DECISION

 

Target Brands, Inc. v. Zeeshan Arain

Claim Number: FA2512002196641

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Target Brands, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Jeanette Eriksson of FairWinds Partners LLC, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Zeeshan Arain ("Respondent"), Pakistan.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <pillowforts.com> ("Disputed Domain Name" or "DDN"), registered with Name.com, 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.

 

David L. Kreider, Chartered Arbitrator (UK), as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on December 26, 2025; Forum received payment on December 26, 2025.

 

On December 31, 2025, Name.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <pillowforts.com> domain name is registered with Name.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Name.com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Name.com, 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 January 2, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 22, 2026, 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@pillowforts.com. Also on January 2, 2026, 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 January 23, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed David L. Kreider 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

In 2016, Complainant, Target Brands, Inc., commenced use of its PILLOWFORT Mark in connection with an in-store and online offering of kids' pillows, stuffies, home furnishings and décor products. The DDN is confusingly similar to Complainant's registered PILLOWFORT Mark. Respondent attracts searchers to its website by using the PILLOWFORT Mark in its entirety within the DDN, which differs from the Complainant's Mark only in that the Respondent added an additional "s". This minor change makes those who see the Disputed Domain Name think that it is related to Complainant and its PILLOWFORT product offerings.

 

Complainant argues that the website to which the Disputed Domain Name resolves makes it more than obvious that the DDN was chosen specifically to resemble Complainant's Mark, considering for example the frequent use of the full PILLOWFORT trademark name, copying of PILLOWFORT product images from Complainant's official website, use of Complainant's address, as well as the overall impersonation and fraudulent claims to be the official PILLOWFORT website.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

1)       Complainant Target Brands Inc is the owner of the PILLOWFORT trademark (the "Mark"), including U.S. Registration Number 5757707 registered on May 21, 2019.

2)       Respondent registered the DDN on June 8, 2025.

3)       The DDN fully incorporates Complainant's Mark, merely adding the letter "s" to the Mark "PILLOWFORT" and including the administratively required generic top-level domain identifier ".com."  

4)       Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the DDN. The WHOIS information does not reflect that Respondent, Zeeshan Arain, was ever or is now commonly known as "PILLOWFORT".

5)       Under the "PILLOWFORT OFFICIAL WEBSITE" banner, Respondent's Website depicts kids' pillows, stuffies, home furnishings and décor products purporting to be those of Complainant.

6)       Respondent's unauthorized use of Complainant's PILLOWFORT Mark and reliance on "typosquatting" to confuse members of the public as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent's Website or the products offered on the site, clearly shows Respondent's intention and purpose to attract Internet consumers to Respondent's Website for Respondent's own financial gain.

7)       The Panel finds that Respondent targeted the Complainant and the Marks in bad faith for the purpose of free riding on the Complainant's goodwill.

 

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 Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name, which differs from the Complainant's Mark only in that the Respondent added the letter "s", is confusingly similar to Complainant's registered PILLOWFORT Mark. This minor change makes those who see the Disputed Domain Name think that it is related to Complainant and its PILLOWFORT product offerings. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7, further states that "the overall facts and circumstances of a case (including relevant website content) may support a finding of confusing similarity, particularly where it appears that the respondent registered the domain name precisely because it believed that the domain name was confusingly similar to a mark held by the complainant". Such is the case here.

 

The Complainant has satisfied the first element at Policy Paragraph 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Respondent's actions are not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i). Complainant has not licensed, authorized, or permitted Respondent to register the DDN incorporating Complainant's PILLOWFORT trademark, or to use the PILLOWFORT trademark in general. See Guerlain S.A. v. Peikang D2000-0055 (WIPO Mar. 21, 2000) ("Therefore, in the absence of any license or permission from the Complainant to use any of its trademarks or to apply for or use any domain name incorporating those trademarks, it is clear that no actual or contemplated bona fide or legitimate use of the domain name could be claimed by Respondent").

 

The Disputed Domain Name resolves to a webpage claiming to be the official PILLOWFORT website and Respondent is throughout the webpage attempting to pass itself off as Complainant and mislead internet users.  This use and impersonation diverts visitors - likely Complainant's customers and potential customers – to a fraudulent website passing itself off as Complainant which is not, in any way, associated with, licensed, or approved by Complainant. None of this activity can possibly be considered to be bona fide. Prior UDRP panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity (e.g., phishing, impersonation/passing off, or other types of fraud) and misleading consumers who are searching for a particular business, to a site that is impersonating the trademark owner can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent and is not a bona fide use; see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13. See e.g.  Brumate, Inc. v. Ndt Ndt / BruMate, FA 2000840 (Forum July 14, 2022) in which the Panel stated that "Complainant argues that Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor for any legitimate non-commercial or fair use, because Respondent attempts to pass off as Complainant. Impersonation of a Complainant in a disputed domain name's associated webpage may not qualify as either a bona fide offer of goods and services, nor is it a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).  

 

The Complainant has satisfied the second element at Policy Paragraph 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Respondent registered the DDN <pillowforts.com>, intentionally adding an additional "s" to Complainant's registered Mark, to impersonate the Complainant in an attempt to confuse and defraud unsuspecting consumers by a fraudulent practice known as "typosquatting". The Panel finds that the Respondent registered and used the DDN in bad faith to free ride on Complainant's business goodwill and reputation for Respondent's own commercial gain.

 

The Complainant has proved the third element at Policy Paragraph 4(a)(iii).

 

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

 

 

 

David L. Kreider, Panelist

Dated: January 24, 2026