DECISION

 

Ulta Beauty, Inc. v. Names Company / DNS Support

Claim Number: FA2603002209682

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Ulta Beauty, Inc. ("Complainant"), United States, represented by Melissa A. Vallone of Barnes & Thornburg LLP, United States. Respondent is Names Company / DNS Support ("Respondent"), Guernsey or United Kingdom.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <ultafit.com>, registered with NameSilo, LLC.

 

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.

 

David E. Sorkin as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on March 10, 2026; Forum received payment on March 10, 2026.

 

On March 10, 2026, NameSilo, LLC confirmed by email to Forum that the <ultafit.com> domain name is registered with NameSilo, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameSilo, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameSilo, 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"). (The Panel notes that the registrant address confirmed by NameSilo, LLC includes both "Guernsey" and "GB," the ISO 3166 country code for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Guernsey is a self-governing British Crown Dependency that is not part of the United Kingdom; its country code is GG. The conflicting address information likely was supplied by Respondent upon registering the domain name. The Panel notes further that there does not appear to be a registered entity by the name of "Names Company" in either Guernsey or the UK.)

 

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 email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@ultafit.com. Also on March 11, 2026, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email 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 Response was received on March 11, 2026. The Panel notes that the Response omits the certification statement that is required by Paragraph 5(c)(viii) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules").

 

On March 11, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed David E. Sorkin 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 "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.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant is the largest beauty retailer in the United States, operating 1,500 retail stores and also offering products online. Complainant sells products from a variety of beauty brands, including its own private label. Complainant has used ULTA and related marks in connection with goods and services since at least as early as 1990. Complainant owns longstanding trademark registrations for ULTA in standard character form and related marks in the United States, the United Kingdom, the European Union, and other jurisdictions, and also asserts common law rights in the ULTA mark. Complainant contends that ULTA has no meaning other than as an identifier for Complainant and its goods and services.

 

The disputed domain name <ultafit.com> was registered in January 2026. The name is registered in the name of a privacy registration service on behalf of Respondent. At the time the Complaint was filed, the domain name resolved to a page displaying a connection error message. Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name, is not associated with Complainant, and is not licensed or otherwise authorized to use Complainant's mark.

 

Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <ultafit.com> is confusingly similar to its ULTA mark; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

The uncertified Response identifies the registrant of the disputed domain name as an individual named Colin Malcolm, with an email address and location corresponding to those confirmed by the registrar.

 

Respondent acknowledges Complainant's rights in the ULTA mark but contends that the disputed domain name <ultafit.com> is not identical to the mark and conveys a meaning that is unrelated to Complainant's cosmetics and beauty business, instead suggesting concepts such as "ultra fit" or "ultimate fitness." Respondent claims to have registered the domain name "because it appeared to be a strong, brandable fitness name that could be used for a future fitness project or potentially be of interest to someone developing a fitness brand." Respondent denies having had any knowledge of Complainant or its ULTA mark at the time of registration. Respondent states that the domain name is currently parked and displays an automatically-generated page composed of fitness-related advertisements.

 

PROCEDURAL ISSUE: DEFICIENT RESPONSE

Paragraph 5(vii) of the Rules provides that the Response must conclude with a statement certifying its accuracy and completeness, followed by the signature of the Respondent or its representative. Paragraph 5(ix) provides that the Response is to be accompanied by any documentary or other evidence upon which the Respondent relies. The Panel has discretion whether to accept and consider a response that fails to comply with these provisions. See, e.g., Forma Therapeutics, Inc. v. Pierrin Mouchel, FA 2173044 (Forum Sept. 18, 2025) (declining to consider deficient response); Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Akinyemi Abdulrahom, FA 2172943 (Forum Aug. 25, 2025) (same); Sears Brands, LLC v. Dale Airhart, FA 1350469 (Forum Dec. 2, 2010) (same).

 

The Response omits the required certification statement and signature, and the only accompanying evidence is a screenshot of the parked page to which the domain name redirects. The Panel elects to consider that documentary evidence but not the uncertified statements that appear within the deficient Response.

 

FINDINGS

The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

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

The disputed domain name <ultafit.com> incorporates Complainant's registered ULTA trademark, adding the generic term "fit" and the ".com" top-level domain. These additions do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., Ulta Beauty, Inc. v. PT. NIKKEL INDONESIA / Elisabeth Wang, FA 2205886 (Forum Mar. 11, 2026) (finding <ultabet.net> confusingly similar to ULTA); Ulta Beauty, Inc. v. Ali Khan / UltaShot, FA 2205887 (Forum Mar. 11, 2026) (finding <ulta-shop.com> confusingly similar to ULTA); Ulta Beauty, Inc. v. Doughouz Group / Doughouz Group Ltd, FA 2147925 (Forum Apr. 25, 2025) (finding <ulta-host.com> confusingly similar to ULTA); Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc. v. Hussain Ali Mirza, FA 1986334 (Forum Apr. 4, 2022) (finding <ultachat.com> confusingly similar to ULTA); Sakura Properties, LLC v. Andre Jensen, D2016-2209 (WIPO Dec. 16, 2016) (finding <siselfit.com> confusingly similar to SISEL); BodyMedia, Inc. v. Adib Mubarrok, FA 1311717 (Forum Apr. 20, 2010) (finding <gowear-fit.com> confusingly similar to GO WEAR). The Panel considers the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Under the Policy, the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc. v. Entertainment Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).

 

The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's registered mark without authorization. It redirects to what appears to be an automatically-generated page composed of fitness-related advertisements. Respondent does not appear to have made any active use of the domain name, nor to have engaged in preparations for such use, suggesting that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. See, e.g., Solar Turbines Inc. v. Paul john / rominesheetmetal, FA 2199933 (Forum Feb. 11, 2026) (finding lack of rights or interests in similar circumstances); SidePrize, LLC d/b/a PrizePicks v. Copamar Partners / Copamar Partners, S.L., FA 2141536 (Forum Mar. 19, 2025) (same).

 

Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of such rights or interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that a domain name was acquired "primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of [Respondent's] documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name." Under paragraph 4(b)(iii), bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered the disputed domain name "primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor." Under paragraph 4(b)(iv), bad faith may be shown by evidence that "by using the domain name, [Respondent] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent's] 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 [Respondent's] web site or location or of a product or service on [Respondent's] web site or location."

 

Respondent used a privacy registration service and what appears to be internally consistent and possibly fictitious underlying registration information to register a domain name incorporating Complainant's registered mark. There is no evidence that Respondent has made any active use of the domain name nor engaged in preparations for such use, nor evidence to support Respondent's claimed reasons for selecting the name. The Panel finds it implausible that an entity engaged in the business of registering and marketing brandable domain names, as Respondent appears to be, would have been unaware of Complainant and its mark when registering a domain name that merely appends a generic term to the mark. The Panel therefore infers that Respondent registered the domain name with Complainant or its mark in mind, intending to sell the domain name to Complainant or a competitor or to profit by creating and exploiting confusion with Complainant's mark; and that Respondent is maintaining the registration for that purpose. The Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

DECISION

Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <ultafit.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

David E. Sorkin, Panelist

Dated: March 12, 2026