DECISION

 

National Public Radio, Inc. v. Joe Morris / Private person

Claim Number: FA2602002204443

 

PARTIES

Complainant is National Public Radio, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Judd Lauter of Cooley LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Joe Morris / Private person ("Respondent"), Norway.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <nprcoffeeclub.org> ('the Domain Name'), registered with Gname 149 Inc.

 

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.

 

Dawn Osborne as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 9, 2026; Forum received payment on February 9, 2026.

 

On February 10, 2026, Gname 149 Inc confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <nprcoffeeclub.org> Domain Name is registered with Gname 149 Inc and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Gname 149 Inc has verified that Respondent is bound by the Gname 149 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 February 17, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 9, 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@nprcoffeeclub.org. Also on February 17, 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 10, 2026 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Dawn Osborne 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

The Complainant owns the trade mark NPR registered in the USA for radio broadcasting services since 1976. On May 7, 2020, Complainant launched an e-commerce coffee retail service in partnership with Counter Culture Coffee, a specialty coffee roaster. Among other things Complainant offered a coffee subscription service under the trademark NPR COFFEE CLUB (together with the NPR mark), with all sales supporting Complainant's programming. Complainant's NPR Coffee Club business was previously available at the Domain Name <nprcoffeeclub.org>.

 

The Domain Name registered in 2025 is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade mark containing it in its entirety and merely adding the generic term 'coffee club' and the gTLD .org which do not distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant's mark.

 

Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name and is not authorised by the Complainant. The web site connected with the Domain Name used the Complainant's trade mark in its logo form impersonating the Complainant to offer gambling services which cannot be a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate non commercial of fair use. The Respondent's site led with the strapline 'For questions contact retail@counterculturecoffee.com', a reference to the Complainant's business partner and this was repeated across the Respondent's site. This is registration and use in opportunistic bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The Complainant owns the trade mark NPR registered in the USA for radio broadcasting services since 1976. On May 7, 2020, Complainant launched an e-commerce coffee retail service in partnership

with Counter Culture Coffee, a specialty coffee roaster. Among other things Complainant offered a coffee subscription service under the trademark NPR COFFEE CLUB (together with the NPR mark), with all sales supporting Complainant's programming. Complainant's NPR Coffee Club business was previously available at the Domain Name <nprcoffeeclub.org>.

 

The Domain Name registered in 2025 used the Complainant's trade mark in its logo form impersonating the Complainant to offer gambling services. The Respondent's site led with the strapline 'For questions contact retail@counterculturecoffee.com', a reference to the Complainant's business partner and this was repeated across the Respondent's site.

 

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 Domain Name consists of the Complainant's NPR mark (which is registered, inter alia, in USA for radio broadcasting services since 1976), the generic term 'coffee club' and the gTLD .org.

 

Previous panels have found confusing similarity when a respondent merely adds a generic term to a Complainant's mark. See PG&E Corp. v Anderson, D2000-1264 (WIPO Nov. 22, 2000) (finding that respondent does not by adding common descriptive or generic terms create new or different marks nor does it alter the underlying mark held by the Complainant). Accordingly, the Panel holds that the addition of the generic term 'coffee club' to the Complainant's trade mark in the Domain Name does not prevent confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant's mark.

 

The gTLD .org does not serve to distinguish a Domain Name from a Complainant's mark. See Red Hat Inc v Haecke, FA 726010 (Forum July 24, 2006) (concluding that the redhat.org domain name is identical to the complainant's red hat mark because the mere addition of the gTLD was insufficient to differentiate the disputed domain name from the mark).

 

Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's registered mark.

 

As such the Panel holds that Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant has not authorised the use of its mark. There is no evidence or reason to suggest the Respondent is, in fact, commonly known by the Domain Name. See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA 1574905 (Forum Sept. 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark). The use of the Domain Name is commercial and is not legitimate non commercial fair use.

 

The web site attached to the Domain Name used the Complainant's mark in its logo form and references to the Complainant's business partner to suggest the Respondent was associated with the Complainant. The Panel finds this use is deceptive and confusing. As such it cannot amount to the bona fide offering of goods and services. (See Am. Intl Group Inc v Benjamin, FA 944242 (Forum May 11, 2007) finding that the Respondent's use of a confusingly similar domain name to compete with the Complainant's business did not constitute a bona fide use of goods and services). 

 

The Respondent has also used the Domain Name to offer gambling services which is not a bona fide offering of goods and services or a legitimate non commercial or fair use. See Summit Group, LLC v. LSO, Ltd., FA 758981 (Forum Sept. 14, 2006) (finding that the respondent's use of the complainant's LIFESTYLE LOUNGE mark to redirect Internet users to respondent's own website for commercial gain does not constitute either 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)); see also Spike's Holding, LLC v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1736008 (Forum July 21, 2017) ("Using a confusingly similar domain to display unrelated content can evince a lack of a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use… The Panel therefore finds that Respondent's unrelated use of the <finishnline.com> domain name evinces a lack of rights and legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) & (iii).").

 

The Respondent has not answered this Complaint or rebutted the prima facie case evidenced by the Complainant as set out herein.

 

As such the Panelist finds that the Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

In the opinion of the Panelist, the use made of the Domain Name in relation to the Respondent's site is confusing and disruptive in that visitors to the site might reasonably believe it is connected to or approved by the Complainant as it uses the Complainant's trade mark in its logo form and references to the Complainant's business partner to impersonate the Complainant and offer gambling services. The use of the Complainant's logo and the name of the Complainant's former coffee venture shows that the Respondent is aware of the Complainant its rights, business and products.

 

Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to his website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trade mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the web site and the products on it likely to disrupt the business of the Complainant. (See Asbury Auto Group Inc v Tex. Int'l Prop Assocs, FA 958542 (Forum May 29, 2007) finding that the respondent's use of the disputed domain name to compete with the complainant's business would likely lead to confusion amongst Internet users as to the sponsorship or affiliation of a competing business and was therefore evidence of bad faith and use). See MySpace, Inc. v. Myspace Bot, FA 672161 (Forum May 19, 2006) (holding that the respondent registered and used the <myspacebot.com> domain name in bad faith by diverting Internet users seeking the complainant's website to its own website for commercial gain because the respondent likely profited from this diversion scheme). 

 

As such, the Panelist believes that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith and has satisfied the third limb of the Policy under Paragraphs 4(b)(iii) and (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 <nprcoffeeclub.org> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Dawn Osborne, Panelist

Dated: March 10, 2026