DECISION

 

Haas Automation, Inc. v. Haimin Xu

Claim Number: FA2602002203126

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Haas Automation, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Nicole Ambrosetti, California, USA. Respondent is Haimin Xu ("Respondent"), China.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <hasscnc.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 February 2, 2026; Forum received payment on February 2, 2026.

 

On February 3, 2026, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <hasscnc.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 February 4, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 24, 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@hasscnc.com. Also on February 4, 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 25, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelist.

 

On February 25, 2026 the Panel issued a Panel Order under Rule 12 of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules").  This order sought additional material from Complainant confirming the date the Domain Name was registered.  On February 27, 2026, Complainant provided additional material in response to the Panel Order.  Under the terms of the Panel Order Respondent had until March 5, 2026 to respond to Complainant's additional submission.  No response was received.

 

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 provides a variety of automation machines, specifically CNC (Computer Numerical Control) machines under the mark HAAS and from its website at www.haascnc.com which it has used since 1996.  Complainant has rights in the HAAS mark through its registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (e.g., Reg. No. 4,583,627, registered August 12, 2014). Respondent's <hasscnc.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's HAAS mark consisting of a minor misspelling (replacing the second letter "a" with the letter "s") of the HAAS mark and adding the generic abbreviation "cnc" (an obvious reference to "computer numerical control") and the ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD"). It is almost identical to the Complainant's website at www.haascnc.com.

 

Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <hasscnc.com> domain name as it is not commonly known by the Domain Name and is neither an authorized user nor licensee of the HAAS mark. Additionally, Respondent does not use the Domain Name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. The Domain Name resolves to series of websites ("Respondent's Website") which consist of a set of pay-per-click hyperlink pages or advertisements for spoofed third party products.

 

Respondent registered and uses the <hasscnc.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent uses the Domain Name to generate revenue using pay-per-click advertising unrelated to any ordinary meaning of the Domain Name. Additionally, Complainant contends that Respondent registered the Domain Name with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the HAAS mark given the nature of the Domain Name which is almost identical to the Complainant's website.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

C. Additional Submissions

Complainant's Additional Submission consists of a Domain Report for the Domain Name confirming that the Domain Name was held by the Complainant prior to September 21, 2021. The date that the Respondent acquired the Domain Name is unclear as after that date the Domain Name is held by a series of privacy servers.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant holds trademark rights for the HAAS mark.  The Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's HAAS mark.  Complainant has established that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in 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 3.1 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 asserts rights in the HAAS mark (e.g., Reg. No. 4,583,627, registered August 12, 2014) based upon registration with the USPTO. Registration with the USPTO is generally sufficient to establish rights in a mark per 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)).

 

The Panel finds that the <hasscnc.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's HAAS mark as it consists of a minor misspelling of the HAAS Mark (replacing the second letter "a" with an "s") and adds the generic or descriptive abbreviation "cnc" (in the context of the use of the misspelled HAAS mark, an obvious reference to the Complainant's Computer Numerical Control products) and the ".com" gTLD. The addition of a generic term or an abbreviation to a minor misspelling of a mark fails to sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See 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 Acme Lift Company, L.L.C. v. VistaPrint Technologies Ltd, FA 1607039 (Forum Apr. 11, 2015) (stating, "Where a respondent has created a domain name in an effort to visually deceive Internet users via a simple misspelling (and when such misspellings are visually similar to the mark), a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) is appropriate."); see also Dell Inc. v. Protection of Private Person / Privacy Protection, FA 1681432 (Forum Aug. 1, 2016) ("A TLD (whether a gTLD, sTLD or ccTLD) is disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because the domain name syntax requires TLDs.").

 

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 HAAS 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 "Haimin Xu" 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 resolves to the Respondent's Website. The Panel finds that the content of the Respondent's Website, being a rotating set of pay-per-click links or advertisements for third party products, none of which have any connection to any generic meaning to the Domain Name, does not provide the Respondent with rights or legitimate interests. Rather, and noting the absence of the Response or any other evidence of the purpose of the website, the content of the website appears simply to be a mechanism to encourage visitors to click on the numerous advertising hyperlinks (for which the Respondent was likely to receive revenue on a pay-per-click basis).  This is not a bona fide offering or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.  See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Syed Hussain / IBN7 Media Group, FA 1721384 (Forum Apr. 26, 2017) holding that the respondent's use of the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to commercial websites, unrelated to the complainant and presumably with the purpose of earning a commission or pay-per-click referral fee did not evidence rights or legitimate interests in the domain name)  and Talecris Biotherapeutics, Inc. v. Marketing Total S.A., FA 1169821 (Forum May 1, 2008) (finding lack of rights or legitimate interests where domain name was used for sole purpose of generating referral fees from third-party advertisements and links, some of which competed directly with Complainant)   

 

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 the Respondent acquired the Domain Name, after September 21, 2021, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's HAAS mark as the Respondent's Website includes advertisements that make repeated references to Complainant and its services. Furthermore, there is no obvious explanation, nor has one been provided, for an entity to register a domain name that consists of a minor misspelling of the HAAS mark and a descriptive abbreviation of the Complainant's products (and was formerly held by Complainant) and use it to redirect visitors to a website offering various pay-per-click links to other than to take advantage of Complainant's reputation in the HAAS mark and any confusion between the mark and the Domain Name.  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 to create confusion with Complainant's HAAS mark for commercial gain by using the confusingly similar Domain Name to resolve to a website that is simply a mechanism to encourage visitors to click on a series of pay-per-click links or third party advertisements 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 Bang & Olufsen a/s v. Chris Albano / BlueHost.com- INC, supra (bad faith found where the disputed domain was used "as part of a scheme to generate click through revenue by Internet users who visit the site, believing it to be associated with the Complainant, then clicking through to eBay listings of the Complainant's products for sale").

 

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

 

 

 

Nicholas J.T. Smith, Panelist

Dated: March 6, 2026