DECISION

 

Critical Innovations LLC v. Ross Donaldson / CRITICAL INNOVATIONS LLC

Claim Number: FA2509002175452

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Critical Innovations LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Airina L. Rodrigues of Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, Colorado, USA. Respondent is Ross Donaldson / CRITICAL INNOVATIONS LLC ("Respondent"), California, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <criticalinnovationsllc.com>, registered with Cloudflare, Inc.

 

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.

 

Charles A. Kuechenmeister, Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on September 5, 2025; Forum received payment on September 5, 2025.

 

On September 9, 2025, Cloudflare, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <criticalinnovationsllc.com> domain name is registered with Cloudflare, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Cloudflare, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Cloudflare, Inc. 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 September 11, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint setting a deadline of October 1, 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@criticalinnovationsllc.com. Also on September 11, 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 October 2, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Charles A. Kuechenmeister 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 a Response or any other submittal Respondent.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant provides medical devices and related services. It has rights in the CRITICAL INNOVATIONS mark based upon its registration of that mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).  The <criticalinnovationsllc.com> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's mark as it fully incorporates the mark, merely adding the "llc" abbreviation for limited liability company and the ".com" generic top-level domain (gTLD). 

 

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. Complainant has not licensed or authorized Respondent to use its mark, Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name, and it has used the domain name to attract visitors to its own website where it advertises and sells its own services.

 

Respondent registered and uses the domain name in bad faith. It has attempted for commercial gain to attract Internet users to its website by causing confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship affiliation or endorsement of its website, it registered the domain name with false WHOIS information, and it registered the domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant and its mark.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

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 a Complainant to prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order cancelling or transferring a domain name:

 

(1)       the domain name registered by the respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and

(2)       the 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, pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules the Panel will decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations 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 as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent's failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true). Nevertheless, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. 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"), WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (WIPO Overview 3.0), at ¶ 4.3 ("In cases involving wholly unsupported and conclusory allegations advanced by the complainant, . . . panels may find that—despite a respondent's default—a complainant has failed to prove its case."). The WIPO Overview 3.0 is not a definitive statement of applicable law or practice standards which govern any particular issue, but it does express a consensus among a significant number of UDRP panelists as to how particular issues typically are and should be resolved. This Panel accepts that consensus on this and other issues addressed later in this Decision.

 

The Panel finds as follows with respect to the matters at issue in this proceeding:

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The CRITICAL INNOVATIONS mark was registered to Complainant with the USPTO (Reg. No. 5,431,684) on March 27, 2018 (USPTO registration certificate included in Complaint Annex 2). Complainant's ownership of this USPTO registration demonstrates its rights in the CRITICAL INNOVATIONS mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).  DIRECTV, LLC v. The Pearline Group, FA 1818749 (Forum Dec. 30, 2018) ("Complainant's ownership of a USPTO registration for DIRECTV demonstrates its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)."). 

 

Respondent's <criticalinnovationsllc.com> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's mark, as it fully incorporates the mark, merely omitting the space and adding the "llc" abbreviation for limited liability company and a gTLD. These changes do not distinguish the domain name from Complainant's mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Health Republic Insurance Company v. Gustavo Winchester, FA 1622089 (Forum July 7, 2015) ("Domain name syntax requires TLDs. Domain name syntax prohibits spaces. Therefore, omitted spacing and adding a TLD must be ignored when performing a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis."), MTD Products Inc v J Randall Shank, FA 1783050 (Forum June 27, 2018) ("The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark as it wholly incorporates the CUB CADET mark before appending the generic terms 'genuine' and 'parts' as well as the '.com' gTLD.").  The WIPO Overview 3.0, at ¶ 1.7, states that the test for confusing similarity "typically involves a side-by-side comparison of the domain name and the textual components of the relevant trademark to assess whether the mark is recognizable within the domain name." Notwithstanding the changes described above, Complainant's mark is clearly recognizable within the domain name.

 

For the reasons set forth above, the Panel finds that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the CRITICAL INNOVATIONS mark, in which Complainant has substantial and demonstrated rights. 

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

If a complainant makes a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden of production shifts to respondent to come forward with evidence that it has rights or legitimate interests in it. 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"). If a respondent fails to come forward with such evidence, the complainant's prima facie evidence will be sufficient to establish that respondent lacks such rights or legitimate interests. If the respondent does come forward with such evidence, the Panel must assess the evidence in its entirety. At all times, the burden of proof remains on the complainant. WIPO Overview 3.0, at ¶ 2.1.

 

Policy ¶ 4(c) lists the following three nonexclusive circumstances, any one of which if proven can demonstrate a respondent's rights or legitimate interests in a domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii):

 

(i)                      Before any notice to the respondent of the dispute, the respondent's use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services;

(ii)                      The respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if the respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or

(iii)                      The respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.

 

Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name because (i) Complainant has not licensed or authorized Respondent to use its mark, (ii) Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name, and (iii) it has used the domain name to attract visitors to its own website where it advertises and sells its own services.  These allegations are addressed as follows: 

 

Complainant states that it has not authorized or licensed Respondent to use its mark (Declaration of Ross Donaldson, Complaint Annex 3). Complainant has specific competence to make this statement, it is unchallenged by any evidence before the Panel and is taken as true. In the absence of evidence that a respondent is authorized to use a complainant's mark in a domain name or that a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name, the respondent may be presumed to lack rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. IndyMac Bank F.S.B. v. Eshback, FA 830934 (Forum Dec. 7, 2006) (finding that the respondent failed to establish rights and legitimate interests in the <emitmortgage.com> domain name as the respondent was not authorized to register domain names featuring the complainant's mark and failed to submit evidence that it is commonly known by the domain name), Indeed, Inc. v. Ankit Bhardwaj / Recruiter, FA 1739470 (Forum Aug. 3, 2017) ("Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. 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.").

 

The information furnished to Forum by the registrar lists the Complainant and its current president and CEO (Declaration of Ross Donaldson submitted as Complaint Annex 3) as the registrant of the domain name.¹  It is evident that some unknown third party falsely and fraudulently registered the domain name in those names. In the absence of evidence furnished by respondents, UDRP panels have consistently held that WHOIS evidence of a registrant name which does not correspond with the domain name is sufficient to prove that the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name. Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Suzen Khan / Nancy Jain / Andrew Stanzy, FA 1741129 (Forum Aug. 16, 2017) (finding that respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed Domain Name when the identifying information provided by WHOIS was unrelated to the Domain Name or respondent's use of the same). In this case, the domain name was registered with false WHOIS information so the names of Complainant and its CEO cannot be regarded as the name of the person who actually registered the domain name. As that person chose to register the domain name with false registrant information, it leaves the Panel with no means of comparing its name with the domain name. It has thus effectively waived any claim that it has been known by the domain name.  In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Panel finds that Respondent has not been commonly known by the domain name.

 

Complaint Annex 5 a screenshot of the website which resolves from the domain name. The site sponsor is prominently identified as CRITICAL INNOVATIONS and the address given for it on the website is, according to the Complaint, the actual Lawndale, California address of Complainant. Nevertheless, the website offers virtual private network (VPN) services, which are wholly unrelated to Complainant's medical device products and services, and there is no similarity whatever in layout and general appearance between this website and Complaint's website at <criticalinnovations.com> (screenshot submitted as Complaint Annex 4).  Respondent is neither passing off as Complainant nor competing with it.  The only use being made of the domain name is to attract Internet traffic to Respondent's website, where it conducts a business wholly unrelated to Complainant's medical devices business. Still, this use of Complainant's mark in the domain name mark falsely implies an affiliation of some sort with Complainant, and this is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).  Ripple Labs Inc. v. NGYEN NGOC PHUONG THAO, FA 1741737 (Forum Aug.21, 2017) ("Respondent uses the [disputed] domain name to divert Internet users to Respondent's website… confusing them into believing that some sort of affiliation exists between it and Complainant… [which] is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).").

 

Complainant has made its prima facie case. On the evidence discussed above, and in the absence of any evidence from Respondent, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name.

 

Registration or Use in Bad Faith

Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) requires Complainant to prove that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Policy ¶ 4(b) sets forth a nonexclusive list of four circumstances, any one of which if proven would be evidence of bad faith use and registration of a domain name. They are as follows:

 

(i)                      circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant which is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the respondent's documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or

(ii)                      the respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

(iii)                      the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or

(iv)         by using the domain name, the respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the respondent's web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the respondent's web site or location or of a product of service on the respondent 's web site or location.

 

The concept of bad faith as illustrated in the above four subparagraphs necessarily involves a subjective intent on the part of a respondent knowingly to trade upon the goodwill of the complainant. The respondent must intentionally have targeted the complainant's mark. Such subjective intent would in turn require that the respondent actually knew of the complainant and its rights in the relevant mark when it registered the domain name. Renu Medispa, LLC v Angela Sattler/Aesthetics, FA2503002143814 (Forum April 28, 2025) ("A foundational question under ¶ 4(a)(iii) is whether or not Respondent had knowledge of Complainant or its claimed trademark at the time it registered the disputed domain name.").

 

In attempting to discern actual knowledge and a subjective bad faith intent, panels have looked at many different types of evidence, including but not limited to use of a domain name in direct competition with a trademark owner, impersonation, the parties operating in the same market segment, the parties being physically located in the same general geographic area, a pattern of bad faith conduct, actual prior association between or among the parties, and the distinctive or famous nature of the trademark, suggesting that any similarity is not happenstance. Importantly, allegations about a respondent's subjective intention are not evidence in this regard.

 

In cases where no Response has been filed, it can be difficult to determine whether a respondent registered a domain name with actual knowledge of the complainant and its rights in the mark. In this case, while the 2013 first use date shown on the USPTO registration certificate for the mark indicates that Complainant had been operating under that mark for some 12 years before Respondent registered the domain name in June 2025 (WHOIS printout, Complaint Annex 1, shows creation date), there is no evidence whatever of the extent to which that mark had become known generally as a source indicator for Complainant and its products. Indeed, the Declaration of Ross Donaldson states that Complainant's business is primarily if not exclusively with defense contractors, which would limit the exposure of its mark to the public at large. The CRITICAL INNOVATIONS mark in and of itself is not particularly distinctive or unique and could easily have been selected as a domain name for a VPN provider independently of any awareness of Complainant. At the same time, however, by registering the domain name in the name of Complainant's president and CEO, and by listing Complainant's address as its own on its website, Respondent has provided persuasive evidence that it did have actual knowledge of Complainant. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Panel concludes that Respondent registered the domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant's mark, and this is evidence also of an intent to target this Complainant and its mark.  Respondent's continued use of the domain name with this knowledge satisfies the Policy requirement of both bad faith registration and use.

 

The evidence of Respondent's conduct discussed above in the rights or legitimate interests analysis also supports a finding of bad faith registration and use, based upon one or more of the foregoing grounds articulated in the Policy and upon additional grounds adopted by UDRP panels over the years. First, Respondent is using the confusingly similar domain name to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of its website, as described in Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). Respondent uses the domain name to attract customers to its website by suggesting a non-existent relationship with Complainant. It is not passing off as or competing with Complainant but its conduct nevertheless fits squarely within the circumstances described in Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) and is manifest evidence of bad faith registration and use. Beacon Capital Partners, LLC v. C/O Private Ranger Limited / Registrant of beaconcapitals.com, FA 2075845

(Forum Feb. 1, 2024) ("Notwithstanding the fact that Respondent was neither passing off as nor competing with Complainant, its registration and use of the domain name falsely implied an affiliation which did not exist, and the only possible purpose of its doing so was to attract Internet traffic to its own commercial website by trading off of Complainant's mark. Respondent's conduct thus fits squarely within the circumstances described in Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) and is manifest evidence of bad faith registration and use.").

 

Next, as discussed above, Respondent used false contact information when it registered the domain name. This does not fit within any of the scenarios described in Policy ¶ 4(b) but that paragraph recognizes that mischief can manifest in many different forms and takes an open-ended approach to bad faith, listing some examples without attempting to enumerate all its varieties. Worldcom Exchange, Inc. v. Wei.com, Inc., WIPO Case No. D-2004-0955 (January 5, 2005). The non-exclusive nature of Policy ¶ 4(b) allows for consideration of additional factors in an analysis for bad faith, and using false contact information to register a domain name is evidence of bad faith registration and use. CNU ONLINE Holdings, LLC v. Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp., FA1504001614972 (Forum May 29, 2015) ("As the Panel sees that Respondent has provided false or misleading WHOIS information, the Panel finds bad faith in Respondent's registration of the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).").

 

For the reasons set forth above, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

DECISION

Complainant having established all three elements required under the Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <criticalinnovations.com> domain name BE TRANSFERRED TO COMPLAINANT.

 

 

Charles A. Kuechenmeister, Panelist

October 6, 2025