DECISION

 

Turning Point USA, Inc. v. Fort Worthmag

Claim Number: FA2512002192062

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Turning Point USA, Inc. ("Complainant"), United States, represented by Louis T. Perry of Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, United States. Respondent is Fort Worthmag ("Respondent"), North Macedonia.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <ttpusa.org>, registered with 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.

 

David E. Sorkin as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

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

 

On December 3, 2025, HOSTINGER operations, UAB confirmed by email to Forum that the <ttpusa.org> domain name is registered with HOSTINGER operations, UAB and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. HOSTINGER operations, UAB has verified that Respondent is bound by the HOSTINGER operations, UAB 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 December 5, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 29, 2025 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@ttpusa.org. Also on December 5, 2025, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email 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 30, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed David E. Sorkin 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 is a nonprofit organization whose mission is to "identify, educate, train, and organize students to promote the principles of fiscal responsibility, free markets, and limited government." Complainant supports a nationwide network of student chapters and clubs. Complainant states that it raised nearly $389 million from 2012 to mid-2023, and that it has invested more than $10 million in advertising and promotional initiatives. Complainant's activities have been covered extensively in third-party media outlets, and this coverage surged following the assassination of Charlie Kirk, Complainant's founder, in September 2025.

 

Complainant has used TURNING POINT USA and a logo composed of a curved arrow with the words TURNING POINT USA since at least as early as July 2012 in connection with apparel, online retail store services, podcasts, charitable fundraising, information services, and student chapters and clubs, and has used the abbreviated mark TPUSA since at least as early as March 2015. Complainant's official website uses the domain name <tpusa.com>; Complainant also operates a website at <tpusamerch.com>, at which it offers merchandise bearing the TURNING POINT USA and TPUSA marks. Complainant asserts that the marks are widely recognized across the United States and internationally in connection with Complainant's mission and charitable activities, and that they serve as trusted source identifiers for Complainant's supporters. Complainant asserts common law trademark rights in the TURNING POINT USA word mark and logo and the TPUSA word mark based on longstanding use and recognition.

 

The disputed domain name <ttpusa.org> was registered in September 2025, 17 days after Charlie Kirk's death. The name is registered to Respondent, although Respondent's identity is redacted from the public domain name registration record. The domain name is being used for a website entitled "TurningPusa- TTpusa." The website prominently and repeatedly displays Complainant's TURNING POINT USA mark and logo, along with first-person references to Complainant, photographs of Kirk and his family, and other copyrighted images copied from Complainant's websites. It solicits donations from visitors and offers or purports to offer "Charlie Kirk merch" for sale. The contact information displayed on the website appears to be invalid. Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name and is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant's marks.

 

Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <ttpusa.org> is confusingly similar to its TPUSA mark; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

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 Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, § 4.3 (3d ed. 2017), available at http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/; UDRP Perspectives on Recent Jurisprudence, §§ 0.2, 0.8 (updated June 2, 2025), available at https://udrpperspectives.org/; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (dismissing complaint where complainant failed to "produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations").

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

To prevail under the Policy, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights. If the claim relies upon common law rights, Complainant must present evidence that the mark has acquired secondary meaning — i.e., that it has become a distinctive identifier associated with Complainant or its goods or services. See WIPO Overview, supra, § 1.3; UDRP Perspectives, supra, §§ 1.1, 1.2, 1.3.

 

Complainant asserts that it has common law trademark rights in TPUSA arising from its use and promotion of that term for many years in connection with various goods and services. The evidence provided by Complainant, at least in the absence of any challenge by Respondent, is sufficient in the view of this Panel to demonstrate common law rights in the TPUSA mark for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. See, e.g., Turning Point USA, Inc. v. Immoral Webdev, FA 2189606 (Forum Dec. 17, 2025) (finding common law rights in TPUSA); Turning Point USA, Inc. v. Boom Bengi, FA 2180800 (Forum Dec. 4, 2025) (finding common law rights in TPUSA); Turning Point USA, Inc. v. Hengyangqiao Township Network Technology Co., Ltd. / Rong Chen, FA 2182369 (Forum Nov. 21, 2025) (finding common law rights in TPUSA).

 

The disputed domain name <ttpusa.org> incorporates Complainant's TPUSA trademark, adding a letter "T" and the ".org" top-level domain. These additions do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., Morgan Stanley v. Theophilus Aidoo, FA 2136052 (Forum Feb. 13, 2025) (finding <morgansttanley.org> confusingly similar to MORGAN STANLEY); Carahsoft Technology Corp. v. Mac Vibes, FA 2125245 (Forum Dec. 10, 2024) (finding <carahsoftt.org> confusingly similar to CARAHSOFT). The Panel considers the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Under the Policy, the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc. v. Entertainment Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).

 

The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's mark without authorization. Its sole apparent use has been for a misleading website that attempts to pass off as Complainant, promoting unauthorized competing (and likely nonexistent) products and soliciting donations under false pretenses. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., Turning Point USA, Inc. v. Immoral Webdev, supra (finding lack of rights or interests in similar circumstances); Turning Point USA, Inc. v. Boom Bengi, supra (same); Turning Point USA, Inc. v. Hengyangqiao Township Network Technology Co., Ltd. / Rong Chen, supra (same).

 

Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of such rights or interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered the disputed domain name "primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor." Under paragraph 4(b)(iv), bad faith may be shown by evidence that "by using the domain name, [Respondent] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [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 [Respondent's] web site or location or of a product or service on [Respondent's] web site or location."

 

Respondent used what appears to the Panel to be fictitious registration information to register a domain name corresponding to a misspelling of Complainant's mark, in what the Panel considers to be an instance of typosquatting; and is using the domain name for a misleading website that attempts to pass off as Complainant, promoting unauthorized competing (and likely nonexistent) products and soliciting donations under false pretenses. Such circumstances are indicative of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See, e.g., Turning Point USA, Inc. v. Immoral Webdev, supra (finding bad faith registration and use in similar circumstances); Turning Point USA, Inc. v. Boom Bengi, supra (same); Turning Point USA, Inc. v. Hengyangqiao Township Network Technology Co., Ltd. / Rong Chen, supra (same). The Panel so finds.

 

DECISION

Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <ttpusa.org> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

David E. Sorkin, Panelist

Dated: December 31, 2025