DECISION

 

Fair Isaac Corporation v. joshua ramnath

Claim Number: FA2601002199574

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Fair Isaac Corporation ("Complainant"), represented by Bob Entwisle of Fair Isaac Corporation, Minnesota, USA. Respondent is joshua ramnath ("Respondent"), Florida, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <ficofighters.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, 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 Panelist in this proceeding.

 

Nick J. Gardner as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 14, 2026; Forum received payment on January 14, 2026.

 

On January 14, 2026, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <ficofighters.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, 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 January 15, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 4, 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@ficofighters.com. Also on January 15, 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 February 5, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Nick J. Gardner 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, Fair Isaac Corporation ("FICO"), is a leading applied analytics company founded in 1956, with fiscal year 2025 revenues of $1.99 billion. Complainant is particularly known for its FICO Score, the most widely used credit bureau score in the world, relied upon by most leading banks, credit card issuers, insurers, retailers, and other financial institutions in more than 100 countries.

 

Complainant has continuously and extensively used the FICO mark in commerce since at least 1995. In 2009, FICO adopted FICO as its house mark and trade name for all company products and services. Complainant owns multiple U.S. federal trademark registrations for marks comprising or incorporating the term FICO, including: FICO (U.S. Registration Nos. 2,273,432, 2,573,131, 2,989,390, 4,032,019, and 7,248,104), MYFICO (U.S. Registration No. 2,714,565), and ULTRAFICO (U.S. Registration No. 6,901,439). Complainant also owns numerous international trademark registrations for the FICO marks.

 

Complainant operates primary websites at www.fico.com (since 1994) and www.myfico.com (since 2000) offering credit-related products and services. Sales of products and services under the FICO mark since 2009 exceed $11 billion globally and $7.3 billion in the United States.

 

The disputed domain name <ficofighters.com> was registered by Respondent on April 17, 2025, more than 25 years after Complainant began using the FICO mark. The domain name incorporates Complainant's FICO mark in its entirety, adding only the descriptive term "fighters" and the generic top-level domain ".com."

 

Respondent operates a website at the disputed domain name offering credit repair services, which are directly related to and in potential competition with Complainant's credit-related services. Respondent has no relationship, affiliation, connection, or authorization from Complainant to use the FICO mark.

 

On December 3, 2025, Complainant contacted Respondent regarding the unauthorized use of the FICO mark. Respondent failed to respond or cease use of the domain name.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Based on the evidence submitted in the Complaint, the Panel finds as follows:

 

1. Complainant has established rights in the FICO mark through continuous use since at least 1995 and through multiple U.S. federal trademark registrations, the earliest of which (US Reg No 2,273,432, FICO, registered on August 31, 1999) predates Respondent's registration of the disputed domain name by many years.

 

2. The disputed domain name <ficofighters.com> incorporates Complainant's FICO mark in its entirety, adding only the dictionary word "fighters."

 

3. Respondent registered the disputed domain name on April 17, 2025.

 

4. Respondent operates a website at the disputed domain name offering credit repair services, which are related to Complainant's credit-related business.

 

5. Respondent has no authorization from Complainant to use the FICO mark.

 

6. Respondent received notice of Complainant's trademark rights on December 3, 2025, but continued to operate the website.

 

7. Respondent has not filed a Response in this proceeding.

 

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 has established rights in the FICO trademark through its extensive use since 1995 and its U.S. trademark registrations. The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied the threshold requirement of demonstrating rights in the FICO trademark for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy – see Farmlane Brands, LLC v. Helene Isbell Biggane, FA 1996757 (Forum July 12, 2022) "Ownership of a trademark registration is generally sufficient evidence that a complainant has the requisite rights in a mark for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy." 

 

The disputed domain name <ficofighters.com> incorporates Complainant's entire FICO trademark followed by the dictionary word "fighters". The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's FICO trademark. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognisable 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.").

 

The addition of the generic top-level domain ".com" is a technical requirement of domain name registration and does not affect the confusing similarity analysis. See Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association v. Shi Lei aka Shilei, FA 1784643 (Forum June 18, 2018) ("A TLD (whether a gTLD, sTLD or ccTLD) is disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax requires TLDs.").

 

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

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), it is now well established that the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) and that, if the prima facie case is made out, the burden then shifts to the Respondent to show that it does have such 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)).

 

Complainant has demonstrated that Respondent is not authorized to use the FICO marks and has no relationship with Complainant. The WHOIS information identifies Respondent as "joshua ramnath" which bears no resemblance to the disputed domain name. There is no evidence that Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name or has acquired any trademark rights in "FICO" or any similar term. Accordingly, Complainant has established a prima facie case under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and the burden shifts to Respondent to demonstrate rights or legitimate interests.

  

The Panel finds that Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). The use of a confusingly similar domain name, to attract traffic to a website which offers services that compete with or relate to those of the Complainant cannot establish a legitimate interest. See VOERE Holding GmbH v. Matteo Passoni / TECHNOLOGY SWISS HSE SA, FA 2024402 (Forum Jan. 16, 2023) ("Using a confusingly similar domain name to offer products which compete with those of a complainant is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use within the meaning of Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(iv).").

 

Respondent has failed to rebut Complainant's prima facie case or to demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.

 

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

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Policy ¶ 4(b) sets forth four non-exclusive circumstances that constitute evidence of registration and use in bad faith. The Panel finds that Respondent's conduct falls within Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), which addresses circumstances where "by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your 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 your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location."

 

The use of a confusingly similar domain name to attract customers to a website offering competing or related service is evidence of bad faith. See AM General LLC v. Amer Habib / atlanta best used cars, FA 2031821 (Forum Mar. 22, 2023) ("As already noted, the resolving websites offer products that compete with those of Complainant. Previous Panels have held that use of a disputed domain name to offer goods or services that are in competition with those of a complainant is evidence of bad faith attraction for commercial gain." See also Environmental Science U.S. Inc. v. Vikas Kumar, FA 2025152 (Forum Jan. 19, 2023) ("Complainant also argues that Respondent's use of the disputed domain name for a competing pest management business evinces bad faith. Previous Panels have agreed, finding bad faith disruption of a complainant's business under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and bad faith attraction for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) when a respondent offers products or services that directly compete with a complainant").

 

Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)( (iv).

  

The Panel finds that Complainant has established Policy ¶ 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 <ficofighters.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Nick J. Gardner Panelist

Dated: February 6, 2026