DECISION

 

Dead IP Tells No Tales LLC v. Virti VirtiVox

Claim Number: FA2602002206097

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Dead IP Tells No Tales LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Ryan Miller of Pirkey Barber PLLC, Texas, USA. Respondent is Virti VirtiVox ("Respondent"), Punjab.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <pirateshipcom.com>, registered with NameCheap, Inc.

 

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.

 

Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 19, 2026; Forum received payment on February 19, 2026.

 

On February 19, 2026, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <pirateshipcom.com> 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 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@pirateshipcom.com. 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 Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. 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

i) Complainant, its predecessors in interest, and its affiliates have used the PIRATE SHIP mark and related marks in connection with cloud-based solutions helping small businesses buy postage and print shipping labels since at least as early as June 9, 2015. Complainant has established rights in the PIRATE SHIP mark through its registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 4,892,715 registered January 26, 2016). The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's PIRATE SHIP mark, as it incorporates the mark in its entirety and merely appends the generic string of letters "com" and the ".com" gTLD.

 

ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Respondent's use of the disputed domain name is not in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The domain directs to a website attempting to impersonate Complainant; it is branded "PIRATE SHIP," with a prominent header/menu and keyword-style text at the top referencing "PIRATE SHIP," "PIRATESHIP," "PIRATE SHIPPING," and "PIRATE SHIP LOGIN."

 

iii) Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent's use of a domain name to pass itself off as Complainant while simultaneously providing unrelated content is evidence of bad faith registration and use. Respondent clearly intended to attract Internet users to its website for financial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, or affiliation of Respondent's website through its use of Complainant's PIRATE SHIP mark. Respondent has actual and constructive knowledge of Complainant's rights in the PIRATE SHIP marks. Respondent's bad faith is also evidenced by the fact that it owns no trademark or other intellectual property rights in the domain name. Respondent has configured the disputed domain name to send and receive email communications, and Respondent is using a proxy service to conceal its identity.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

1. The disputed domain name was registered on October 16, 2025.

 

2. Complainant has established rights in the PIRATE SHIP mark through its registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 4,892,715 registered January 26, 2016).

 

3. The disputed domain name redirects to a website attempting to pass itself off as Complainant; it is branded PIRATE SHIP, with a prominent header/menu and keyword-style text at the top referencing PIRATE SHIP, PIRATESHIP, PIRATE SHIPPING, and PIRATE SHIP LOGIN. The language in the footer of the website reinforces that impression by claiming that "PIRATE SHIP is the ultimate solution" for managing "shipping needs," and by stating that users can "compare rates, print labels, and track" packages while obtaining "discounted USPS and UPS rates," which directs visitors to "go to the PIRATE SHIP login page" to get started. The remaining content consists of unrelated, generic posts about search engine optimization and digital marketing (e.g., articles discussing "SEO success," "keyword optimization," "content strategy," and tracking SEO metrics).

 

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 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 claims rights in the PIRATE SHIP mark based upon registration with the USPTO. Registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to establish rights in that mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Complainant has provided copies of its USPTO registrations for the PIRATE SHIP mark (e.g., Reg. No. 4,892,715 registered January 26, 2016). Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in the PIRATE SHIP mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).  

 

Next, Complainant argues the disputed domain name <pirateshipcom.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant's PIRATE SHIP mark, as it incorporates the mark in its entirety and merely appends the generic string of letters "com" and the ".com" gTLD. The Panel agrees and finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's PIRATE SHIP mark per 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 Section 2.1, WIPO Overview 3.1 ("Where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element.").

 

Complainant contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Where a response is lacking, relevant information includes the WHOIS records and any other assertions by a complainant regarding the nature of its relationship with a respondent. The Panel notes that the unmasked WHOIS information identifies "Virti VirtiVox" as the registrant. There is nothing in the record to suggest that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

Complainant argues Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor any noncommercial or fair use, because the disputed domain name redirects to a website attempting to impersonate Complainant. The Panel observes that when a respondent uses a disputed domain name to pass itself off as a complainant, the Panel may find that the respondent has failed to demonstrate a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Ripple Labs Inc. v. Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund, FA 1790949 (Forum July 9, 2018) (holding that the respondent's use of the domain name to feature the complainant's mark and related content did not constitute 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)).

 

Complainant has provided a screenshot of the website associated with the disputed domain name, demonstrating that it is branded PIRATE SHIP, with a prominent header/menu and keyword-style text at the top referencing PIRATE SHIP, PIRATESHIP, PIRATE SHIPPING, and PIRATE SHIP LOGIN. The language in the footer of the website reinforces that impression by claiming that "PIRATE SHIP is the ultimate solution" for managing "shipping needs," and by stating that users can "compare rates, print labels, and track" packages while obtaining "discounted USPS and UPS rates," which directs visitors to "go to the PIRATE SHIP login page" to get started. The remaining content consists of unrelated, generic posts about search engine optimization and digital marketing (e.g., articles discussing "SEO success," "keyword optimization," "content strategy," and tracking SEO metrics).

 

The Panel finds that Respondent's activities related to the disputed domain name are fraudulent, create a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark, and are intended to mislead or divert Internet users for commercial advantage. Accordingly, the Panel concludes that Respondent's fraudulent activities and impersonation do not constitute a use of the disputed domain name in connection with 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).

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case arising from the considerations above. All of these matters serve to make out the prima facie case against Respondent. As Respondent has not filed a Response or attempted by any other means to rebut the prima facie case against it, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant argues that Respondent's use of a domain name is intended to pass itself off as Complainant in connection with a "shipping solution" for managing "shipping needs." Complainant further contends that such activities, while simultaneously providing unrelated content, constitute evidence of bad faith registration and use. Respondent clearly intended to attract Internet users to its website for financial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, or affiliation of Respondent's website through its use of Complainant's PIRATE SHIP mark.  

 

The Panel notes that passing off as Complainant while selling competing services demonstrates bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). See Ontel Products Corporation v. waweru njoroge, FA 1762229 (Forum Dec. 22, 2017) ("Respondent's primary offering seem to be counterfeits of Complainant's products...disruptive to Complainant's business per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)."); see also Russell & Bromley Limited v. Li Wei Wei, FA 1752021 (Forum Nov. 17, 2017) (finding bad faith where the respondent used a similar domain to offer competing, counterfeit goods).    

 

The Panel finds that Respondent's use of the disputed domain name in connection with a "shipping solution" for managing "shipping needs," including stating that users can "compare rates, print labels, and track" packages while obtaining "discounted USPS and UPS rates," involves services which are either competing with or closely related to the business of Complainant. Such use of the disputed domain name impersonates Complainant's website, and implies affiliation or sponsorship, thereby disrupting Complainant's business for commercial gain. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv).

 

 

Additionally, Complainant contends that Respondent registered the disputed domain name with constructive and/or actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the PIRATE SHIP mark. While constructive knowledge is insufficient for a finding of bad faith, per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii), actual knowledge of a complainant's trademark rights is sufficient to establish bad faith and may be demonstrated by the respondent's use of the disputed domain name. See Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014) ("The Panel notes that although the UDRP does not recognize 'constructive notice' as sufficient grounds for finding Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith, the Panel here finds actual knowledge through the name used for the domain and the use made of it."); see also Spectrum Brands, Inc. v. Guo Li Bo, FA 1760233 (Forum January 5, 2018) ("[T]he fact Respondent registered a domain name that looked identical to the SPECTRUM BRANDS mark and used that as an email address to pass itself off as Complainant shows that Respondent knew of Complainant and its trademark rights at the time of registration.").  

 

Given the notoriety of Complainant as a well-known provider of shipping services under the PIRATE SHIP mark, and the manner in which the disputed domain name is used to pass Respondent off as Complainant, the Panel infers that Respondent had knowledge of Complainant's rights in the PIRATE SHIP mark at the time of registering the disputed domain name, and finds that Respondent registered the disputed domain 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 <pirateshipcom.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist

Dated: March 17, 2026