DECISION

 

Toptal, LLC v. Ranjit Raj / Contract2Hirez Talent

Claim Number: FA2602002206772

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Toptal, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by John M. Griem of Carter Ledyard & Milburn LLP, New York, USA. Respondent is Ranjit Raj / Contract2Hirez Talent ("Respondent"), India.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES 

The domain names at issue are <toptalcare.com> and <toptalsystems.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, 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.

 

Nick J. Gardner as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 23, 2026; Forum received payment on February 23, 2026.

 

On February 23, 2026, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <toptalcare.com> and <toptalsystems.com> domain names are registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, 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 25, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 17, 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@toptalcare.com and postmaster@toptalsystems.com. Also on February 25, 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 18, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Nick J. Gardner 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant says that it is a global technology staffing and talent network launched in 2010. Complainant provides clients access to a curated network of top freelance talent in software engineering, design, finance, product management, and project management, enabling organisations of all sizes to assemble skilled teams for any project.

 

Complainant says it owns United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") Registration No. 4,944,844 for the TOPTAL mark, together with numerous additional trademark registrations for the TOPTAL mark in the European Union, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, India, and other jurisdictions — a total of fifteen related registered marks globally.

 

Complainant says it has promoted its services under the TOPTAL mark continuously since at least 2010 and operates its principal website at <www.toptal.com>. The TOPTAL mark has acquired substantial consumer recognition and goodwill in the talent recruitment market globally, including specifically within the healthcare staffing sector, where Complainant operates a dedicated landing page at toptal.com/industry/healthcare and has published extensive content directed at healthcare industry clients.

 

Complainant contends that Respondent has registered and is using the domain names <toptalcare.com> and <toptalsystems.com> to mislead consumers regarding an affiliation with Toptal and to exploit the goodwill and fame of the TOPTAL mark in connection with the promotion of cloud server services and related commercial offerings. Both domains resolve to websites which make conspicuous use of the TOPTAL trademark, including in logos incorporating the mark, and are designed to create the false impression that they are affiliated with or extensions of Complainant's business. Complainant further contends that Respondent has no legitimate rights in the disputed domain names, that Complainant has not licensed or authorised Respondent to use the TOPTAL mark in any manner, and that Respondent's registration and use of the disputed domain names constitute bad faith within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The Panel finds the following facts established by the evidence in the record:

 

1. Complainant owns valid and subsisting trademark registrations for the TOPTAL mark, including USPTO Registration No. 4,944,844, together with registrations in the European Union, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, India, and other jurisdictions. Complainant has used the TOPTAL mark continuously in commerce since at least 2010.

2. The TOPTAL mark is well established and widely recognised in the global talent recruitment market, including in the healthcare staffing sector.

3. The disputed domain names <toptalcare.com> and <toptalsystems.com> each incorporate Complainant's TOPTAL mark in its entirety, with the addition of the generic or descriptive terms "care" and "systems" respectively.

4. The disputed domain names were registered by Respondent after Complainant established its trademark rights in the TOPTAL mark.

5. The disputed domain names resolve to websites that make conspicuous use of the TOPTAL mark, including in logos, and which offer commercial services in a manner designed to create the false impression of affiliation with, sponsorship by, or endorsement of Complainant.

6. Respondent has not been authorised, licensed, or otherwise permitted by Complainant to register domain names incorporating the TOPTAL mark or to use the mark in any manner.

7. Respondent failed to respond to the Complaint, offering no explanation for its choice of domain names or its use of Complainant's trademark.

 

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

Complainant has established rights in the TOPTAL mark through its continuous use since at least 2010 and through its USPTO registration and numerous international trademark registrations. The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied the threshold requirement of demonstrating rights in the TOPTAL mark for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. See Farmlane Brands, LLC v. Helene Isbell Biggane, FA 1996757 (Forum July 12, 2022) ("Ownership of a trademark registration is generally sufficient evidence that a complainant has the requisite rights in a mark for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.").

 

Each of the disputed domain names incorporates the TOPTAL mark in its entirety, appending the generic or descriptive terms "care" and "systems" respectively. It is well established that the addition of a generic or descriptive term to a complainant's mark does not negate a finding of confusing similarity. The term "care" is a natural descriptor in the context of healthcare staffing — an industry in which Complainant is specifically active — and the term "systems" is a generic term frequently appended to technology-related brand names. Neither addition is sufficient to distinguish the disputed domain names from the TOPTAL mark, and both are apt to reinforce rather than dispel the impression of a connection with Complainant. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognisable 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.").

 

The addition of the generic top-level domain ".com" is a technical requirement of domain name registration and does not affect the confusing similarity analysis. See Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association v. Shi Lei aka Shilei, FA 1784643 (Forum June 18, 2018) ("A TLD (whether a gTLD, sTLD or ccTLD) is disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax requires TLDs.").

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has established Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), it is well established that Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, following which the burden shifts to Respondent to demonstrate that it does have such rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)).

 

Complainant has demonstrated that Respondent is not authorised to use the TOPTAL mark and has no relationship with Complainant. The WHOIS information identifies Respondent as "Ranjit Raj / Contract2Hirez Talent," which bears no resemblance to the disputed domain names and does not suggest that Respondent is or has been commonly known by either domain name within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). There is no evidence that Respondent has acquired any trademark rights in the term "TOPTAL" or any similar designation. Complainant has accordingly established a prima facie case under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and the burden shifts to Respondent to demonstrate rights or legitimate interests.

 

The use of domain names confusingly similar to a complainant's mark, to attract internet traffic to websites that exploit the goodwill of that mark in connection with the promotion of commercial services, cannot establish a legitimate interest. See VOERE Holding GmbH v. Matteo Passoni / TECHNOLOGY SWISS HSE SA, FA 2024402 (Forum Jan. 16, 2023) ("Using a confusingly similar domain name to offer products which compete with those of a complainant is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use within the meaning of Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(iv)."). The prominent display of Complainant's TOPTAL trademark and associated logos on Respondent's websites — without any authorisation — reinforces the conclusion that Respondent's use is neither bona fide nor fair.

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has established Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Policy ¶ 4(b) sets forth four non-exclusive circumstances that constitute evidence of registration and use in bad faith. The Panel finds that Respondent's conduct falls within Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), which addresses circumstances where "by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location."

 

The TOPTAL mark has been extensively used in commerce since 2010 and is the subject of multiple trademark registrations across numerous jurisdictions, including India, where Respondent is located. It is inconceivable that Respondent registered the Domains without awareness of Complainant and its mark. The complete incorporation of the TOPTAL mark within both Domains, combined with the selection of suffixes — "care" and "systems" — that correspond naturally to sectors in which Complainant operates or is recognised, compels the conclusion that Respondent registered the Domains in bad faith with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights.

 

The use of a confusingly similar domain name to attract customers to a website offering competing or related service is evidence of bad faith. See AM General LLC v. Amer Habib / atlanta best used cars, FA 2031821 (Forum Mar. 22, 2023) ("As already noted, the resolving websites offer products that compete with those of Complainant. Previous Panels have held that use of a disputed domain name to offer goods or services that are in competition with those of a complainant is evidence of bad faith attraction for commercial gain." See also Environmental Science U.S. Inc. v. Vikas Kumar, FA 2025152 (Forum Jan. 19, 2023) ("Complainant also argues that Respondent's use of the disputed domain name for a competing pest management business evinces bad faith. Previous Panels have agreed, finding bad faith disruption of a complainant's business under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and bad faith attraction for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) when a respondent offers products or services that directly compete with a complainant.").

 

Respondent's use of the Domains to operate websites that display Complainant's TOPTAL trademark and logos — apparently in connection with the offer of competing or related commercial services — constitutes bad faith use within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).

 

The totality of the circumstances — the incorporation of a well-known mark in its entirety within both Domains, the unauthorised display of Complainant's trademarks and branding on the resolving websites, the commercially motivated use of the disputed domain names, Respondent's failure to respond to the Complaint, and the absence of any plausible good-faith explanation for the registration — compels the conclusion that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith.

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has established 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 <toptalcare.com> and <toptalsystems.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Nick J. Gardner Panelist

Dated: March 24, 2026