DECISION

 

Knight Vision Marketing Inc. v. Firman Hidayat Taufik / none company , just my self

Claim Number: FA2512002192959

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Knight Vision Marketing Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by John Berryhill, Pennsylvania, USA. Respondent is Firman Hidayat Taufik / none company , just my self ("Respondent"), Indonesia.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <cmocoaches.com>, registered with Gname.com Pte. Ltd.

 

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 Panelist in this proceeding.

 

Steven M. Levy as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

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

 

On December 8, 2025, Gname.com Pte. Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <cmocoaches.com> domain name is registered with Gname.com Pte. Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Gname.com Pte. Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Gname.com Pte. Ltd. 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 9, 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 e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@cmocoaches.com. Also on December 9, 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 30, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Steven M. Levy 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, Knight Vision Marketing Inc., is the owner of United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") Reg. No. 5705557, issued on March 19, 2019, for the mark "CMO COACHES" claiming "Business training in the field of marketing for marketing executives". Complainant had registered and used the disputed domain name since 2018 but, at some point in time, its GoDaddy account was compromised and, on November 25, 2025, the attacker made an unauthorized transfer of the domain name to an account at a different Registrar.

 

The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's CMO COACHES mark as it copies the mark in its entirety and adds only the ".com" TLD.

 

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name where it hijacked the domain name from Complainant's account and uses it to resolve to a website that is a reconstructed copy of the Complainant's site.

 

The disputed domain name was registered and is used in bad faith based on Respondent's deliberate predatory targeting of Complainant, its theft of the domain name, and its hosting of a website that copies the Complainant's site.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

-        Complainant has demonstrated its ownership of rights in the CMO COACHES trademark by registration of the same and the <cmocoaches.com> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the mark;

-        Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name where it has obtained the domain name through fraudulent means (i.e., hacking Complainant's email account) and copied the content of Complainant's legitimate website; and

-        The disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith where it was obtained through fraudulent means and where Respondent has copied Complainant's website content.

 

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 rights in its CMO COACHES mark through its registration with the USPTO. Registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to demonstrate rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See DIRECTV, LLC v. The Pearline Group, FA 1818749 (Forum Dec. 30, 2018) ("Complainant's ownership of a USPTO registration for DIRECTV demonstrate its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)."). Here, Complainant provides a copy of its USPTO registration certificate. However, the Panel notes that the cited Reg. No. 5705557 exists on Supplemental Register of the USPTO and "Complainants relying on trademark registrations listed solely on the USPTO Supplemental Register are expected to show secondary meaning in order to establish trademark rights under the Policy because under US law a supplemental registration does not by itself provide evidence of distinctiveness to support trademark rights." WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0"), at par. 1.2.2. The Complaint makes on reference to or claim of common law trademark rights and the only relevant Annex to the Complaint are two archived screenshots of Complainant's former website. However, where a respondent has so obviously and intentionally targeted an asserted mark, Panels have been prepared to find common law rights based, in part, on the concept that such rights must exist if the respondent found the mark worth exploiting. See, e.g., WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0, at par. 1.3 ("the fact that a respondent is shown to have been targeting the complainant's mark may support the complainant's assertion that its mark has achieved significance as a source identifier"); Sight and Sound Ministries v. Shishir Ahmed, D2021-0737 (WIPO May 29, 2021) ("The Panel notes in this regard that within a week of the Complainant's online streaming of its production 'Jesus – Live!', the Respondent registered the disputed domain name <jesuslive2021.com>. The Panel infers that the Respondent did so in the belief that consumers would identify the Complainant as the source of origin of the disputed domain name."). While Complainant's screenshots of its former website are, themselves, rather meager to support a claim of common law trademark rights, the Panel refers to the fact that Respondent has used the <cmocoaches.com> domain name to host a nearly identical copy of Complainant's own website and that this evidences Respondent's own belief that the term CMO COACHES functions as a trademark and is worthy of exploiting for commercial gain. Change Healthcare Operations, LLC v. Privacy Service Provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf / Yogesh Kumar, D2022-0063 (WIPO Mar. 7, 2022) ("the Respondent's use of the PERYOURHEALTH mark to brand a cloned version of the Complainant's website itself further affirms the Complainant's position regarding its claim to unregistered trademark rights in this term, as it indicates that the Respondent is targeting the said mark, making deliberate reference to the Complainant's business as conducted via the online portal at <peryourhealth.com>"). As such, the Panel finds that Complainant has met the threshold to support a claim of rights in its CMO COACHES mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Next, Complainant argues that Respondent's <cmocoaches.com> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's CMO COACHES mark. It is well established that the addition of a TLD most often fails to sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Udemy, Inc. v. ghita moubchir / ghita, FA 2014114 (Forum Nov. 2, 2022) ("The disputed domain name [<udemy.lol>] merely adds to [sic] gTLD, '.lol', to the trademark and so the Panel finds the domain name to be legally identical to the trademark for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy."). Here, the disputed domain name contains the CMO COACHES mark in its entirety while adding the ".com" gTLD. Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Should it succeed in this effort, the burden then shifts to Respondent to show that it does have 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)); see also 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.").

 

Complainant makes no mention of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) which states that rights or legitimate interests may be found where "you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights". However, the WHOIS record reveals Respondent's name as "Firman Hidayat Taufik / none company , just my self" and there is no evidence to indicate that Complainant has authorized the use of its mark. Quite to the contrary, the submitted evidence shows that Respondent

has stolen the disputed domain name from Complainant.  As Respondent has not filed a Response nor made any other submission in this case to contest Complainant's evidence, the Panel finds no ground upon which to conclude that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

Complainant does, however, aggressively argue that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as it obtained the domain name through fraudulent means and it now seeks to pass itself off as Complainant under false pretenses. Although the Policy is not intended to address situations involving theft of a domain name,¹ the same does not provide any rights or legitimate interests and certainly an attempt by a respondent to pass itself off as a complainant under false pretenses does support a finding of failure to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Mortgage Research Center LLC v. Miranda, FA 993017 (Forum July 9, 2007) ("Because [the] respondent in this case is also attempting to pass itself off as [the] complainant, presumably for financial gain, the Panel finds the respondent is not using the <mortgageresearchcenter.org> domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)."). Here, Complainant has provided screenshots of Respondent's <cmocoaches.com> website as well as archived images of its own content that was formerly hosted at the disputed domain name. The Panel notes that Respondent's site is virtually identical to Complainant's former site using the same logo and many of the same graphics and textual content. Complainant also notes that, for a brief time after the transfer of the domain name, it resolved to a gambling site in the Indonesian language and it also provides a screenshot of this content. As Respondent has not filed a response or made any other submission in this case, it has not sought to challenge Complainant's assertions or provide any alternate explanation for its actions. Therefore, the Complainant has made a prima facie case which has not been rebutted by Respondent. Based on the available evidence, the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services and that it does not make a legitimate noncommercial or fair use thereof under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant argues that, because Respondent obtained the disputed domain name by hacking its email and Registrar accounts and has copied content from its own website, Respondent has demonstrated bad faith registration and use. The Panel notes that, while domain name theft may not fit neatly into one of the examples of bad faith set out in Policy ¶ 4(b), it is widely accepted that the provisions of this sub-section of the Policy are meant to be merely illustrative and that a respondent's bad faith may be demonstrated by ancillary allegations considered under the totality of the circumstances. See Digi Int'l Inc. v. DDI Sys., FA 124506 (Forum Oct. 24, 2002) (determining that Policy ¶ 4(b) sets forth certain circumstances, without limitation, that shall be evidence of registration and use of a domain name in bad faith). Obtaining a domain name through illicit means, such has hacking an account, has been considered evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Global Village Publishing, Inc. v. chenwen, FA 1489761 (Forum May 6, 2013) (bad faith found where "Respondent hacked into Complainant's GoDaddy.com account and fraudulently transferred the <gvp.com> domain name to Respondent."); EZQUEST, INC. v. BAORUI, FA 1445631 (Forum July 3, 2012) (holding that hacking a complainant's registration account is evidence of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)). Here, Complainant claims that Respondent hacked Complainant's email and Registrar accounts and transferred the disputed domain name, which previously belonged to Complainant, to another Registrar. Complainant provides screenshots of the WHOIS records before and after the transfer as well as IP Address and Name Server histories for the disputed domain name showing that the nameservers have been switched to Cloudflare.com instead of Domaincontrol.com which is used by GoDaddy. It also submits evidence showing that Complainant had formerly configured the domain name with Mail Exchange ("MX") records whereas there currently are none indicating that Complainant has lost the ability to communicate with its clients via email. Based on the evidence that the <cmocoaches.com> domain name was obtained by Respondent through hacking and theft, the Panel finds that Respondent registered the domain name bad faith, pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

Further, the evidence demonstrates that Respondent's website copies a significant amount of material content from Complainant's own legitimate former site and this further supports a conclusion that bad faith registration and use has occurred. The appearance of copyrighted material can indicate bad faith registration and use of a disputed domain name. Cengage Learning, Inc. v Tran Dinh Dong, FA 1923509 (Forum Dec. 29, 2020) ("The activity is also copyright infringement which also demonstrates bad faith."); Golden Goose S.p.A. v. 邹亮亮 (Zou Liang Liang), D2020-2529 (WIPO Dec. 23, 2020) (bad faith found where "Respondent used the Complainant's registered trademarks and copyrighted photos without authorization"). As the <cmocoaches.com> website uses the logo, many graphics, and substantial text from Complainant's prior website, the Panel finds that this copying provides support for a finding that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).

 

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 <cmocoaches.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

__________________________________________________________________

 

 

 

Steven M. Levy, Panelist

Dated: January 6, 2026