DECISION

 

Ulta Beauty, Inc. v. Scott Baird

Claim Number: FA2601002199625

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Ulta Beauty, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Melissa A. Vallone of Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Illinois, USA. Respondent is Scott Baird ("Respondent"), Canada.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <ultarx.com> ("Domain Name"), 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.

 

Nicholas J.T. Smith 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 <ultarx.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@ultarx.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, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Nicholas J.T. Smith 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, Ulta Beauty, Inc., is a leading beauty retailer in the United States having offered a variety of cosmetics, fragrance, skin, hair and salon services under its mark for over 30 years. Complainant has registered the ULTA mark in various jurisdictions including with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (e.g. Reg. No. 2,504,336, registered November 6, 2001). Respondent's <ultarx.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark as it merely adds the generic abbreviation/additional letters "rx" and the ".com" generic top-level-domain ("gTLD") to the wholly incorporated mark.

 

Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <ultarx.com> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name, nor has Complainant authorized or licensed Respondent to use the ULTA mark. Additionally, Respondent does not use the Domain Name for any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor for any legitimate noncommercial or fair use because Respondent has made no demonstrable preparations to use the Domain Name for a legitimate purpose, except as a website that displays pay-per-click advertising.

 

Respondent registered and uses the <ultarx.com> domain name in bad faith because the Domain Name is a minor misspelling of Complainant's ULTA mark and is used to generate revenue using pay-per-click advertising unrelated to any ordinary meaning of the Domain Name. Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the ULTA mark at the time of registration based on the Complainant's significant use of the coined and unique ULTA mark which predated Respondent's registration of the Domain Name.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant holds trademark rights for the ULTA mark.  The Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's ULTA mark.  Complainant has established that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the use of the Domain Name and that Respondent registered and has used the Domain Name 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 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 rights in the ULTA mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its registration of the mark with the USPTO (e.g. Reg. No. 2,504,336, registered November 6, 2001). Registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to establish rights in that mark. See Liberty Global Logistics, LLC v. damilola emmanuel / tovary services limited, FA 1738536 (Forum Aug. 4, 2017) ("Registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently establishes the required rights in the mark for purposes of the Policy.").

 

The Panel finds that the <ultarx.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's ULTA mark because it merely adds the generic abbreviation "rx" (an abbreviation for "prescription") to the wholly incorporated mark and also adds the ".com" gTLD.  The addition of a generic term and a gTLD to a wholly incorporated mark is generally insufficient to create a distinction between a complainant's mark and a disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).  See Constellation Wines U.S., Inc. v. Tex. Int'l Prop. Assocs., FA 948436 (Forum May 16, 2007) (finding that the addition of the descriptive term "wine" to the complainant's BLACKSTONE mark in the <blackstonewine.com> domain name was insufficient to distinguish the mark from the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). See also Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (concluding that the affixation of a gTLD to a domain name is irrelevant to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis).

 

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

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant alleges that Respondent holds no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.  In order for Complainant to succeed under this element, it must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the Domain Name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests.  See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006) and AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Forum Sept. 25, 2006) ("Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light.  If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names.").  The Panel holds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case.

 

Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name as Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the ULTA mark.  Respondent has no relationship, affiliation, connection, endorsement or association with Complainant.  WHOIS information can help support a finding that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, especially where a privacy service has been engaged.  See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Dale Anderson, FA 1613011 (Forum May 21, 2015) (concluding that because the WHOIS record lists "Dale Anderson" as the registrant of the disputed domain name, the respondent was not commonly known by the <statefarmforum.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)); see also Kohler Co. v. Privacy Service, FA 1621573 (Forum July 2, 2015) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) where "Privacy Service" was listed as the registrant of the disputed domain name).  The WHOIS lists "Scott Baird" as registrant of record.  Coupled with Complainant's unrebutted assertions as to absence of any affiliation or authorization between the parties, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name in accordance with Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

The Domain Name is presently inactive but prior to the commencement of the proceeding resolved to a website featuring pay-per-click advertisements unrelated to any descriptive meaning of the Domain Name, for which the Respondent is likely to receive revenue. This is not a bona fide offering or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.  See Danbyg Ejendomme A/S v. lb Hansen / guerciotti, FA 1613867 (Forum June 2, 2015) (finding that the respondent had failed to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name where the disputed domain name resolved to a website that offered both competing hyperlinks and hyperlinks unrelated to the complainant's business); see also Insomniac Holdings, LLC v. Mark Daniels, FA 1735969 (Forum July 15, 2017) ("Respondent's use of <edcorlando.xyz> also does not qualify as a bona fide offering… the <edcorlando.xyz> domain name resolves to a site containing pay-per-click hyperlinks and advertisements… Since these kinds of advertisements generate revenue for the holder of a domain name, they cannot be noncommercial; further, they do not qualify as a bona fide offering.").  

 

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

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

The Panel finds on the balance of probabilities that, at the time of registration of the Domain Name, December 4, 2025, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's ULTA mark.  Complainant had used this mark for 30 years at the time of registration and generated a significant reputation in that mark; moreover, it would be unlikely for a party to register a domain name that wholly incorporates the coined ULTA mark (a word with no obvious meaning other than as an identifier of the Complainant) and redirect it to a pay-per-click website advertising services unrelated to any possible descriptive meaning of the Domain Name, absent any awareness of Complainant and its ULTA mark (and intention to capitalize on Complainant's reputation in its ULTA mark).  In the absence of rights or legitimate interests of its own this demonstrates registration in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

The Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the Domain Name in bad faith in order to resolve to a website that provides a series of pay-per-click links for which Respondent would be expected to receive revenue.  Use of a confusingly similar domain name to redirect Internet users to a website containing advertisements and links to third party websites for commercial gain is indicative of bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).  See 3M Company v. Nguyen Hoang Son / Bussiness and Marketing, FA 1575815 (Forum Sept. 18, 2014) (finding that the respondent's use of the disputed domain name to host sponsored advertisements for Amazon, through which the respondent presumably profited, indicated that the respondent had used the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)); see also Tumblr, Inc. v. Ailing Liu, FA 1543807 (Forum Mar. 24, 2014) ("Bad faith use and registration exists under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where a respondent uses a confusingly similar domain name to resolve to a website featuring links and advertisements unrelated to complainant's business and respondent is likely collecting fees."). 

 

The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied 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 <ultarx.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Nicholas J.T. Smith, Panelist

Dated: February 5, 2026