DECISION

 

Direct Agents LLC v. Host Master / Njalla Okta LLC

Claim Number: FA2601002201453

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Direct Agents LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Brooke Erdos Singer of Davis+Gilbert LLP, New York, USA. Respondent is Host Master / Njalla Okta LLC ("Respondent"), Saint Kitts and Nevis.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <directagents.net>, registered with Tucows Domains Inc.

 

PANEL

The undersigned certify 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.

 

Petter Rindforth as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 23, 2026; Forum received payment on January 23, 2026.

 

On January 26, 2026, Tucows Domains Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <directagents.net> domain name is registered with Tucows Domains Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Tucows Domains Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Tucows Domains 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 28, 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@directagents.net. Also on January 28, 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 Petter Rindforth 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 is the owner of the trademark DIRECT AGENTS. Complainant is a marketing agency, founded on March 31, 2003, with offices in New York, Los Angeles, and Austin. Complainant also owns the <directagents.com> domain name. Complainant manages over $500 million in annual media and serves notable clients across multiple industries.

 

Respondent registered the disputed domain name <directagents.net> on December 22, 2025, more than two decades after Complainant began using the DIRECT AGENTS trademark and more than fifteen years after Complainant secured its federal trademark registration.

 

The <directagents.net> domain name is identical to the DIRECT AGENTS trademark in which Complainant has superior rights. The domain name currently resolves to a website that is being used for phishing and fraud. The fraudulent website frames Complainant's actual website at <directagents.com>, pulling in the content directly and displaying it to users as if it were the legitimate Direct Agents website. Upon investigation by Complainant's counsel, the website then redirects visitors to a fake login page designed to harvest credentials.

 

Respondent certainly had actual knowledge of Complainant prior to registering the domain name. Complainant owns a registered trademark for the DIRECT AGENTS trademark with the USPTO. The domain name is identical to Complainant's registered DIRECT AGENTS trademark and primary domain name <directagents.com>. Moreover, the fraudulent website hosted at the domain name directly frames Complainant's actual website, demonstrating beyond any doubt that Respondent was aware of Complainant and specifically targeted Complainant's trademark rights.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The Complainant is the owner of the following U.S. trademark registration:

 

No. 3,830,235 DIRECT AGENTS (word), registered on August 10, 2010 for services in Intl Class 35.

 

The disputed domain name <directagents.net> was registered on December 22, 2025.

 

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 Complainant claims rights to the DIRECT AGENTS trademark based upon registration with the USPTO. Registration with USPTO sufficiently establishes rights in a trademark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Haas Automation, Inc. v. Jim Fraser, FA 1627211 (Forum Aug. 4, 2015) (finding that Complainant's USPTO registrations for the HAAS mark sufficiently demonstrate its rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). Complainant provides a copy of its USPTO registration for the DIRECT AGENTS trademark (e.g., Reg. No. 3,830,235, registered on August 10, 2010). Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the DIRECT AGENTS trademark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Next, Complainant argues that <directagents.net> is confusingly identical to Complainant's trademark DIRECT AGENTS, as the domain name incorporates the DIRECT AGENTS trademark in total, only adding the gTLD ".net." 

 

The Panel agrees with Complainant's conclusion, and find that Respondent's <directagents.net> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's DIRECT AGENTS trademark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Once the Complainant makes a prima facie case in support of its allegations in respect of the second element of the Policy, the burden shifts to the Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See 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."); see also Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006) (holding that the complainant must first make a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under UDRP ¶ 4(a)(ii) before the burden shifts to the respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name).

 

Complainant contends that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <directagents.net> domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name nor has Complainant authorized or licensed to Respondent any rights in the DIRECT AGENTS trademark. When a response is lacking, WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name 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). Additionally, lack of authorization to use a complainant's trademark may indicate that the respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. See 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)"). The WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as "Host Master / Njalla Okta LLC" and Complainant asserts there is no other evidence to suggest that Respondent was authorized to use the DIRECT AGENTS trademark. Therefore, the Panel find that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

In addition, the Complainant argues that Respondent uses the <directagents.net> domain name to redirect users to Respondent's competing website. Use of a disputed domain name to offer competing products and services may not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the name under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) & (iii). See General Motors LLC v. MIKE LEE, FA 1659965 (Forum Mar. 10, 2016) (finding that "use of a domain to sell products and/or services that compete directly with a complainant's business does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)."). The Panel noted that the Complainant's figurative version of the trademark DIRECT AGENTS is clearly used on Respondent's web site connected to the disputed domain name, and has – in the name of Complainant, contacted customers offering similar services.

 

The Panel finds that Respondent's use of the <directagents.net> domain name is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) & (iii). See Juno Online Servs., Inc. v. Carl Nelson, FA 0241972 (Forum Mar. 29, 2004) (finding that using a domain name in a fraudulent scheme to deceive Internet users is not a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate non-commercial or fair use).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant argues that Respondent has registered and uses the <directagents.net> domain name in bad faith because it is linked to Respondent's website, using Complainant's trademark and sending fraudulent e-mails and corresponding as being Complainant.

 

Bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) can indeed be found where a respondent uses a confusingly similar domain name to falsely indicate an association with a complainant. See AOL LLC v. iTech Ent, LLC, FA 726227 (Forum July 21, 2006) (finding that the respondent took advantage of the confusing similarity between the <theotheraol.com> and <theotheraol.net> domain names and the complainant's AOL mark, which indicates bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)). In the present case, even if Respondent's website is not identical with Complainant's web site, there are clear similarities and Respondent is using Complainant's logo in its own advertisement.

 

The Panel agree with Complainant and find that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).

 

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 <directagents.net> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Petter Rindforth, Panelist

Dated: March 4, 2026