DECISION

 

Technology Partners, Inc. v. Jim Schwabenland

Claim Number: FA2602002205641

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Technology Partners, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Jake M. Gipson of Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, Alabama, USA. Respondent is Jim Schwabenland ("Respondent"), Washington, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <technologypartnersus.net> ('the Domain Name'), registered with Wild West Domains, LLC.

 

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 17, 2026; Forum received payment on February 17, 2026.

 

On February 17, 2026, Wild West Domains, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <technologypartnersus.net> Domain Name is registered with Wild West Domains, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Wild West Domains, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Wild West Domains, 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 18, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 10, 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@technologypartnersus.net. Also on February 18, 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 11, 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 is the owner of the TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS mark, registered, inter alia, in the United States for employment agency services since 2011.

 

The Domain Name registered in 2025 is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade mark incorporating the Complainant's mark in its entirety with the addition of the generic designation 'us' indicating United States and the gTLD .net which do not prevent said confusing similarity.

 

The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, is not commonly known by it and is not authorised by the Complainant.

 

The Domain Name does not point to an active web site and

has been used for a fraudulent email scheme using the Complainant's mark and logo. Such fraudulent use of a domain name to impersonate and create a false connection with Complainant is not a legitimate use of the domain name or bona fide offering of goods and services. Phishing is bad faith per se.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The Complainant is the owner of the TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS mark, registered, inter alia, in the United States for employment agency services since 2011.

 

The Domain Name registered in 2025 does not point to an active web site and has been used for a fraudulent email scheme using the Complainant's mark and logo.

 

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 TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS mark (which is registered, inter alia in USA for employment agency services since 2011), the generic designation 'us' meaning United States and the gTLD .net.

 

The addition of the generic geographical indication 'us' to the Complainant's trade mark in the Domain Name does prevent confusion similarity between the Domain Name from the Complainant's TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS mark. See Abbott Laboratories v Miles White, FA 1646590 (Forum Dec. 10, 2015) (holding that the addition of generic terms does not adequately distinguish a disputed domain name from complainant's mark under Policy 4(a)(i)).

 

The gTLD .net does not serve to distinguish the Domain Name from the 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 for the purpose of the Policy a mark in which the Complainant has rights.

 

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

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Domain Name has been used in a fraudulent email scheme using the Complainant's mark and logo. This is deceptive and confusing and amounts to passing off. As such it cannot amount to the bona fide offering of goods and services or a noncommercial legitimate or fair use. See Microsoft Corporation v. Terrence Green / Whois Agent / Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc., FA 1661030 (Forum Apr. 4, 2016) (finding the respondent's use of the disputed domain names to send fraudulent emails purportedly from agents of complainant to be 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)). Nor is providing false details to the WhoIS database as the Respondent appears to have done here.

 

The Respondent has not answered this Complaint and has not 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 Panel the use made of the Domain Name in relation to a fraudulent email scam is confusing and deceptive in that recipients of the emails will reasonably believe those emails are connected to or approved by the Complainant as communications sent by these emails used the Complainant's mark and logo. This mimicking by the Respondent of the Complainant shows that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and its business and rights and constitutes passing off.

 

Impersonating a complainant by use of a complainant's mark in a fraudulent email scam is disruptive and evinces bad faith registration and use. See Microsoft Corporation v Terrence Green/ Whois Agent/Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc., FA 1661030 (Forum Apr. 4, 2016) (finding that respondent's use of the disputed domain name to send fraudulent emails constituted bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy 4(b)(iii).)

 

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 Paragraph 4 (b)(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 <technologypartnersus.net> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Dawn Osborne, Panelist

Dated: March 11, 2026