DECISION

 

Turning Point USA, Inc. v. Immoral Webdev

Claim Number: FA2511002189606

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Turning Point USA, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Louis T. Perry of Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, Indiana, USA. Respondent is Immoral Webdev ("Respondent"), Delaware, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <tpusa-donation.info>, registered with Porkbun LLC.

 

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 Panelists in this proceeding.

 

Richard Hill as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on November 18, 2025; Forum received payment on November 18, 2025.

 

On November 19, 2025, Porkbun LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <tpusa-donation.info> domain name is registered with Porkbun LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Porkbun LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Porkbun 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 November 24, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 15, 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@tpusa-donation.info. Also on November 24, 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 December 17, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Richard Hill 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 states that it has used its TURNING POINT USA trademark continuously since at least as early as July 23, 2012, the date of its founding by the late Charles "Charlie" Kirk. Since that time, Complainant has grown into a nationally recognized nonprofit organization whose mission is to "identify, educate, train, and organize students to promote the principles of fiscal responsibility, free markets, and limited government". Through over a decade of continuous and widespread use, Complainant has established strong common law trademark rights in the marks TURNING POINT USA and TPUSA. The marks are used with a variety of goods and services including, but not limited to, apparel, online retail store services, podcasts, charitable fundraising services, and the provision of information services. Charitable fundraising is a principal activity: to date Complainant raised nearly $389 million USD from 2012 to mid-2023. To support its efforts, Complainant invested over $10 million USD in advertising and promotional initiatives, including extensive campaigns that direct donors to its authorized online donation platforms. Moreover, third-party media outlets extensively cover Complainant's activities and regularly reference and display the Marks in connection with Complainant's goods and services, further confirming their distinctiveness and reputation. Because of this longstanding use, significant public exposure, and extensive media coverage, the Marks have acquired strong secondary meaning and are famous source identifiers exclusively associated with Complainant. Complainant has maintained an Internet presence for its marks through its official <tpusa.com> domain name, which it has used in connection with its goods and services since at least as early as March 2015. The tragic assassination of Complainant's founder Charlie Kirk on September 10, 2025, drew national attention and public commemoration, resulting in a dramatic surge in online donations and public support. In the wake of this event, the integrity of Complainant's official donation channels became even more critical, as supporters sought to honor Charlie Kirk's legacy through charitable gifts and donations.

 

Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its TPUSA mark as it incorporates the mark in its entirety and merely adds a hyphen and the generic term "donation", together with the generic top level domain ("gTLD") ".info".

 

According to Complainant, Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant authorized or licensed Respondent to use its mark in any way. Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the resolving website attempts to impersonate Complainant by displaying Complainant's marks and distinctive logo, and images copied from Complainant's legitimate website. It presents itself as an official charitable initiative. Alarmingly, Respondent also offers "donation" options via cryptocurrency – an inherently opaque and irreversible payment method that underscores the fraudulent nature of the site and further endangers unsuspecting donors. After a donation is made, the website instructs users to take a screenshot of their transaction to claim merchandise as a "token of appreciation," a scheme likely intended to mislead donors while exploiting the fact that Complainant itself sells merchandise as part of its legitimate operations. Respondent's registration of the disputed domain name on September 15, 2025 – immediately after the assassination of Complainant's founder – was a predatory attempt to exploit Complainant's marks at the very moment of their heightened public recognition: it constitutes opportunistic bad faith.

 

Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. The resolving website attempts to impersonate Complainant for Respondent's gain. Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant's mark.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has common law rights in the marks TPUSA and TURNING POINT USA and uses them to promote its views and solicit charitable donations, and to provide apparel and other merchandise.

 

Complainant's rights in its mark precede the registration of the disputed domain name.

 

Complainant's founder was assassinated on September 10, 2025. That assassination was widely covered in the media, worldwide.

 

The disputed domain name was registered on September 15, 2025.

 

Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.

 

The resolving website attempts to impersonate Complainant, displaying Complainant's marks and logo, and images taken from Complainant's legitimate website; it presents itself as an official charitable initiative, and offers competing unauthorized merchandise.

 

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 asserts common law rights in its TPUSA mark. Common law rights are sufficient to establish rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Artistic Pursuit LLC v. calcuttawebdevelopers.com, FA 894477 (Forum Mar. 8, 2007) (finding that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) does not require a trademark registration if a complainant can establish common law rights in its mark). Common law rights may be established through evidence of secondary meaning in the mark such as longstanding use, evidence of use of an identical domain name, media recognition, and promotional material and advertising. See Marquette Golf Club v. Al Perkins, 1738263 (Forum July, 27, 2017) (finding that Complainant had established its common law rights in the MARQUETTE GOLF CLUB mark with evidence of secondary meaning, including "longstanding use; evidence of holding an identical domain name; media recognition; and promotional material/advertising."). Here, Complainant registered the domain name <tpusa.com> in 2015, and used it to market and sell its goods and services well before the registration of the disputed domain name. Further, Complainant extensively used its TPUSA mark in various promotional and advertising materials. Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant established common law rights in its TPUSA mark, with rights predating the first registration of the disputed domain name.

 

The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's TPUSA mark in its entirety, merely adding a hyphen, the descriptive/generic term "donation", and the ".info" gTLD. Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), adding generic or descriptive terms along with a hyphen and a gTLD is generally not sufficient in distinguishing a domain name from a complainant's mark, even if punctuation is omitted. 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."); see also Vanguard Group Inc. v. Proven Fin. Solutions, FA 572937 (Forum Nov. 18, 2005) (holding that the addition of both the word "advisors" and the gTLD ".com" did not sufficiently alter the disputed domain name to negate a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also Mrs. World Pageants, Inc. v. Crown Promotions, FA 94321 (Forum Apr. 24, 2000) (finding that punctuation is not significant in determining the similarity of a domain name and mark). Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark. Complainant argues that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Guardair Corporation v. Pablo Palermo, FA 1571060 (Forum Aug. 28, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <guardair.com> domain name according to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), as the WHOIS information lists "Pablo Palermo" as registrant of the disputed domain name). Here, the WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as "Immoral Webdev". Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

The resolving website displays Complainant's marks and logo, as well as images taken from Complainant's legitimate website, in an attempt to impersonate Complainant. This is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶4(c)(iii). See Edible Communities v. Thoreau,  FA 1158554 (Forum Apr. 16, 2008) ("[R]espondent's use of the disputed domain name [<theedibleaustin.com>] to pass itself off as [c]omplainant shows that [r]espondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) as well as Policy ¶4(c)(iii)."); see also Digg v. Digg , FA 1220833 (Forum Oct. 9, 2008) (finding no legitimate interest in respondent's use of the domain name <digg-inc.com> because "[r]espondent is attempting to pass itself off as [c]omplainant" and such "actions do not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶4(c)(iii)."). Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).

 

Further, the resolving website offers unauthorized products that compete with those of Complainant. Previous Panels have found that use of a disputed domain name to offer goods or services in competition with those of a complainant does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, in particular when they are not authorized. See Vanguard Trademark Holdings USA LLC v. Dan Stanley Saturne, FA 1785085 (Forum June 8, 2018) ("Respondent's use of the disputed domain name does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use" where "Respondent is apparently using the disputed domain name to offer for sale competing services."); see also Wolverine World Wide, Inc. v. Fergus Knox, FA 1627751 (Forum Aug. 19, 2015) (finding no bona fide offering of goods or legitimate noncommercial or fair use existed where Respondent used the resolving website to sell products branded with Complainant's MERRELL mark, and were either counterfeit products or legitimate products of Complainant being resold without authorization). Thus, on these grounds also, the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii)

 

For all the above reasons, the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant's contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for a legitimate use of Complainant's mark. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent's failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain name.

 

Indeed, as already noted, the resolving website attempts to impersonate Complainant. This can evince bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See American International Group, Inc. v. Walter Busby d/b/a AIG Mergers and Acquisitions, FA 156251 (Forum May 30, 2003) (the resolving website gave every appearance of being associated or affiliated with Complainant's business); see also Mortgage Research Center LLC v. Russell Miranda, FA 993017 (Forum July 9, 2007) (Respondent is implying an affiliation with Complainant, and consumers seeking Complainant's products and services may become confused when encountering Respondent's website). Thus, the Panel finds bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

In addition, also as already noted, the resolving website offers unauthorized products that compete with those of Complainant. Panels have held that registration and use of a disputed domain name to divert Internet traffic to a competing website offering the same or similar goods or services demonstrates bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and/or (iv), in particular when they are not authorized. See ZIH Corp. v. ou yang lin q, FA 1761403 (Forum Dec. 29, 2017) (finding bad faith where Respondent used the infringing domain name to disrupt Complainant's business by diverting Internet users from Complainant's website to Respondent's website where it offered competing printer products); see also Citadel LLC and its related entity, KCG IP Holdings, LLC v. Joel Lespinasse / Radius Group, FA 1579141 (Forum Oct. 15, 2014) ("Here, the Panel finds evidence of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) bad faith as Respondent has used the confusingly similar domain name to promote its own financial management and consulting services in competition with Complainant."); see also Crocs, Inc. v. jing dian, FA 1587214 (Forum Dec. 12, 2014) (finding bad faith where the respondent used the disputed domain name to display the complainant's marks to sell unauthorized goods); see also Swarovski Aktiengesellschaft v. ailong c ailong xiong, FA 1571172 (Forum Sept. 5, 2014) (finding bad faith where respondent used the disputed domain name in connection with a website purportedly offering unauthorized goods of Complainant and stating that the respondent's bad faith was "apparent in that [r]espondent is profiting from the likelihood Internet users will mistakenly believe the goods sold through the domain name's website are legitimate…"). Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and/or Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).

 

Further, Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant's mark: the resolving website displays Complainant's marks and logo, and images taken from Complainant's legitimate website. While constructive notice is insufficient to demonstrate bad faith, actual knowledge of a complainant's rights in a mark prior to registration may be evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Custom Modular Direct LLC v. Custom Modular Homes Inc., FA 1140580 (Forum Apr. 8, 2008) ("There is no place for constructive notice under the Policy."); see also Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014) ("The Panel notes that although the UDRP does not recognize 'constructive notice' as sufficient grounds for finding Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith, the Panel here finds actual knowledge through the name used for the domain and the use made of it."); see also Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name). The Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in its mark prior to Respondent's registration of the disputed domain name and that this constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

Finally, the Panel finds that Respondent registered the disputed domain name opportunistically, because it registered the disputed domain name shortly after extensive media coverage of the assassination of Complainant's founder. This constitutes bad faith registration and use. See GridPoint, Inc. v. Matt Giovanini, FA 1909399 (Forum Oct. 5, 2020) ("Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii), opportunistic bad faith may be demonstrated by a Respondent registering a disputed domain name that integrates a distinct or famous mark, around the time of a certain event that creates interest or value in the disputed domain name."); see also Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. harshit dhingaun, FA 1619696 (Forum June 10, 2015) ("Respondent registered the contested domain names within days after the announcement of Complainant's sponsorship of India Fashion Week, thus demonstrating opportunistic bad faith in the registration and subsequent use of the domains."). Thus, the Panel finds bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) on this ground also. 

 

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 <tpusa-donation.info> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Richard Hill, Panelist

Dated: December 17, 2025