DECISION

 

Flipnode LLC v. Mohammed Alim

Claim Number: FA2602002205324

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Flipnode LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Aaron D. Hendelman of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, California, USA. Respondent is Mohammed Alim ("Respondent"), United Kingdom.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <yodeck.org>, registered with NameCheap, 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.

 

Nick J. Gardner as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 13, 2026; Forum received payment on February 13, 2026.

 

On February 16, 2026, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <yodeck.org> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, 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 19, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 11, 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@yodeck.org. Also on February 19, 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 12, 2026 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Nick J. Gardner 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 disputed domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant's contentions are as follows.

Element 1 – Identical or Confusingly Similar

The disputed domain name incorporates the YODECK word mark in its entirety. The only difference from Complainant's own domain <yodeck.com> is the substitution of the ".org" gTLD, which is to be disregarded under established UDRP authority. Website content further confirms confusing similarity, as Respondent explicitly displays the YODECK word mark and elements of the YODECK logo throughout the infringing site.

 

Element 2 – No Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant has not licensed or authorised Respondent to use the YODECK marks. Respondent is not known by the domain name. The domain is not used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; rather, it is used to divert internet users and impersonate Complainant by operating a copycat website promoting competing digital signage services for restaurants. Additionally, the site prompts visitors to submit login credentials and personal information, raising the possibility of a phishing scheme, which can never confer rights or legitimate interests.

 

Element 3 – Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The disputed domain name was registered in March 2024, years after Complainant's first use of the YODECK marks in August 2015. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant at the time of registration, as evidenced by the wholesale reproduction of the YODECK word mark and logo elements and the near-identical competing services promoted on the infringing site. Bad faith is established on multiple grounds: (i) intentional creation of initial interest confusion with competing offerings (Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)); (ii) impersonation of Complainant with no plausible good faith explanation; and (iii) the likely use of the domain to harvest users' PII and login credentials through a phishing scheme, which independently constitutes bad faith registration and use

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Based on the available record the Panel finds as follows.

 

Complainant is the operator of YODECK, a cloud-based digital signage platform available to organisations around the world. Complainant's platform enables users to create, design, schedule, and manage digital signage content across a wide range of industries, including restaurants, cafés, and other food service businesses.

 

Complainant has been operating under the YODECK mark and has used its platform commercially since at least August 31, 2015. Complainant operates its primary commercial website at <www.yodeck.com> and has received recognition in industry rankings including the Inc. 5000 and Deloitte Technology Fast 500 lists for both 2024 and 2025.

 

Complainant holds United States trademark registrations for the YODECK word mark and YODECK logo mark (together, the "YODECK Marks"). Complainant also owns trademark registrations for the YODECK Marks in various other jurisdictions. Complainant has used the YODECK Marks continuously in commerce in connection with its digital signage platform since August 2015.

 

The disputed domain name <yodeck.org> was registered on March 15, 2024, well after Complainant's first use of the YODECK Marks in commerce and after Complainant secured its registered trademark rights.

 

The disputed domain name resolves to a website ("Respondent's website") that incorporates the YODECK word mark in its entirety and displays a square icon closely mirroring components of the YODECK logo. Respondent's website promotes what it describes as a "professional-grade online menu maker for restaurants, cafes, and businesses" and invites visitors to create digital menu displays. The website includes "Login" and "Get Started" prompts, suggesting the solicitation of user credentials or personal information. A copyright notice at the bottom of the Respondent's website states "© 2026 Yodeck. All rights reserved." The content and overall appearance of the Respondent's website closely replicates Complainant's legitimate website at <www.yodeck.com> and create the false impression that the disputed domain name is associated with, sponsored by, or operated by Complainant.

 

Respondent has not filed a Response and has offered no explanation for its use of the disputed domain name.

 

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 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 established rights in the YODECK marks through their extensive use since 2015 and its U.S. trademark registrations. The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied the threshold requirement of demonstrating rights in the YODECK marks for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.  See Farmlane Brands, LLC v. Helene Isbell Biggane, FA 1996757 (Forum July 12, 2022) ("Ownership of a trademark registration is generally sufficient evidence that a complainant has the requisite rights in a mark for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.").

 

The disputed domain name <yodeck.org> incorporates Complainant's entire YODECK trademark.

 

The addition of the generic top-level domain ".org" is a technical requirement of domain name registration and does not affect the confusing similarity analysis. See Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association v. Shi Lei aka Shilei, FA 1784643 (Forum June 18, 2018) ("A TLD (whether a gTLD, sTLD or ccTLD) is disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax requires TLDs."). The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical to Complainant's YODECK mark.

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has established Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), it is now well established that Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) and that, if the prima facie case is made out, the burden then shifts to Respondent to show that it does have such rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)).

 

Complainant has demonstrated that Respondent is not authorized to use the YODECK marks and has no relationship with Complainant. The WHOIS information identifies Respondent as "Mohammed Alim" which bears no resemblance to the disputed domain name. There is no evidence that Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name or has acquired any trademark rights in "YODECK" or any similar term. Accordingly, Complainant has established a prima facie case under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and the burden shifts to Respondent to demonstrate rights or legitimate interests.

  

The Panel finds that Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). The use of a confusingly similar domain name, to attract traffic to a website which offers services that compete with or relate to those of the Complainant cannot establish a legitimate interest. See VOERE Holding GmbH v. Matteo Passoni / TECHNOLOGY SWISS HSE SA, FA 2024402 (Forum Jan. 16, 2023) ("Using a confusingly similar domain name to offer products which compete with those of a complainant is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use within the meaning of Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(iv).").

 

Respondent has failed to rebut Complainant's prima facie case or to demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has established Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Policy ¶ 4(b) sets forth four non-exclusive circumstances that constitute evidence of registration and use in bad faith. The Panel finds that Respondent's conduct falls within Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), which addresses circumstances where "by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location."

 

The disputed domain name is identical to Complainant's YODECK mark. YODECK is a coined term with no meaning save in relation to Complainant and its business. It is inconceivable that Respondent could have registered the disputed domain name without knowledge of Complainant and its YODECK mark. 

 

The use of the disputed domain name to resolve to a website which purports to be that of Complainant demonstrates bad faith use. Prior UDRP panels have consistently found that such activity evidences bad faith registration and use, See Brooks Sports, Inc. v. Redacted for Privacy, FA 1930066 (Forum Feb. 15, 2021) ("[T]he Panel recalls Complainant provides screenshots of Respondent's resolving webpage, in which Respondent displays the BROOKS Mark in the banner and displays images of Complainant's products offered for sale, using Complainant's trademarks, product name, and product images in the listings.... Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv).").

 

The totality of the circumstances compels the conclusion that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has established 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 <yodeck.org> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Nick J. Gardner Panelist

Dated: March 17, 2026