DECISION

 

DIY Media Group, Inc. v. Aamir Abbas

Claim Number: FA2602002204051

 

PARTIES

Complainant is DIY Media Group, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Stephenie W. Yeung of Offit Kurman, P.A., Pennsylvania, USA. Respondent is Aamir Abbas ("Respondent"), Pakistan.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <bookbabyglobal.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.

 

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 February 6, 2026; Forum received payment on February 6, 2026.

 

On February 9, 2026, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <bookbabyglobal.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 12, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 4, 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@bookbabyglobal.com. Also on February 12, 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 March 5, 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 DIY Media Group, Inc helps content creators such as artists, authors, filmmakers, to bring their creations to market. Complainant's BookBaby brand allows authors to self-publish without having to navigate through the complicated processes of traditional publishing houses. Since 2010, the BookBaby brand has grown to become one of the top global platforms where content creators publish, distribute, and monetize their content. 

 

The domain name is virtually identical to the trademark in which Complainant has rights. Complainant is the owner of trademark registrations in the United States for BABYBOOK. Respondent's domain name merely adds the generic word "global" and the ".com" top-level domain. Neither the addition of the generic term "global"–a descriptive word about the reach of a website – nor the addition of the ".com" top level domain to a domain name that is substantially similar to Complainant's mark distinguishes Respondent's domain name from Complainant's mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Because of the near-identical and highly confusing nature of the disputed domain and Complainant's mark and domain name, an internet user could easily be confused into believing that a website using Respondent's domain name is owned or sponsored by Complainant.

 

Respondent should be considered as having no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. The at-issue domain name was registered long after Complainant gained renown as a top provider of self-publishing services. Complainant has not consented to or otherwise authorized the use of BOOKBABY or any other term by Respondent. The WHOIS information for the domain name shows that Respondent's contact information is masked or otherwise unavailable due to the presumed use of a privacy service. Respondent was identified as Aamir Abbas with a Pakistani telephone number and email after the Complaint was filed. Complainant has never been approached by Respondent regarding the use of Complainant's BOOKBABY marks, nor has it ever authorized Respondent to do the same. Nor is there anything to suggest Respondent is commonly known by the domain name. There is simply no evidence to support that Respondent is or has ever been commonly known by the domain name. By using a confusingly similar variant to Complainant's trademark and domain name, Respondent's domain name falsely suggests an association with Complainant and thereby inappropriately attracts those seeking Complainant to Respondent's website. Respondent's attempt to pass itself off as Complainant does not constitute a bona fide offering of services from which rights and legitimate interests arise. Respondent's use also does not constitute any legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).

 

The domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. At the time that Respondent registered the domain name Complainant had been using its BOOKBABY marks in commerce for nearly 15 years in the self-publishing industry. Respondent knew of Complainant's presence in the industry, its fame, and its rights in the BOOKBABY marks. Respondent has deliberately traded on Complainant's long-established goodwill and intentionally attempted to direct consumers to its website for commercial gain through the confusion created among consumers. Under paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered the disputed domain name "primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor." Complainant's customers are being confused into engaging with Respondent's website from the at-issue domain name. In a recent example, Complainant's customer contacted Complainant to report that she was confused and misled into discussing a project by email and over the telephone with Respondent when she had intended to reach Complainant. Despite the customer's inquiring about services offered by "Book Baby" rather than "Bookbaby Global," Respondent did not disclose that they were not Complainant and was not affiliated with Complainant. Respondent deliberately registered the disputed domain to confuse and divert customers from Complainant. Such disruption and diversion of business constitute bad faith. Respondent registered the domain name in bad faith by attempting to divert Complainant's revenue stream and creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the disputed domain name for its own commercial gain. Using a disputed domain name that disrupts a complainant's business and trades upon the goodwill of a complainant for commercial gain can evince bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). Respondent's registration of the domain name with a registrar whose privacy service redacts all contact information by default without an alternate contact link raises a rebuttable presumption of bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has rights in BOOKBABY.

 

Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and is not authorized to use the BOOKBABY mark in any capacity.

 

Respondent registered the at‑issue domain name after Complainant acquired trademark rights in BOOKBABY.

 

Respondent used the at-issue domain name to pose as Complainant and defraud third-parties.

 

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 BOOKBABY 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 <bookbabyglobal.com> domain name contains Complainant's entire BOOKBABY trademark followed by the descriptive term "global," with all followed by the confusingly similar analysis irrelevant ".com" top-level. The differences between Complainant's trademark and Respondent's domain name are insufficient to distinguish one from the other for the purposes of the Policy. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent's <bookbabyglobal.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's BOOKBABY trademark under 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, 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 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 disputed domain name where the complainant had never authorized the respondent to incorporate its NAVISTAR mark in any domain name registration).

 

The WHOIS information for <bookbabyglobal.com> leads to identifying the domain name's registrant as "Aamir Abbas" and the record before the Panel contains no evidence indicating that Respondent is commonly known by <bookbabyglobal.com> or any variation thereof. Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent is not commonly known as <bookbabyglobal.com> for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Radio Flyer Inc. v. er nong wu, FA 1919893 (Forum Dec. 16, 2020) ("Here, the WHOIS information lists "er nong wu" as the registrant and no information suggests Complainant has authorized Respondent to use the RADIO FLYER mark in any way. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).")

 

Respondent uses its <bookbabyglobal.com> domain name to pose as Complainant and thereby trick third-parties seeking Complainant into believing they are dealing with Complainant when in fact Respondent is intent on defrauding such third parties into giving up funds to Respondent. Respondent's use of <bookbabyglobal.com>in this manner is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Ripple Labs Inc. v. NGYEN NGOC PHUONG THAO, FA 1741737 (Forum Aug. 21, 2017) ("Respondent uses the [disputed] domain name to divert Internet users to Respondent's website… confusing them into believing that some sort of affiliation exists between it and Complainant… [which] is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).")

 

Given the foregoing, Respondent lacks rights and lacks legitimate interests in <bookbabyglobal.com>.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

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

 

Respondent uses its confusingly similar domain name to pose as Complainant to facilitate swindling funds from third parties who mistakenly believed they are transacting business with Complainant. In doing so, Respondent's use of <bookbabyglobal.com> proves disruptive to Complainant's business and capitalizes on the confusion Respondent created between Complainant's trademark and Respondent's domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the at-issue domain name in bad faith pursuant Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Funding Circle Limited v. tim mcelwain / timmcelweain, FA 2003934 (Forum Aug. 4, 2022) ("Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to facilitate [a] phishing scheme designed to swindle funds from Complainant's customers. Such use of the confusingly similar domain name indicates Respondent's bad faith under the Policy.").

 

Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the BOOKBABY mark before it registered <bookbabyglobal.com> as a domain name. Respondent's prior knowledge is evident from the notoriety of Complainant's BOOKBABY trademark and from Respondent's use of the domain name to pass itself off as Complainant. Respondent's registration and use of the confusingly similar domain name with knowledge of Complainant's trademark rights BOOKBABY further demonstrates Respondent's bad faith. See Lemon Inc. v. Sumer Singh, FA 2110519 (Forum September 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).

 

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

 

 

 

Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist

Dated: March 5, 2026