, 2017.

 

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.

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

As the Panel concludes that the Complainant has not satisfied the second element in the present case pursuant to Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, it is not necessary to rule on the third element pursuant to Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. See Media Rain LLC. d/b/a Rain v. Verio Inc., FA 1279419 (Forum Sept. 29, 2009).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

To satisfy the second element under Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must first establish a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. The burden of proof then shifts to the Respondent to demonstrate that it does possess such rights or legitimate interests. See Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) ("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.").

 

The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not authorized by the Complainant and is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name. Using a confusingly similar domain name to divert traffic is neither a bona fide offering nor a legitimate noncommercial use.

 

The Panel notes that the Complainant owns trademark rights in the STAMPS.COM mark but no evidence has been presented to the Panel that the Complainant also owns trademark rights in the term "stamps" due common/descriptive nature of the term. In U.S. Patent and Trademark Office v. Booking.com, the Court observed that the registration of "Booking.com" would not confer upon its owner an exclusive right to the term "booking," noting that "Booking.com" constitutes a weak, descriptive mark. As such, the mark owner would face significant challenges in establishing that any other use of the term "booking," including closely similar variations, is likely to cause confusion with the registered trademark. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the doctrine of fair use permits competitors to employ descriptive terms in good faith and "otherwise than as a mark" to describe their own goods or services.

 

The Panel is of the view that the Complainant does not hold rights in the term "stamps," and that the Complainant's STAMPS.COM trademarks do not preclude the Respondent from asserting legitimate interests. See Paper Denim & Cloth, LLC v. VertMarkets, Inc., FA 1356783 (Forum Dec. 22, 2010) ("Respondent also argues that the term of the <resin.com> domain name is common and generic, and therefore, Complainant does not have an exclusive monopoly on the term(s) on the Internet. The Panel agrees with Respondent and finds that Respondent can establish rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)."). 

 

See also PIRELLI & C. S.p.A. v. Oakwood Services Inc., FA 1118584 (Forum Mar. 6, 2008) ("Finally, notwithstanding Complainant's registrations of ZERO in Europe and the U.S., the <zero.net> domain name consists of a common, generic term, and Complainant's interest in the name does not preclude Respondent from also having a legitimate interest in it. See SOCCERPLEX, INC. v. NBA Inc., FA 94361 (Forum May 25, 2000) (finding that the complainant failed to show that it should be granted exclusive use of the domain name <soccerzone.com>, as it contains two generic terms and is not exclusively associated with its business); see also CRS Tech. Corp. v. Condenet, Inc., FA 93547 (Forum Mar. 28, 2000) ("CONCIERGE is not so associated with just one source that only that source could claim a legitimate use of the mark in connection with a website."). As further support for this finding, the panel in another UDRP proceeding held that the respondent in that matter had rights and legitimate interests in the <zero.com> domain name as "the word 'zero' is a common English word." 

 

For the foregoing reasons, the Panel finds that the Complainant has failed to establish a prima facie case and, accordingly, has not satisfied Paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

As the Panel concludes that the Complainant has not satisfied the second element in the present case pursuant to Paragraph 4(a), it is not necessary to rule on the third element pursuant to Paragraph 4(a). See TL Software Inc. v. Randy Roberts, FA 2075183 (Forum Feb. 1, 2024).

 

DECISION

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 <stamps.ai> domain name REMAIN WITH Respondent.

 

 

 

Paddy Tam, Panelist

Dated: September 22, 2025