DECISION

 

JetSuiteX, Inc. v. ADRIAN HUGO

Claim Number: FA2602002205343

 

PARTIES

Complainant is JetSuiteX, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Matthew S. Anderson of Munck Wilson Mandala, LLP, Texas, USA. Respondent is ADRIAN HUGO ("Respondent"), California, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <jsxair.info>, registered with Tucows Domains 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.

 

Adam Taylor as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

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

 

On February 17, 2026, Tucows Domains Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <jsxair.info> domain name is registered with Tucows Domains Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Tucows Domains Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Tucows Domains 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 20, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 12, 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@jsxair.info. Also on February 20, 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 13, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Adam Taylor 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 that it has rights in the JSX mark based upon registration of its mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") and upon common law rights arising from long-standing continuous business use. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark.

 

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; on the contrary, Respondent has used the disputed domain name to defraud Internet users. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Respondent has not made legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. Complainant has never authorized Respondent to use Complainant's mark.

 

Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent's actual knowledge of Complainant's mark is evidenced by Complainant's fame and references to Complainant on Respondent's website. Respondent has used the disputed domain name for a fraudulent scheme designed to create a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark for commercial gain.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant is an air carrier that has operated under the mark JSX since 2019.

 

Complainant owns various registered trademarks for JSX, including Reg. No. 6,165,251, registered with the USPTO on September 29, 2020.

 

Complainant operates a website at www.jsx.com.

 

The disputed domain name was registered on October 8, 2025.

 

On or around January 7, 2026, Complainant received a complaint from a customer who was defrauded after making an enquiry via a form on the website at the disputed domain name.

 

As of January 9, 2026, the disputed domain name resolved to a website that invited users to complete an application form to  "participate in our advertising campaign" whereby users would allegedly receive a weekly payment to display vehicle advertising. Respondent's website included images with Complainant's logo as well as images copied from Complainant's website and social media accounts. Respondent's website also reproduced the entire footer section of Complainant's website including internal links.

 

At some point thereafter, Respondent's website was removed.

 

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

Since Complainant has provided evidence of registration of the JSX mark with the USPTO, the Panel finds that Complainant has rights in that mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's distinctive JSX mark and adds the descriptive term "air", which directly relates to Complainant's business. It is well established under the Policy that the incorporation of a complainant's mark in its entirety may be sufficient to establish confusing similarity, even when combined with additional terms. 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.").

 

Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's JSX mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

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); then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) ("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.").

 

Complainant argues that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or for legitimate noncommercial or fair use.

 

Although the historical use of a domain name may be relevant to assessing the parties' claims, panels tend to assess claimed respondent rights or legitimate interests at the time of the filing of the complaint, but would also consider any evidence of past use, including its veracity and surrounding context. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.1 at ¶ 2.11.

 

Here, so far as the Panel is aware, the disputed domain name was not being used for an active website when the Complaint was filed, let alone for a bona fide offering of goods or services. Furthermore, Respondent's previous use of the disputed domain name was for fraudulent purposes. Such activity is plainly not bona fide. Nor does it qualify as legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Allianz of Am. Corp. v. Bond, FA 690796 (Forum June 12, 2006) (holding that the respondent's use of the <allianzcorp.biz> domain name to fraudulently acquire the personal and financial information of Internet users seeking Complainant's financial services was not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)).

 

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services, or for legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).

 

Complainant further contends that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name since Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name.

 

WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Braun Corp. v. Loney, FA 699652 (Forum July 7, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain names where the WHOIS information, as well as all other information in the record, gave no indication that the respondent was commonly known by the domain names, and the complainant had not authorized the respondent to register a domain name containing its registered mark).

 

The WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as "ADRIAN HUGO" and there is no other information on the record indicating that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name.

 

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

The provisions set out in Policy ¶ 4(b) are merely illustrative. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Domain Admin - This Domain is For Sale on GoDaddy.com / Trnames Premium Name Services, FA 1714157 (Forum Mar. 8, 2017) (determining that Policy ¶ 4(b) provisions are mere illustrative of bad faith, and that the respondent's bad faith may be demonstrated by other allegations of bad faith under the totality of the circumstances). 

 

Complainant has supplied evidence indicating that Respondent has used the disputed domain name for fraudulent purposes. Such activity constitutes registration and use in bad faith. See Hess Corp. v. GR, FA 770909 (Forum Sept. 19, 2006) (finding that respondent demonstrated bad faith registration and use because it was attempting to acquire the personal and financial information of Internet users through a confusingly similar domain name).

 

Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent has registered, and is using, the disputed domain name in bad faith under 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 <jsxair.info> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Adam Taylor, Panelist

Dated: March 16, 2026