DECISION

 

Zscaler, Inc. v. Nicholas

Claim Number: FA2602002205472

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Zscaler, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Jessica L. Davis, California, USA. Respondent is Nicholas ("Respondent"), New Hampshire, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <zskaler.net>, registered with Porkbun 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 16, 2026; Forum received payment on February 16, 2026.

 

On February 16, 2026, Porkbun LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <zskaler.net> domain name is registered with Porkbun LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Porkbun LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Porkbun 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 23, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 16, 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@zskaler.net. Also on February 23, 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 17, 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:

The domain name <zskaler.net> is confusingly similar to the trademark/service mark ZSCALER to which the Complainant has exclusive rights. The domain name <zskaler.net> is identical to Complainant's trademark/service mark except that the "c" was replaced with a "k." This is creating confusion as to whether the <zskaler.net> domain name is associated with Complainant. Complainant's customers and others seeking to visit Complainant's website will end up at <zskaler.net> if they mistakenly use a "k" instead of a "c" when typing and use "net" as the domain extension, which is a very common domain extension, especially for technology companies.

 

The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain name that is the subject of this complaint. Respondent is unknown due to the private WhoIs registration. Respondent is likely using the domain name that is the subject of the complaint as a phishing technique to learn confidential and private information about Zscaler authorized users because there is no legitimate reason for the Respondent to use the Zscaler name with a "k" instead of a "c." 

 

The domain name that is the subject of this complaint should be considered as having been registered and being used in bad faith. Respondent is using <zskaler.net> in a bad faith attempt to impersonate Complainant and unlawfully obtain Zscaler subscriber confidential and private information. Respondent is rerouting traffic directed to <zskaler.net> to Complainant's legitimate website in an attempt to cause Complainant's customers to trust emails and URLs associated with <zskaler.net> so that Respondent could impersonate Complainant and unlawfully obtain subscriber confidential and private information. The fact that the at-issue domain name was registered anonymously also supports that it was registered and is being used in bad faith. Panels regularly find that the use of a privacy shield when registering a domain name is often evidence of bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has rights in the ZSCALER trademark.

 

Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and had not been authorized to use Complainant's trademark in any capacity.

 

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

 

Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to redirect internet traffic to Complainant's website.

 

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 shows that it registered its ZSCALER trademark with the USPTO. Such registration is sufficient to demonstrate Complainant's rights in a mark under the Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See BGK Trademark Holdings, LLC & Beyoncé Giselle Knowles-Carter v. Chanphut / Beyonce Shop, FA 1626334 (Forum Aug. 3, 2015) (asserting that Complainant's registration with the USPTO (or any other governmental authority) adequately proves its rights under usTLD Policy ¶ 4(a)(i))

 

Respondent's at-issue domain name consists of a recognizable misspelled variant of Complainant's ZSCALER mark where the mark's letter "c" is replaced with the letter "k." The domain name concludes with the ".net" top-level. The differences between Respondent's domain name and Complainant's trademark are insufficient to distinguish the domain name from Complainant's ZSCALER mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent's at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's ZSCALER trademark. See Acme Lift Company, L.L.C. v. VistaPrint Technologies Ltd, FA 1607039 (Forum Apr. 11, 2015) (stating: "Where a respondent has created a domain name in an effort to visually deceive Internet users via a simple misspelling (and when such misspellings are visually similar to the mark), a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) is appropriate."); see also, Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Domain Administrator / Registry Services, LLC, FA 2038314 (Forum July 26, 2023) ("The addition of a gTLD fails to sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark per 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, absent evidence of Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances 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 Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC v. Taha Shaikh / Tskdesigners, FA 1814475 (Forum Nov. 25, 2018) (finding no rights or legitimate interests in <spectrumfeature.com> because complainant never gave respondent permission to use the mark in any manner and "Panels may use these assertions as evidence that no rights or legitimate interests exist in a disputed domain name.").

 

The WHOIS information for <zskaler.net> leads to identifying the domain name's nominal registrant as "Nicholas" and there is nothing in the record that tends to suggest that Respondent is otherwise known by the <zskaler.net> domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).

 

Respondent's <zskaler.net> domain name directs internet traffic to Complainant's genuine website. Doing so is designed to deceive third parties into falsely believing that the domain name is sponsored by Complainant. Such use of <zskaler.net> indicates neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), nor a non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iv). See Conforama France v. Benjamin Kouassi, D2021-1166 (WIPO July 13, 2016) ("It is common view that use of the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to the Complainant's own website cannot confer any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name to the Respondent.").

 

Given the foregoing, Respondent lacks rights and lacks legitimate interests in respect of <zskaler.net>.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

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

 

Respondent engages in typosquatting. Respondent's domain name's second level is a recognizable intentional misspelling of Complainant's <zskaler.net> trademark. Respondent's typosquatting, in itself, indicates bad faith registration and use of <zskaler.net>. See Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Hu, FA 157321 (Forum June 23, 2003) (finding that the respondent engaged in typosquatting, which is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)).

 

Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the ZSCALER mark when Respondent registered <zskaler.net> as a domain name. Respondent's actual knowledge is evident given the mark's notoriety; given Respondent's overt misspelling of Complainant's mark in forming the domain name; and given Respondent's redirection of the <zskaler.net> domain name to Complainant's genuine website. Respondent's registration and use of <zskaler.net> with knowledge of Complainant's rights in ZSCALER further shows Respondent's bad faith registration and use of <zskaler.net>. See Lemon Inc. v. Sumer Singh, FA 2110519 (Forum Sept. 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 <zskaler.net> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist

Dated: March 18, 2026