DECISION

 

National Alliance on Mental Illness v. Sergey

Claim Number: FA2602002203828

 

PARTIES

Complainant is National Alliance on Mental Illness ("Complainant"), represented by Meaghan H. Kent of Venable LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Sergey ("Respondent"), Ukraine.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <namiaustin.org> ("Domain Name"), registered with Sav.com, LLC - 37.

 

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 5, 2026; Forum received payment on February 5, 2026.

 

On February 9, 2026, Sav.com, LLC - 37 confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <namiaustin.org> domain name is registered with Sav.com, LLC - 37 and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Sav.com, LLC - 37 has verified that Respondent is bound by the Sav.com, LLC - 37 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 10, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 2, 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@namiaustin.org. Also on February 10, 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 formal response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On March 3, 2026 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 is a United States non-profit association that since 1979 has offered a range of support and advocacy services to individuals impacted by mental illness, including services and support from their primary website at www.nami.com. Complainant has rights in the NAMI mark through its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (e.g., Reg. No. 3,718,501, registered December 1, 2009).  Respondent's <namiaustin.org> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark as Respondent merely adds the geographic name "austin" and the ".org" generic top-level domain ("gTLD") to the wholly incorporated mark.

 

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <namiaustin.org> domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name nor has Respondent been licensed, authorized, or otherwise permitted by Complainant to use Complainant's mark. Furthermore, Respondent's use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, as Respondent uses the Domain Name for a website ("Respondent's Website") where, through the reproduction of the Complainant's name, mark, logos and text from the Complainant's website, Respondent attempts to pass off as Complainant to further a phishing scheme to persuade users to provide it with their personal information.

 

Respondent registered and used the <namiaustin.org> domain name in bad faith. Specifically, Respondent is attempting to pass off as Complainant to engage in phishing, which is disruptive to Complainant and provides commercial benefit to Respondent. Finally, Respondent had actual or constructive knowledge of Complainant's rights in the NAMI mark given the content of the Respondent's Website.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a formal Response in this proceeding.  Correspondence was received by Forum on February 11, 2026 stating:

The website in question is currently published as archived content retrieved from Archive.org and is used solely for SEO and informational purposes.
We would like to clarify that we have no claims, disputes, or objections related to your brand. Likewise, we do not represent, affiliate with, or otherwise associate ourselves with your brand in any way.
All elements related to your brand, including logos or other brand identifiers, were removed from the website a long time ago. Therefore, any claims or concerns related to brand usage are not applicable and appear to be unfounded.
Please let us know if any additional clarification is required.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant holds trademark rights for the NAMI mark.  The Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's NAMI 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 3.1 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 has rights in the NAMI mark through its registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 3,718,501, registered December 1, 2009). 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) (stating, "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 <namiaustin.org> domain name is confusing similar to Complainant's NAMI mark as it wholly incorporates the NAMI mark and then adds the geographic term "austin" and the ".org" gTLD. Adding a generic or geographical term and a gTLD to 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 recognisable 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 Dell Inc. v. SNAB Corporation, FA 1785051 (Forum May 30, 2018) (finding the inclusion of a geographic term did not distinguish the domain name and increased possible confusion, as "[t]he geographic term "hyderabad" is also suggestive of Complainant as Complainant has corporate offices in Hyderabad, India."); see also Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (finding top-level domains are irrelevant for purposes of 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 NAMI 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 "Sergey" 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 that reproduces the Complainant's name, mark and text from the Complainant's official website which then, under the Complainant's NAMI mark, purports to offer support to people who are suffering from mental illness. The Panel does not accept the statements in the Respondent's e-mail to suggest that the website is used for SEO and informational purposes and does not represent Complainant's brand; rather the use of text taken from Complainant's website and the numerous references to Complainant make it clear that Respondent seeks to pass itself off as Complainant on the Respondent's Website.

 

The Panel thus accepts the Complainant's contentions and finds that the Domain Name has been used to create a website that purports to be an official website of Complainant. Furthermore, the presence of a prominent "Donate" button on the Respondent's Website makes it apparent that Respondent most likely seeks to either obtain donations intended to be sent to the Complainant, or acquire bank details from individuals seeking to donate to the Complainant but mislead by the nature of the Domain Name and the Respondent's Website, such purposes being illicit purposes best characterized as "phishing".  The use of a domain name to deceive Internet users into believing an affiliation exists between a respondent and a complainant so to further a phishing scheme is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Abbvie, Inc. v. James Bulow, FA 1701075 (Forum Nov. 30, 2016) ("Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to pose as Complainant's CEO by means of email addresses at the confusingly similar domain name in an attempt to determine Complainant's ability to process a transfer.  Using the domain name in this manner is neither a bona fide offering of goods and services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy  ¶ 4(c)(iii)"); see also Caterpillar Inc. v. ruth weinstein, FA 1770352 (Forum Mar. 7, 2018) ("Use of a disputed domain name in an attempt to pass itself off as a complainant and to conduct a phishing scheme is indicative of a failure to use said domain name in connection with a bona fide offer of goods and services per Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or otherwise fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).").

 

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 Respondent registered the Domain Name, April 8, 2024, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's NAMI mark. There is no obvious reason (and none has been provided) as to why an entity would register the Domain Name containing the NAMI mark and redirect it to the Respondent's Website (which reproduces Complainant's NAMI Mark and copyrighted material and purports to offer identical services) other than to deceive Internet users into believing an affiliation exists between Complainant and Respondent. 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 as Respondent uses or has used the Domain Name to impersonate Complainant in furtherance of a phishing scheme. Use of a disputed domain name to impersonate a complainant in furtherance of a phishing scheme is evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Google Inc. v. Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp., FA 1622862 (Forum Aug. 10, 2015) (finding that the respondent's apparent use of the disputed domain name in furtherance of a 'phishing' scheme further established its bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)).  Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the Domain Name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(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 <namiaustin.org> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Nicholas J.T. Smith, Panelist

Dated: March 3, 2026