DECISION

 

NOCAP Sports, Inc. v. Peter Liberatore

Claim Number: FA2603002209670

 

PARTIES

Complainant is NOCAP Sports, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Casey Floyd of NOCAP Sports, Inc., Washington, USA. Respondent is Peter Liberatore ("Respondent"), Florida, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <nocapsports.com> ('the Domain Name'), registered with DreamHost, 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 March 10, 2026; Forum received payment on March 10, 2026.

 

On March 11, 2026, DreamHost, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <nocapsports.com> Domain Name is registered with DreamHost, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. DreamHost, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the DreamHost, 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 March 11, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 31, 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@nocapsports.com. Also on March 11, 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 April 1, 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 has since November 2021 provided under its NOCAP SPORTS mark downloadable mobile applications for connecting businesses with athletes for the purposes of facilitating endorsement, sponsorship, and employment arrangements. The mark has been registered for the Complainant's goods and services in the USA since 2023.

 

The Respondent is not authorised by the Complainant and is not commonly known by the Domain Name.

 

The site attached to the Domain Name offers merchandise relating to a musician, trading on the Complainant's mark which is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate non-commercial fair use.

The Domain Name is causing confusion for commercial gain.

 

The Panel notes that the Domain Name was registered in 2020 prior to when the Complainant states it began trading under its NOCAP SPORTS mark in November 2021.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The Complainant has since November 2021 provided under its NOCAP SPORTS mark downloadable mobile applications for connecting businesses with athletes for the purposes of facilitating endorsement, sponsorship, and employment arrangements. The mark has been registered for the Complainant's goods and services in the USA since 2023.

 

The site attached to the Domain Name offers merchandise relating to a musician. 

 

The Domain Name was registered in 2020 prior to when the Complainant states it began trading under its NOCAP SPORTS mark in November 2021.

 

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 comprises the term NOCAP SPORTS (which is also a mark in which the Complainant owns rights having provided goods and services in the sports industry since 2021 and for which a registered trade mark has been held in the USA since 2023) and the gTLD .com. gTLDs are typically disregarded for the purposes of determining whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a complainant's mark. 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.").

 

Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Name is identical to a mark in which the Complainant currently has rights, however the Panel also notes that the Domain Name was registered the year before the Complainant began trading which is highly significant for the determination as to registration in bad faith dealt with below.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

In view of the Panel's finding below regarding no registration in bad faith it is not necessary to make a finding in relation to rights or legitimate interests and, in the absence of any evidence from the Respondent who did not reply to this Complaint, the case Panel declines to do so.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Under the third limb of the Policy it is necessary to demonstrate both that a domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Rockwell Automation v. zheqiang, FA 1818237 (Forum Dec. 16, 2018) ("The Policy requires Complainant to prove both bad faith registration and use."). 

 

In this case the Domain Name was registered the year before the Complainant began use of its NOCAP SPORTS mark and began trading and accruing common law rights. There is no evidence that the Respondent knew about the Complainant or its mark at the time of his registration or acquisition of the Domain Name. TicketSms s.r.l. and Mr Andrea Vitali v. Franklin Iziren D2023-0442 (WIPO Apr. 12, 2023) (where a respondent registers a domain name before the complainant's trade mark rights accrue, panels will not find bad faith on the part of the respondent unless there is a situation of opportunistic bad faith due to insider trading or some other proof that the Respondent was targeting the Complainant).

 

The Panel determines that the Complainant has failed to establish registration of the Domain Name in bad faith and, in light of this finding, it is unnecessary to make any determination in relation to use of the Domain Name in bad faith.

 

Reverse Domain Name Hijacking

The Respondent did not reply to this Complaint. However the failures in this Complaint inevitably bring considerations of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking into question.

 

In this case the Domain Name was registered the year before the Complainant began trading. As such, based on the evidence before the Panel, it is not possible that the Respondent had the Complainant in mind at the time of registration of the Domain Name which could not have been registered in bad faith.

 

On balance the Panel believes that exercising reasonable skill and judgement the Complainant must have realised that it had no right to call for the transfer of the Domain Name in this case under the Policy and this Complaint was bound to fail. The Panel makes a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking. See Clean Slate Credit Solutions v. Jake Rustenhoven, FA 1924095 (Forum Jan. 8, 2021).

 

DECISION

Having not established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <nocapsports.com> domain name REMAIN WITH Respondent.

 

 

 

Dawn Osborne, Panelist

Dated: April 1, 2026