DECISION

 

B&G Foods North America, Inc. v. Robert Jake

Claim Number: FA2601002200825

 

PARTIES

Complainant is B&G Foods North America, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Sana Hakim of K&L Gates LLP, Illinois, USA. Respondent is Robert Jake ("Respondent"), Kazakhstan.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <thestaticguard.com>, registered with Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu.

 

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 21, 2026; Forum received payment on January 21, 2026.

 

On January 22, 2026, Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <thestaticguard.com> domain name is registered with Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu has verified that Respondent is bound by the Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu 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 26, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 17, 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@thestaticguard.com. Also on January 26, 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 18, 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. 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

1.       Respondent's <thestaticguard.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's STATIC GUARD mark.

 

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

 

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

 

B. Respondent did not file a Response.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant holds a registration for the STATIC GUARD mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (Reg. No. 2,783,542, registered November 18, 2003).

 

Respondent registered the <thestaticguard.com> domain name on March 19, 2025, and uses it to provide unauthorized affiliate links to Complainant's products.

 

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 Complainant has rights in the STATIC GUARD 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 <thestaticguard.com> domain name uses the STATIC GUARD mark and simply adds "the" 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 Ant Small and Micro Financial Services Group Co., Ltd. v. Ant Fin, FA 1759326 (Forum Jan. 2, 2018) ("Respondent's <antfinancial-investorrelations.com> Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's ANT FINANCIAL mark.  It incorporates the mark entirely.  It adds a hyphen, the descriptive terms "investor relations," and the ".com" gTLD, but these additions are insufficient to distinguish the Domain name from complainant's mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).") The Panel therefore finds that Respondent's <thestaticguard.com> domain name confusingly similar to Complainant's STATIC GUARD 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 contends that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <thestaticguard.com> domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name and Complainant has not authorized or licensed to Respondent any rights in the STATIC GUARD mark. The WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as "Robert Jake". 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 Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Suzen Khan / Nancy Jain / Andrew Stanzy, FA 1741129 (Forum Aug. 16, 2017) (finding that respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names when the identifying information provided by WHOIS was unrelated to the domain names or respondent's use of the same); see also Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) ("lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant's mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)").

 

Complainant also provides evidence showing that the disputed domain name resolves to affiliate links to STATIC GUARD products and uses Complainant's marks and images, further demonstrating Respondent's lack of rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).  See, Radio Systems Corporation v. Mustahsan ali Agha /Amazon affiliate, FA 1939908 (Forum April 14, 2021) (finding respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests in domain name where domain name "is being used for a website whose purpose is to generate commissions from affiliate links to products offered for sale on Amazon.com"); see also Vance Int'l, Inc. v. Abend, FA 970871 (Forum June 8, 2007) (concluding that the operation of a pay-per-click website at a confusingly similar domain name does not represent a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, regardless of whether or not the links resolve to competing or unrelated websites or if the respondent is itself commercially profiting from the click-through fees).

 

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

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant argues that Respondent registered and uses the <thestaticguard.com> domain name in bad faith to divert users to affiliate links where Respondent earns commissions on sales of Complainant's products without authorization. The Panel agrees and finds bad faith attraction for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).  Titan Manufacturing and Distributing, Inc. v. guo tian tian, FA 2106796 (Forum Aug. 15, 2024) ("Respondent's <titan-attachments.com> website thereby attempts to pass itself off as Complainant's to cause consumers to falsely believe that Respondent is, or is affiliated with, Complainant when in fact Respondent is using the domain name to benefit from an increase in its Amazon Associate activity."); see also CFA Properties, Inc. v. El Mariache/ Mariache Corp, FA 1660175 (Forum Mar. 8, 2016) (finding bad faith registration and use because "Respondent used the <chickfilafoundation.org> domain name to attract Internet users for commercial gain because the resolving website contains links to third party businesses, from which Respondent presumably receives pay-per-click fees").

 

Complainant argues that Respondent registered the <thestaticguard.com> domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the STATIC GUARD mark. The Panel agrees, since Respondent uses Complainant's mark and images to sell Complainant's products, and finds that Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). 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 "actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name").

 

Complainant also provides evidence showing that Respondent has lost numerous previous UDRP cases, many also involving affiliate links, establishing a pattern of bad faith. See Provide Com., Inc. v. Jardimar Holdings Corp / Charingola, FA1502077 (Forum June 27, 2013) ("[T]he existence of previous UDRP decisions where Respondent was found to have registered a domain name in bad faith reveals Respondent's pattern of cybersquatting behavior. The Panel construes Respondent's pattern of such behavior as evidence that Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith as well.")

 

The Panel finds that 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 <thestaticguard.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist

Dated: February 21, 2026