NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM

DECISION

OMX, Inc. v. Lorenzo Kadlec

Claim Number: FA2510002180285

PARTIES

Complainant is OMX, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Joshua M. Dalton of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Massachusetts, USA. Respondent is Lorenzo Kadlec ("Respondent"), Illinois, USA.

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <workproquantum.com>, registered with Dynadot 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.

The Honorable Neil Anthony Brown KC as Panelist.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on October 1, 2025; Forum received payment on October 1, 2025.

On October 7, 2025, Dynadot Inc confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <workproquantum.com> domain name is registered with Dynadot Inc and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Dynadot Inc has verified that Respondent is bound by the Dynadot 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 October 8, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 28, 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@workproquantum.com. Also on October 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 October 29, 2025 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed The Honorable Neil Anthony Brown KC 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 made the following contentions.

1. The Complainant is a United States company engaged in the provision of business services and supplies, products and technology solutions, including chairs, and it has been so engaged since at least 2013.

2. The Complainant provides its goods and services under the registered trademark for WORKPRO.

3. The Complainant acquired its registered trademark rights by virtue of its registration of the WORKPRO trademark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO"), registration number 4,540,327, registered on May 27, 2014 ("the WORKPRO trademark").

4. The Complainant also provides its goods and services under the common law trademark for QUANTUM used in connection with the provision of the Complainant's WORKPRO products and has so provided them prior to the registration of the disputed domain name ("the QUANTUM trademark").

5. The WORKPRO and QUANTUM trademarks have attracted substantial goodwill and are uniquely associated with the Complainant's goods and services and with the Complainant as their owner.

6. In addition, the Complainant owns and has owned at all material times the domain name <odpbusiness.com> which it uses, in particular by means of its website at www.odpbusiness.com, to promote its aforesaid products, including its WORKPRO QUANTUM chair.

7. The Respondent registered the domain name <workproquantum.com> on May 28, 2024, ("the disputed domain name").

8. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the WORKPRO and QUANTUM trademarks.

9. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as:

(a) the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the WORKPRO and QUANTUM trademarks;

(b) the Complainant has never consented to the use by the Respondent of the WORKPRO and QUANTUM trademarks in the registration and use of the domain name or for any other purpose;

(d) the Respondent has not used the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i);

(e) the Respondent has not used the disputed domain name for a legitimate, noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii);

(g) in substance, what the Respondent has done is to take the Complainant's WORKPRO and QUANTUM trademarks without consent and use them to mislead internet users by using them to pretend falsely that it was entitled to advertise a product as being a genuine product of the Complainant; and

(h) there is no other ground on which it could conceivably be contended that the Respondent has a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.

10. The Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith as:

(a) the Respondent had actual knowledge of the Complainant and its aforesaid trademarks when it, the Respondent, registered the disputed domain name;

(b) the Respondent has used on its offending website to which the domain name resolves, the Complainant's WORKPRO and QUANTUM trademarks and the image of one of its products, with the intention of diverting internet users away from the Complainant and its website and towards the Respondent and its website;

(c) by its aforesaid conduct, the Respondent has sought to disrupt the Complainant's business within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii);

(d) by its aforesaid conduct, the Respondent has sought to engender confusion among internet users within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv);

(e) the Respondent has sought to obtain personal information from internet users by phishing; and

(f) the Respondent sought to conceal its identity by using a proxy service when registering the disputed domain name.

11. Accordingly, the disputed domain name should be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

FINDINGS

2. The Complainant provides its goods and services under the registered trademark for WORKPRO.

4. The Complainant has also established common law trademark rights in the QUANTUM trademark ("the QUANTUM trademark").

5. The Respondent registered the domain name <workproquantum.com> on May 28, 2024, ("the disputed domain name").

6. The Respondent caused the disputed domain name to resolve to a website that targeted the Complainant and internet users in general, held itself out as being the Complainant or as being authorized by it, copied the Complainant's trademarks and the contents of the Complainant's official and genuine website, purported to offer a product being the same as or similar to a product of the Complainant and used the disputed domain name for phishing for internet users' personal information.

7. By reason of the matters aforesaid, and as established by the evidence, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's WORKPRO and QUANTUM trademarks, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and the disputed domain name has been registered and used in bad faith.

8. Accordingly, the disputed domain name should be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.

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 first question that arises is whether the Complainant has rights in a trademark or service mark on which it may rely . The evidence has established that the Complainant provides its goods and services, first, under its registered trademark for WORKPRO and that it had done so at least since the year 2014 and thus prior to the registration of the disputed domain name by the Respondent and continuously since then. The evidence has established that the WORKPRO trademark was registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO"), registration number 4,540,327, registered on May 27, 2014 ("the WORKPRO trademark").

The trademark is registered with respect to furniture, is current and is registered in the name of the Complainant.

All of the aforesaid facts have been established by documentary evidence that the Panel has examined and finds to be in order.

The Complainant has also submitted that it provides its goods and services under the common law trademark for QUANTUM and that this is used in conjunction with the registered trademark for WORKPRO. The Complainant has established that it has used the expression QUANTUM as a trademark since at least 2015 in conjunction with the sale of office furniture under its WORKPRO brand. It has also established that it has expended considerable time, effort and money in advertising and promotion of QUANTUM as one of its brands. This has been verified in the Declaration of the Complainant's authorized representative which has exhibited a promotion on the Complainant's official website of an office chair entitled the WORKPRO QUANTUM 9000, thus showing the use of both the WORKPRO and QUANTUM trademarks by the Complainant.

The Complainant has therefore established its trademark rights with respect to both the WORKPRO and QUANTUM trademarks and hence its standing to institute this proceeding.

The next question that arises is whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's WORKPRO and QUANTUM trademarks. The traditional way of answering this question is to leave the Top Level Domain out of consideration, as all domain names must have one such extension and it does not inform internet users one way or the other as to whether the domain name is identical, or confusingly similar, to the relevant trademark. Applying that well-established principle, the domain name in the present case consists in substance of the two aforesaid trademarks of the Complainant and it is therefore confusingly similar to the two trademarks when they are taken together. The dominant presence of the two trademarks in the domain name has the effect of invoking the goods and services of the Complainant provided under those trademarks as has just been demonstrated with respect to the Complainant's WORKPRO QUANTUM 9000 office chair.

Thus, applying these well-accepted principles, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the WORKPRO and QUANTUM trademarks.

The Complainant has thus made out the first of the three elements that it must establish as provided in Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

Rights or Legitimate Interests

It is now well established that the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) and that, if the prima facie case is made out, the burden then shifts to the Respondent to show that it does have such rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)).

The Panel finds on the evidence that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case that arises from the following considerations. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names on all of the grounds relied on by the Complainant, namely:

(a) the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the WORKPRO and QUANTUM trademarks; the Panel has already found that the domain name is confusingly similar to the two trademarks and it is inconceivable that such a brazen copying of those trademarks could give rise to a right or legitimate interest in the very domain name used to perpetrate this subterfuge;

(b) the Complainant has never consented to the use by the Respondent of the WORKPRO and QUANTUM trademarks in the registration and use of the domain name or for any other purpose; the evidence is that the Complainant has not given the Respondent any permission or other consent to use its trademarks in a domain name or in any other way and there is no evidence that the Respondent has any affiliation or relationship with the Complainant; the whole evidence shows that the Respondent has simply helped itself to the Complainant's trademark and used it in a misleading manner without consent; thus, it could not be said that the domain name had been registered or used with anything like consent from the Complainant and the evidence is that the registration and use of the domain name was entirely without the permission of the Complainant as the trademark owner;

(c) the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name; there is no evidence that the Respondent is known by the domain name, either commonly or at all and there is no evidence that it is known by any name other than its own;

(d) the Respondent has not used the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i); there is nothing bona fide about the abuses of the Complainant's trademark revealed by the evidence;

(e) the Respondent has not used the disputed domain name for a legitimate, noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii); the use made of the domain name was clearly illegitimate, commercial in one way or another and not fair, either to the Complainant or to internet users in general who were being misled;

(f) the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to divert internet users away from the Complainant's legitimate website and its legitimate products and to the Respondent's offending website and also to acquire personal information from internet users by phishing; all of such conduct was highly improper and could not give rise to any right or legitimate interest in the domain name used to carry it out; and

(g) there is no other ground on which it could conceivably be contended that the Respondent has a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.

The Complainant has therefore made out the second of the three elements it must establish under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

It is clear that to establish bad faith for the purposes of the Policy, the Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith. It is also clear that the criteria set out in Policy ¶ 4(b) are not exclusive but that domain name proceedings may also rely on conduct that is bad faith within the generally accepted meaning of that expression.

In view of the evidence discussed above, particularly the Declaration of the Complainant's authorized representative and its exhibits, which is equally as applicable to bad faith as it is to rights and legitimate interests and which it is not necessary to repeat here, it is clear that the Complainant has made out all of the grounds relied on. The Respondent has clearly been motivated by bad faith in the registration of the domain name and has continued in that conduct after its registration, showing bad faith use; the registration was, as was its use, clearly an attempt by the Respondent to use its domain name, incorporating as it does the Complainant's trademarks, to give the false impression that it was the Complainant or was authorized by it to sell the Complainant's products, as it resolves to a website that copies and plagiarises the Complainant's name, trademarks and logo and its legitimate website and its content. It is therefore clear from the evidence that, as the Complainant has submitted:

(a) the evidence shows that the Respondent at all material times had actual knowledge of the Complainant and its trademarks, brand and business; the Respondent must have had such actual knowledge in view of its detailed copying of the Complainant's website and product and it could not have carried out its subterfuge without that actual knowledge;

(b) the evidence shows that the Respondent has used on its offending website the Complainant's WORKPRO and QUANTUM trademarks and images of its product with the intention of diverting internet users away from the Complainant and its website and towards the Respondent and its website; this is in itself an act of dishonesty which is tantamount to bad faith;

(c) by its aforesaid conduct, the Respondent has sought to disrupt the Complainant's business within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii); clearly, the Respondent intended to, and set out to, diminish the Complainant's business, reduce the legitimate sales that the Complainant might make and increase the illegitimate sales that the Respondent might make if it could deceive prospective potential buyers of the Complainant's product;

(d) by its aforesaid conduct, the Respondent has sought to engender confusion among internet users within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv); the Respondent must have wanted to confuse internet users, so that they would think they were buying a genuine article from the Complainant when in fact they would be buying a bogus article from the Respondent, even if they were buying anything at all, which seems highly unlikely;

(e) the Respondent has sought to obtain personal information from internet users by phishing; it was probably the main purpose of registering and using the domain name that the Respondent would be able to use it for a phishing expedition and induce internet to part with their own personal and more significantly financial information; this was clearly in bad faith; and

(f) the Respondent sought to conceal its identity by using a proxy service when registering the disputed domain name.

The Complainant has thus made out the third of the three elements that it must establish under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

The Complainant has presented a detailed and persuasive case consisting of evidence that has established all of the constituent elements that must be proved under the Policy.

The Complainant has also cited numerous prior UDRP decisions which support all of its contentions.

The Complainant has therefore established all the elements that it must show under the Policy and it is entitled to the relief it seeks, namely transfer of 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 <workproquantum.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

The Honorable Neil Anthony Brown KC

Panelist

Dated: October 30, 2025