DECISION
National Public Radio, Inc. v. Eve Sherling / Northstar Bainbridge LLC
Claim Number: FA2602002205878
PARTIES
Complainant is National Public Radio, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Judd Lauter of Cooley LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Eve Sherling / Northstar Bainbridge LLC ("Respondent"), Washington, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <nprmerch.org>, registered with HOSTINGER operations, UAB.
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.
James Bridgeman SC as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 17, 2026; Forum received payment on February 17, 2026.
On February 19, 2026, HOSTINGER operations, UAB confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <nprmerch.org> domain name is registered with HOSTINGER operations, UAB and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. HOSTINGER operations, UAB has verified that Respondent is bound by the HOSTINGER operations, UAB 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@nprmerch.org.
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.
A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on March 10, 2026.
On March 12, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed James Bridgeman SC 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.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PRELIMINARY ISSUE: CONSENT TO TRANSFER
In its Response, Respondent stated as follows:
"Response – FA2602002205878
Respondent acknowledges the Complaint regarding the domain name <nprmerch.org>. Respondent does not contest the relief requested and consents to transfer of the domain name to Complainant, National Public Radio, Inc.
Respondent has already taken the website associated with the domain offline and is willing to cooperate fully to facilitate an efficient transfer. Respondent respectfully requests that the Panel order transfer of the domain name without further substantive findings."
Having considered Respondent's request and taking into account that
· Complainant has not withdrawn the Complainant;
· Complainant has been put to the inconvenience and expense of instructing legal representation and bringing this Complaint;
· Respondent has admitted that it intentionally targeted Complainant's reputation and goodwill, in NPR mark;
· that there is no evidence that Respondent has taken any steps to arrange for the transfer of the disputed domain name to Complainant;
the Panel takes the view that in the interests of administrative efficiency and fairness, it is appropriate to proceed to make a determination on the merits.
The Panel's decision on the merits will facilitate an efficient transfer of the disputed domain name under the control of Complainant.
PARTIES' CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
Complainant claims rights in the NPR mark established by its ownership of its portfolio of registered trademarks and service marks described below and its use of the mark providing its services as a leading producer of broadcast and digital content across a wide variety of subjects, including news, entertainment, and cultural programming.
Since at least as early as 1969, Complainant has provided syndicated programming under the NPR mark to hundreds of NPR member stations nationwide. Complainant also provides news and media content via its website <www.npr.org>, which is among the most popular websites in the United States.
The journalism that NPR and its member stations have produced has received countless awards, including the Pulitzer Prize, over 30 Edward R. Murrow Awards, and National Press Club Awards. In addition, the <npr.org> website received a Peabody Award in 2009 for providing easy access to news coverage and archives. As a result of NPR's many decades of use of the NPR Mark, and the recognition it has received from decades of high-quality journalism and entertainment services, the NPR mark is widely recognized across the United States.
Complainant firstly alleges that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the NPR mark, arguing that it consists of the mark combined with the generic term "merch". Complainant refers to the decision of the panel in Midjourney, Inc. v. Gadevski, Dimitar / Gadev Dimita / Newman, Oakland, FA 2103821 (Forum Jul. 26, 2024) (finding that the addition of "ai" to "midjourneys" was "insufficient to "distinguish the domain name from Complainant's mark").
Furthermore, Complainant argues that it is well established that when, as in the present case, panels may hold that a domain name at issue is confusingly similar to a complainant's mark when it incorporates the mark in its entirety. PepsiCo. Inc. v. PEPSI SRL, WIPO Case D2003-0696 (WIPO Oct. 28, 2003) (holding pepsiadventure.net, pepsitennis.com, and others confusingly similar to complainant's PEPSI mark since they "incorporate[ed the] trademark in its entirety").
Secondly Complainant argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because:
· Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name or any name containing Complainant's NPR mark;
· the WHOIS information for the disputed domain name makes no mention of Respondent using the disputed domain name, as a name or nickname, as for example the decision in Popular Enterprises, LLC v. Sung-a Jang, FA 0811921 (Forum Nov. 16, 2006) ("Respondent's WHOIS information does not suggest that [r]espondent is commonly known by the <ntester.com> domain name");
· Complainant has not authorized or licensed Respondent to use any of its trademarks in any way;
· it is well established that unlicensed, unauthorized use of the disputed domain name incorporating Complainant's trademark is strong evidence that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. See for example the decision in Time Warner Inc. v. MLM Capital LLC d/b/a Domains, FA 1076561 (Forum Oct. 26, 2007);
· Respondent cannot legitimately claim that it is offering bona fide goods or services, because, as shown in the screen capture which is exhibited in an annex to the Complaint, the disputed domain name resolves to a website that displays Complainant's distinctive NPR mark, including its NPR figurative registered trademark and service mark, which is Complainant's logo, in order to promote counterfeit products bearing the mark.
· In doing so, "Respondent attempts to pass himself off as Complainant which is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)." Google Inc. v. Zharkov Maxim / Aleksey Lebedev, FA 1506108 (Forum Sep. 2, 2013) (internal quotation and citation omitted).
Thirdly, Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, arguing that:-
The distinctive and unique qualities of the NPR mark, which is a well-known acronym and trademark corresponding to Complainant's name and was adopted by Complainant long prior to the registration of the disputed domain name, which renders it wholly implausible that Respondent created the disputed domain name independently. See Immigration Equality v. Brent, FA 1103571 (Forum Jan. 11, 2008) ("That Respondent proceeded to register a domain name identical to, and with prior knowledge of Complainant's mark is sufficient to prove bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).").
As the primary element of the disputed domain name consists of Complainant's well-known and distinctive NPR mark, it is impossible to conceive of any potential legitimate use of the disputed domain name. As such, the disputed domain name is being used in bad faith. See, e.g., Ferrari S.p.A. v. Joohee, WIPO Case D2003-0882 (WIPO Dec. 18, 2003) ("[r]espondent has appropriated a trademark having a strong reputation and widely known. The Panel finds it implausible that Respondent was unaware of Complainant's trademark…[r]espondent has provided no evidence or suggestion of a possible legitimate use…Thus, in the words of Telstra, it is not possible to conceive of any plausible actual or contemplated active use of the domain name by the [r]espondent that would not be illegitimate, such as passing off, or an infringement of consumer protection legislation, or an infringement of the Complainant's rights under trademark law.").
Furthermore, where, as in the present Complaint, a domain name at issue is "so obviously connected" with a complainant and its products, "its very use by someone with no connection with the products suggests opportunistic bad faith." Parfums Christian Dior v. Quintas, WIPO Case D2000-0226 (WIPO May 17, 2000).
Indeed, Respondent "could not have chosen or subsequently used…its domain name[s] for any reason other than to trade on that name and to confuse Internet users and by that means to attract them to a website with a name which is the same as that of the prominent mark. That is, in itself, evidence of bad faith." Control Techniques Ltd. v. Lektronix Ltd., WIPO Case D2006-1052 (WIPO Oct. 11, 2006).
Furthermore, the disputed domain name is demonstrably being used in bad faith to promote products bearing counterfeits of the NPR mark. The exhibited screen capture shows that website to which the disputed domain name resolves clearly targets Complainant, its mark, goodwill and reputation. Complainant's distinctive figurative mark and logo is positioned prominently on the home page. The text on the home page is also relevant as it states: "MADE FOR CURIOUS MINDS Designed for listeners who ask questions, think deeply and stay engaged with the world".
B. Respondent
The Response timely delivered by Respondent is set out in detail in the Preliminary Issue above.
FINDINGS
Complainant, based in the United States of America is a producer of broadcast and digital content across with international audience. It owns and uses the NPR mark in word and figurative forms, on a range of goods and services and is the registered owner of an international portfolio of trademark and service mark registrations including:
· United States registered service mark NPR, registration number 1,053,082, registered on the Principal Register on November 16, 1976 for services in international class 38;
· United States registered trademark and service mark, NPR, registration number 2,599,948, registered on the Principal Register on July 30, 2002 for goods and services in international classes 9, 38 and 41
· United States registered trademark and service mark NPR, registration number 2,797,163, registered on the Principal Register on December 2003, for goods and services in international classes 9, 38, and 41;
· International Trademark registration NPR (figurative), number 1486195, registered on March 25, 2019 for goods and services in classes 9, 38 and 41.
Complainant has an established Internet presence and maintains its principal website at <www.npr.org>, on which it provides its services.
The disputed domain name <nprmerch.org> created on January 18, 2026, and resolves to a website that prominently displays Complainant's marks and purports to offer merchandise including sweatshirts, water bottles, mugs, hats and other merchandise bearing Complainant's NPR marks and including its distinctive figurative mark and logo.
There is no information available about Respondent except for the informal Response that it sent to Forum on March 11, 2026, the information in the Complaint, as amended, the Registrar's WhoIs and the information provided by the Registrar in response to the request by Forum for details of the registration for the disputed domain name for the purposes of this proceeding.
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.
Identical and/or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has provided uncontested convincing evidence of rights in the NPR mark established by its ownership of the portfolio of registered trademarks and service marks described above.
The disputed domain name <nprmerch.org> consists of Complainant's mark in its entirety in combination with the descriptive term "merch". "Merch" is an established clipped form of the word "merchandise".
It is well established that when, as in the present case, a domain name at issue contains a complainant's mark in its entirety a panel may make a finding of confusing similarity for the purposes of the Policy.
The word "merch" does not take from the confusing similarity of the disputed domain name and Complainant's mark, and in the circumstances of this case the generic Top Level Domain ("gTLD") extension <.org> may be ignored for the purposes of comparison as it would be considered by Internet users to the a technical necessity for a domain name.
This Panel finds therefore that the disputed domain name <nprmerch.org> is confusingly similar to the NPR mark in which Complainant has rights and Complainant has therefore succeeded in the first element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Rights or Legitimate Interests
Complainant has made out a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as set out in Complainant's detailed submissions above.
In its informal Response, Respondent has admitted that it has no such rights or legitimate interests.
In any event, it is well established that once a complainant makes out a prima facie case that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to prove its rights or legitimate interests.
Respondent has failed to discharge that burden and therefore this Panel must find that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Complainant has therefore succeeded in the second element of the test in Policy paragraph 4(a)(ii).
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
Complainant's NPR mark is well known, and Complainant has used it extensively on its website and in the provision of services since long before the disputed domain name was chosen and registered on January 18, 2016. Complainant's earliest registered trademark as described above was registered on November 16, 1976.
Given that Complainant is one of the leading national radio and digital broadcasters in the USA, it is most improbable that the registrant of the disputed domain name was not aware of Complainant and its reputation when the disputed domain name was registered.
Furthermore, Respondent has availed of a privacy service to conceal its identity, however according to the WhoIs registration details disclosed by the Registrar in the course of this proceeding, Respondent purports to have an address in the State of Washington, USA.
Additionally Respondent extensively uses Complainant's figurative mark on the website to which the disputed domain name resolves. The mark consists of white letters "n" and "p" and "r" assembled in three colored boxes, with the box surrounding the letter "n" is red, the box surrounding the letter "p" is black, and the box surrounding the letter "r" is blue appears on the top of the home page. Respondent displays the mark on the banner of the homepage, and on all of the merchandise displayed for sale.
On the balance of probabilities, the registrant of the disputed domain name was aware of Complainant, its name and marks when the disputed domain name was chosen and registered. This Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith, with Complainant's mark in mind with the intention of taking predatory advantage of Complainant, its name and marks.
Furthermore, Respondent has used the disputed domain name, which is confusingly similar to Complainant's NPR mark, in bad faith as the address of a website. On the resolving website Respondent prominently displays the NPR mark and the NPR figurative mark, and purports to offer merchandise bearing Complainant's trademarks for sale. The text on the home page also infers association with Complainant as it states: "MADE FOR CURIOUS MINDS Designed for listeners who ask questions, think deeply and stay engaged with the world".
Such use indicates an intention on the part of Respondent to pass off its merchandise as being Respondent's goods, or is endorsed by Respondent in some manner.
On the balance of probabilities such use of the disputed domain name is intended to attract and confuse Internet users who are seeking the Complainant's website and cause them to divert their Internet traffic and misdirect it to the Respondent's website. In addition, such use of the mark is intended to create an initial interest confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent's website.
As this Panel has found that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, the Complainant has succeeded in the third element of the test in Policy paragraph 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 <nprmerch.org> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
_________________________________________
James Bridgeman SC
Panelist
Dated: March 12, 2026
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page