DECISION

 

Ingram Industries, Inc. v. Arsalan Khan

Claim Number: FA2601002197645

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Ingram Industries, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Ryan D. Levy of Patterson Intellectual Property Law, Tennessee, USA. Respondent is Arsalan Khan ("Respondent"), Texas, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME 

The domain name at issue is <ingramscontent.com>, registered with Key-Systems GmbH.

 

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.

 

Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 2, 2026; Forum received payment on January 2, 2026.

 

On January 5, 2026, Key-Systems GmbH confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <ingramscontent.com> domain name is registered with Key-Systems GmbH and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Key-Systems GmbH has verified that Respondent is bound by the Key-Systems GmbH 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 6, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 26, 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@ingramscontent.com. Also on January 6, 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.

 

A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on January 26, 2026.

 

On January 27, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

1.       Respondent's <ingramscontent.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's INGRAM mark.

 

2.       Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <ingramscontent.com> domain name.

 

3.       Respondent registered and uses the <ingramscontent.com> domain name in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

1.       Complainant does not have a trademark for INGRAM CONTENT.

 

2.       Respondent has used the <ingramscontent.com> domain name for legitimate competition.

 

3.       Respondent's use of the <ingramscontent.com> domain name to compete with Complainant is not bad faith.

 

C. Respondent claims Reverse Domain Name Hijacking for the reasons         above.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant offers publishing and distribution services. Complainant holds a registration for the INGRAM mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (Reg. No. 1,173,201, registered on October 13, 1981).  Complainant also conducts business at <ingramcontent.com>.

 

Respondent registered the <ingramscontent.com> domain name on December 1, 2025, and uses it to compete with 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.

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the INGRAM mark based on registration with the USPTO.  See Brooks Sports, Inc. v. Joyce Cheadle, FA 1819065 (Forum Dec. 28, 2018) (finding that Complainant's registration of the BROOKS mark with the USPTO sufficiently conferred its rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).

 

Respondent's <ingramscontent.com> domain name uses the INGRAM mark and simply inserts an "s" and the word "content", descriptive of Complainant's business, and a gTLD. These changes do not sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Microsoft Corporation v. Thong Tran Thanh, FA 1653187 (Forum Jan. 21, 2016) (determining that confusing similarity exists where [a disputed domain name] contains Complainant's entire mark and differs only by the addition of a generic or descriptive phrase and top-level domain, the differences between the domain name and its contained trademark are insufficient to differentiate one from the other for the purposes of the Policy).  Respondent claims that it is using the word "content" for its descriptive value and wholly ignores its infringing use of Complainant's INGRAM mark in the <ingramscontent.com> domain name. It is equally disingenuous for Respondent to try to argue rights because Complainant does not have a registration for INGRAM CONTENT; Complainant is certainly not required to hold a trademark registration for every combination of its mark with a descriptive or generic word in order to protect its long-standing, well-known INGRAM mark.  The Panel therefore finds that Respondent's <ingramscontent.com> domain name confusingly similar to Complainant's INGRAM mark.

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Once Complainant makes a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden shifts to Respondent to show 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 asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <ingramscontent.com> domain name, as Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name, and Complainant has not authorized or licensed Respondent to use its INGRAM mark. The WHOIS information identifies Respondent as "Arsalan Khan". Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and thus has no rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Radio Flyer Inc. v. er nong wu, FA 1919893 (Forum Dec. 16, 2020) ("Here, the WHOIS information lists "er nong wu" as the registrant and no information suggests Complainant has authorized Respondent to use the RADIO FLYER mark in any way. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).").

 

Complainant argues that Respondent is not using the <ingramscontent.com> domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii), using a disputed domain name to sell competing goods or services is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See DLJ Long Term Inv. Corp. v. BargainDomainNames.com, FA 104580 (Forum Apr. 9, 2002) ("Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services because Respondent is using the domain name to divert Internet users to <visual.com>, where services that compete with Complainant are advertised.").  Complainant provides screenshots of the website at the disputed domain name where Respondent offers services similar to those offered by Complainant and copies content from Complainant's website at <ingramcontent.com>. The Panel finds that this is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, and thus Respondent has no rights under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).  Using a complainant's registered trademark and content cannot constitute a legitimate use, particularly when it is used to directly compete with the complainant, blatantly trading upon the complainant's goodwill.

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

The Panel finds that Respondent uses the <ingramscontent.com> domain name to divert users to its website, disrupting Complainant's business for its own commercial gain, demonstrating bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum Dec. 27, 2017) (finding bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where "Respondent registered and uses the <lbittrex.com> domain name in bad faith by directing Internet users to a website that mimics Complainant's own website in order to confuse users into believing that Respondent is Complainant, or is otherwise affiliated or associated with Complainant."); see also BALENCIAGA SA v. ling lin, FA 1768542 (Forum Feb. 16, 2018) (finding bad faith where respondent registered domain names incorporating complainant's mark for websites that directly compete with complainant, designed to create a false impression of connection with the complainant).    Despite Respondent's arguments to the contrary, it is in fact bad faith to use a complainant's trademark to operate a competing website and trade off of its goodwill.

 

The Panel also finds that Respondent registered the <ingramscontent.com> domain name with knowledge of Complainant's rights in the INGRAM mark, based on Respondent's use of the domain name to directly compete with Complainant, and finds further bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).  Respondent's argument that it was not aware of Complainant's INGRAM mark is not credible, since Respondent operates in the publishing industry, where Complainant has operated for decades. It is no coincidence that Respondent uses the <ingramscontent.com> domain name, one character different from Complainant's <ingramcontent.com> domain name. See Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had "actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name"); see also iFinex Inc. v. xu shuaiwei, FA 1760249 (Forum Jan. 1, 2018) ("Respondent's prior knowledge is evident from the notoriety of Complainant's BITFINEX trademark as well as from Respondent's use of its trademark laden domain name to direct internet traffic to a website which is a direct competitor of Complainant.").

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKING

For all of the reasons above, the Panel finds that Complainant has not engaged in Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.

 

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

 

 

 

Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist

Dated: January 28, 2026