DECISION

 

Home Depot Product Authority, LLC v. Muaz Arain

Claim Number: FA2601002201617

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Home Depot Product Authority, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Laura Lamansky of Michael Best & Friedrich LLP, Illinois, USA. Respondent is Muaz Arain ("Respondent"), Pakistan.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <huskytoolsdepot.com>, registered with Spaceship, Inc.

 

PANEL

The undersigned certifies 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.

 

Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 26, 2026; Forum received payment on January 26, 2026.

 

On January 26, 2026, Spaceship, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <huskytoolsdepot.com> domain name is registered with Spaceship, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Spaceship, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Spaceship, 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@huskytoolsdepot.com. 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 Paul M. DeCicco 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 contends in part as follows:

 

Complainant, Home Depot Product Authority, LLC, is the world's largest home improvement specialty retailer.

 

Complainant, through its predecessors in interest and licensees has used the HUSKY and related marks since at least as early as 1924 and has rights in the mark based upon its registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

 

Respondent's website that is accessible by the at-issue domain name is designed to look like a website operated with the authority of the owner of Complainant's marks. The most prominent language on the site is "Husky Tools Official Website," which is untrue.

 

Respondent's Domain Name is Confusingly Similar to Complainant's Trademarks. The domain name contains the full HUSKY mark, the term "depot" from Complainant's HOME DEPOT marks and the descriptive term "tools" with all followed by ".com" generic top-level domain name. The addition of "tools," and the ".com" top-level domain to the registered trademark HUSKY and the term "depot" from the HOME DEPOT marks are not sufficient to distinguish it from Complainant's trademarks. It is well-established that "the addition of [a] generic top-level domain . . . cannot be considered when determining if the registered domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the registered trademark."

 

Respondent Has No Rights or Legitimate Interests in the Domain Name. Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name and does not operate a business or other organization under the domain name. Respondent registered and uses the domain name without the knowledge, consent, or authorization of Complainant. Respondent's use of the at-issue domain name is not in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent uses the domain name to pass off as Complainant or as being authorized by Complainant while providing information on tool bags, tool chests and tool organizers, just like Complainant does. Notably, the domain name's website has the same color scheme as Complainant uses and purports to be the "Husky Tools® Official Website." There are no disclaimers of non-affiliation on the website. The website at the domain name includes links to competitive products sold on Amazon, which the Respondent admits to receiving advertising revenue. Also, the domain name's website includes a form used to collect personal information, including names and email addresses, presumably for fraudulent purposes. This is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (c)(iii). Given the well-known nature of Complainant's marks, the domain name cannot be considered bona fide.

 

The Domain Name was Registered and is Being Used In Bad Faith.  

The domain name is being used for a misleading website that attempts to pass off as Complainant to promote competing products. Such circumstances are indicative of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. Respondent has used the domain name as the address for a website showing products of the same type offered by Complainant under its HUSKY marks and HOME DEPOT marks, prominently featuring Complainant's HUSKY marks, product images, and color scheme, and using all of the foregoing to collect commissions and personal information. Furthermore, the website at the domain name provides the following disclosure for its links for tool bags, toolboxes, and tool chests, "huskytoolsdepot.com is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to amazon.com. Amazon, the Amazon logo, AmazonSupply, and the AmazonSupply logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates. As an Amazon Associate we earn affiliate commissions from qualifying purchases." Respondent admits that it is earning money from visitors to the website accessible at the domain name. This is further evidence of Respondent's bad faith. Additionally, the website at the domain name includes a form used to collect personal information, including names and email addresses, presumably for fraudulent purposes, which establishes bad faith. Forum has consistently ruled that requests for personal information for nefarious purposes constitutes bad faith. The registrations for the HUSKY marks and HOME DEPOT marks issued long prior to the registration date of the domain name, December 29, 2025, evidencing Respondent's knowledge of Complainant's marks. Given the well-known nature of the HUSKY marks and HOME DEPOT marks, "Respondent's actual knowledge can be inferred" and it is inconceivable that Respondent did not know of Complainant's rights in the HUSKY marks and HOME DEPOT marks. Respondent is a repeat offender of the Policy, having previously suffered adverse UDRP decisions involving Complainant and another third party that follow similar facts to the current case in which Respondent registers a domain name that is confusingly similar to a well-known trademark and uses the website at the domain name to impersonate the trademark owner.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has rights in the HUSKY and HOME DEPOT marks.

 

Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and had not been authorized to use Complainant's trademarks in any capacity.

 

Respondent registered the at‑issue domain name after Complainant acquired rights in HUSKY and HOME DEPOT.

 

Respondent uses <huskytoolsdepot.com> to address a website passing itself as being sponsored by Complainant that hosts affiliate links to Complainant's products and competing products from which Respondent benefits.

 

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 at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.

 

Complainant's USPTO trademark registrations for the HUSKY mark and/or the HOME DEPOT mark is conclusive evidence of Complainant's rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Microsoft Corp. v. Burkes, FA 652743 (Forum Apr. 17, 2006) ("Complainant has established rights in the MICROSOFT mark through registration of the mark with the USPTO.")

 

Respondent's <huskytoolsdepot.com> domain name contains Complainant's entire HUSKY trademark followed by the terms "tools" and the DEPOT term of Complainant's HOME DEPOT mark, with all followed by the ".com" top-level. The differences between Complainant's trademark and the <huskytoolsdepot.com>domain name fail to distinguish the domain name from Complainant's marks for the purpose of Policy ¶4(a)(i). Indeed, the inclusion of the term "tools" in the domain name is suggestive of Complainant's tool related HUSKY trademark and therefore adds to any confusion between the domain name and Complainant's marks. The Panel thus concludes that Respondent's <huskytoolsdepot.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's HUSKY trademark and HOME DEPOT trademark. See YETI Coolers, LLC v. Randall Bearden, FA 16880755 (Forum Aug. 10, 2016) (finding that the words "powder coating" in the <yetipowdercoating.com> domain name are "merely explicative and directly refer to some of the services rendered by the Complainant" and, therefore, create an "irrefutable confusing similarity" to complainant's YETI mark); see also, Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognizable 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."); see also, Wiluna Holdings, LLC v. Edna Sherman, FA 1652781 (Forum Jan. 22, 2016) (finding the addition of a generic term and gTLD is insufficient in distinguishing a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

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. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond, Complainant's prima facie showing acts conclusively.

 

Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant's trademark in any capacity and as discussed below there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in respect of the at‑issue domain name. See Navistar International Corporation v. N Rahmany, FA 1620789 (Forum June 8, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the at-issue domain name where the complainant had never authorized the respondent to incorporate its NAVISTAR mark into any domain name).

 

The WHOIS information for the at-issue domain name identifies the domain name's registrant as "Muaz Arain" and the record before the Panel contains no evidence that tends to show that Respondent is commonly known by <huskytoolsdepot.com> or any variation thereof. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).

 

Respondent uses its <huskytoolsdepot.com> domain name to pass itself off as Complainant. The at-issue domain name addresses a website containing images of Complainant's HUSKY products and affiliate links to a third-party seller offering competitive products. The domain name and website might well be perceived as being an official or sponsored domain name and/or website of Complainant. Respondent's use of its <huskytoolsdepot.com> domain name in this manner constitutes neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Insomniac Holdings, LLC v. Mark Daniels, FA 1735969 (Forum July 15, 2017) (refusing to find rights and legitimate interests in a domain name on the part of a respondent when the disputed domain name "resolves to a website that Respondent has designed to mimic Complainant's own in an attempt to pass itself off as Complainant").

 

Given the foregoing, Respondent lacks rights and lacks legitimate interests in respect of <huskytoolsdepot.com>.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

As discussed below without being exhaustive, Respondent acted in bad faith.

 

Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to address a website that appears to be affiliated with Complainant. The website, inter alia, displays links to a third-party seller of competing products. Such links benefit Respondent via Respondent's enrollment in a commission generating affiliate program and may otherwise benefit Respondent. Respondent's use of <huskytoolsinc.com> is disruptive to Complainant's business and is intent on attracting internet users looking for Complainant to Respondent's website so that Respondent may capitalize on the confusion Respondent created between its <huskytoolsdepot.com> domain name and Complainant's HUSKY and HOME DEPOT trademarks. Respondent's use of <huskytoolsdepot.com> demonstrates Respondent's bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See American Council on Education and GED Testing Service LLC v. Anthony Williams, FA 1760954 (Forum Jan. 8, 2018) ("Respondent's hosting of links to Complainant's competitors demonstrates bad faith registration and use of the <geddiploma.org> domain name pursuant to Policy 4(b)(iii)");  see also, Allianz of Am. Corp. v. Bond, FA 680624 (Forum June 2, 2006) (finding bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent was diverting internet users searching for the complainant to its own website and likely profiting); see also, Radio Systems Corporation v. Mustahsan ali Agha / Amazon affiliate, FA 1939908 (Forum Apr. 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, including products that compete directly with Complainant's products").

 

Next, Respondent has suffered multiple prior adverse UDRP decisions involving Complainant as well as other trademark holders. See e.g., Home Depot Product Authority, LLC v. Muaz ARAIn / None, FA 2120847 (Forum Nov. 13, 2024) (transferring to Complainant) and LF, LLC v. muaz arain, FA 2129775 (Forum Jan. 7, 2025) (transferring to complainant). Respondent's cybersquatting history reveals a pattern of domain name abuse and suggests Respondent's bad faith in the instant case under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See Tommy John, Inc. v. Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico, FA 1878688 (Forum Feb. 6, 2020) (finding bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii) where the respondent had been subject to numerous UDRP proceedings where panels ordered the transfer of disputed domain names containing the trademarks of the complainants).

 

Moreover, Respondent registered <huskytoolsdepot.com> with actual knowledge of Complainant and Complainant's trademark rights in HUSKY and HOME DEPOT. Respondent's prior knowledge of Complainant's rights is clear given the notoriety of Complainant's trademark; given Respondent's use of the confusingly similar domain name to address a website looking like it is sponsored by Complainant; given Respondent's incorporation of two of Complainant's trademarks into the at-issue domain name; and given Respondent prior adverse UDRP decisions involving Complainant and its trademarks. Respondent's registration of <huskytoolsdepot.com> with knowledge of Complainant's trademark rights in HUSKY and HOME DEPOT further indicates Respondent's bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶4 (a)(iii). See Lemon Inc. v. Sumer Singh, FA 2110519 (Forum Sept. 5, 2024 ("registration of a disputed domain name with actual knowledge of another's trademark rights is sufficient to establish bad faith, and can be shown by the notoriety of the mark and the use the Respondent makes of the disputed domain name"); see also, 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, Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name).

 

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

 

 

 

Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist

Dated: February 18, 2026