DECISION

 

Target Brands, Inc. v. rizwan shad / Nosheen Rizwan

Claim Number: FA2509002174563

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Target Brands, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Jeanette Eriksson of FairWinds Partners LLC, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is rizwan shad / Nosheen Rizwan ("Respondent"), Pakistan.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES 

The domain names at issue are <allinmotionbrand.com>, <theallinmotion.com> and <pillowfort-brand.com>, registered with Dynadot Inc and HOSTINGER operations, UAB.

 

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 September 2, 2025; Forum received payment on September 2, 2025.

 

On September 4 and 7, 2025, Dynadot Inc and HOSTINGER operations, UAB confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <allinmotionbrand.com>, <theallinmotion.com> and <pillowfort-brand.com> domain names are registered with Dynadot Inc and HOSTINGER operations, UAB and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Dynadot Inc and HOSTINGER operations, UAB have verified that Respondent is bound by the Dynadot Inc and HOSTINGER operations, UAB 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 September 8, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 29, 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@allinmotionbrand.com, postmaster@theallinmotion.com, postmaster@pillowfort-brand.com. Also on September 8, 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 30, 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE RESPONDENTS

Notwithstanding any differences in the domain registration records for the at-issue domain names the at-issue domain names nevertheless appear to be effectively controlled by the same person or entity. 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."

 

The domain names' WHOIS records are similar to each other in multiple ways which appear to connect their registrants' identity rather than be merely coincidental. The at-issue domain names are also similarly constructed and address websites with similar structure and content, and with each claiming to be "official." Further, after one of the at-issue domain names was suspended by the Registrar, Respondent appears to have used the same structure and content of such domain name to host a website under the second domain name, and similarly used the same form and content to host a website under the third domain name. Each domain name has been used to impersonate Complainant's relevant brand with similar objectives that improperly benefit Respondent. Finally, Complainant's position that the domain names' nominal registrants should be treated as a single entity is unopposed. Therefore, the Panel elects to treat the at-issue domain names' nominal registrants as a single entity (herein Respondent) for the purposes of this proceeding.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant contends in part as follows:

 

Complainant owns, promotes, and enforces the trademarks ALL IN MOTION and PILLOWFORT and makes extensive use of them. Several years prior to the creation of the at-issue domain names, Complainant commenced use of these marks in connection with in-store and online offering of ALL IN MOTION (activewear and sporting goods ) and PILLOWFORT (kids' pillows, stuffies, home furnishings and decor) products. Since the marks' inception Complainant has continually used them in commerce.

 

Complainant has many trademark registrations for the marks ALL IN MOTION and PILLOWFORT globally including registrations with the USPTO and EUIPO.

 

The domain names are each identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. Respondent's domain names are each confusingly similar to Complainant's registered marks as each domain name contains one of Complainant's trademarks and merely adds a generic word or a hyphen, which nevertheless creates a confusingly similar domain name. Likewise, the addition of the ".com" TLD does nothing to alleviate confusion between Complainant's marks and the at-issue domain names.

 

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in respect of the at-issue domain names.  Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain names or any of the terms ALL IN MOTION or PILLOWFORT, nor does Respondent operate a legitimate business or other organization under any of the marks and it does not own any trademark or service mark rights in any relevant names. Complainant has not licensed, authorized, or permitted Respondent to register domain names incorporating Complainant's ALL IN MOTION and/or PILLOWFORT trademarks. Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the at-issue domain names without intent for commercial gain, and so its actions do not fall within Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). Respondent uses domain names that are confusingly similar Complainant's trademarks, and uses them to confuse the Complainant's customers into believing that the resulting websites are owned by, or affiliated with Complainant, when this is not the case. Respondent has not been in any way authorized by Complainant, nor are the domain names or any of the associated websites or unauthorized Amazon.com listings to which they link authorized, endorsed or sponsored by Complainant. The at-issue domain names are not being used for any generic or descriptive meaning, or for any meaning other than to resemble Complainant's marks, and any other explanation would be a wholly manufactured explanation. Rather, Respondent uses the at-issue domain names to confuse and misleadingly divert consumers, and to tarnish Complainant's registered marks. Such use cannot be considered fair and it also does not fit into any accepted category of fair use such as news reporting, commentary, political speech, education, nominative use, etc. Complainant has thus made more than a prima facie showing and has fully satisfied the requirements of Paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

 

The at-issue domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. Respondent intentionally uses Complainant's marks without consent from Complainant. Respondent was on actual notice of Complainant's rights in the ALL IN MOTION and PILLOWFORT marks as a result of Complainant's extensive use of the marks which predate the date on which Respondent acquired the at-issue domain names. Respondent's creation of a website that impersonates Complainant and its ALL IN MOTION and PILLOWFORT marks alone constitutes bad faith as it disrupts Complainant's business and seeks to capitalize on confusion with the ALL IN MOTION and PILLOWFORT marks respectively. Respondent's unauthorized use of the confusingly similar domain names, the unauthorized use of Complainant's full trademarks and logos numerous times across the corresponding websites together with blatant impersonation and redirection of internet users, the lack of any disclaimers, use of "Leave a reply" forms to harvest user information (to sell or otherwise exploit user information or to promote certain other websites), and numerous affiliate links is indicative of Respondent's intent to confuse users for its own commercial gain and to disrupt Complainant's business by drawing users to the domain names and associated sites. Complainant has more than met its burden of proof in demonstrating that the at-issue domain names were registered and used in bad faith under ¶ 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has trademark rights in the ALL IN MOTION and PILLOWFORT marks.

 

Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and had not been authorized to use Complainant's trademarks in any capacity.

 

Respondent registered the at‑issue domain names after Complainant acquired rights in the ALL IN MOTION and PILLOWFORT trademarks.

 

Respondent's used the at-issue domain names and associated websites so as to direct internet traffic to such websites where Respondent passed itself off as Complainant, benefited from monetized ads and/or affiliate links, and was able to harvest third party personal information.

 

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 names are each confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.

 

Complainant shows that it registered its ALL IN MOTION and PILLOWFORT trademarks with the with multiple trademark registrars worldwide. Any of Complainant's trademark registrations is sufficient to demonstrate Complainant's rights in a mark under the Policy. 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 names contain either Complainant's entire ALL IN MOTION trademark or its PILLOWFORT trademark. The domain names also include either the suggestive term "brand" or the article "the" and the ".com" top-level. One domain name contains an insignificant hyphen. The differences between each of Respondent's <allinmotionbrand.com>, <theallinmotion.com> and <pillowfort-brand.com> domain names and its included trademark are insufficient to distinguish any of the at-issue domain names from its relevant trademark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent's <allinmotionbrand.com>, <theallinmotion.com> and <pillowfort-brand.com> domain names are each confusingly similar to either Complainant's ALL IN MOTION or PILLOWFORT 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 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. 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 trademarks 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 legitimate interests in respect of any of the at-issue domain names. See Navistar International Corporation v. N Rahmany, FA 1620789 (Forum Jun. 8, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the at-issue domain name where the complainant had never authorized the respondent to incorporate its NAVISTAR mark into any domain name).

 

The WHOIS information for <allinmotionbrand.com>, <theallinmotion.com> and <pillowfort-brand.com> ultimately identifies the domain names' registrant as being "rizwan shas / Nosheen Rizan." The Panel has found that the two respondents are likely the same entity and the record before the Panel contains no evidence that tends to show that Respondent is commonly known by either <allinmotionbrand.com>, <theallinmotion.com> or <pillowfort-brand.com>, or any relevant variation thereof. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by any of the at-issue domain names for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).

 

Respondent uses the at-issue domain names to address websites that display Complainant's trademarks and claim to be "official." The domain names appear to be connected to the same phishing and impersonation scheme through common layout, structure, and content. Using the domain names, Respondent attempts to pass itself off as being affiliated with Complainant. However, instead of being informational sites the website are intended to benefit Respondent though monetized hyperlinks or affiliate links to unauthorized or competing products and thereby increase search engine focus and/or gain from monetized links.  Respondent's use of <allinmotionbrand.com>, <theallinmotion.com> and <pillowfort-brand.com> to pose as Complainant and misdirect internet users to Respondent's imposter websites is not indicative of a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a non-commercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Insomniac Holdings, LLC v. Mark Daniels, FA 1735969 (Forum July 15, 2017) (refusing to find rights and legitimate interests in a domain name on the part of a respondent when the disputed domain name "resolves to a website that Respondent has designed to mimic Complainant's own in an attempt to pass itself off as Complainant").

 

Given the forgoing, Respondent lacks rights and lacks legitimate interests in respect of <allinmotionbrand.com>, <theallinmotion.com> and <pillowfort-brand.com>.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

As discussed below without being exhaustive, Respondent acted in bad faith regarding each domain name.

 

As mentioned above, Respondent uses the at-issue domain names to address websites that appear like they may be affiliated with Complainant. Respondent's use of the <allinmotionbrand.com>, <theallinmotion.com> and <pillowfort-brand.com> domain names to pass itself off as Complainant is disruptive to Complainant's business and is intended to attract internet users looking for Complainant to Respondent's website so that Respondent might wrongfully capitalize on the confusion it created between its <allinmotionbrand.com>, <theallinmotion.com> and <pillowfort-brand.com> domain names and Complainant's ALL IN MOTION and PILLOWFORT trademarks. Respondent's use of <allinmotionbrand.com>, <theallinmotion.com> and <pillowfort-brand.com> thus demonstrates Respondent's bad faith registration or use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum Dec. 27, 2017) (finding bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where "Respondent registered and uses the <lbittrex.com> domain name in bad faith by directing internet users to a website that mimics Complainant's own website in order to confuse users into believing that Respondent is Complainant, or is otherwise affiliated or associated with Complainant."); see also, 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")

 

Additionally, Respondent also used or is using its at-issue domain names and related websites to deceptively capture personal information as Respondent's imposter websites allowed and/or allows website visitors to "leave a reply"  thereby enabling Respondent to phish for personal information which may then be used to benefit Respondent directly or by selling the information to third parties. Respondent's use of the at-issue domain names to facilitate deceptively gathering personal information is indicative of phishing and is further evidence of Respondent's bad faith. 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 and its rights in the ALL IN MOTION and PILLOWFORT marks when it registered <allinmotionbrand.com>, <theallinmotion.com> and <pillowfort-brand.com> as a domain names. Respondent's prior knowledge is apparent given the notoriety of Complainant's trademarks and given Respondent's unauthorized use of the domain names to address websites that use Complainant's trademarks and logos and pretend to be affiliated with Complainant. Respondent's actual knowledge of Complainant and its rights in ALL IN MOTION and PILLOWFORT further demonstrates Respondent's bad faith. See Lemon Inc. v. Sumer Singh, FA 2110519 (Forum September 5, 2024 ("registration of a disputed domain name with actual knowledge of another's trademark rights is sufficient to establish bad faith, and can be shown by the notoriety of the mark and the use the Respondent makes of the disputed domain name"); see also, Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name).

 

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 <allinmotionbrand.com>, <theallinmotion.com> and <pillowfort-brand.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist

Dated: October 1, 2025