DECISION

 

Deposit Dox, Inc. v. Farjad Fani / Saascentral

Claim Number: FA2603002209991

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Deposit Dox, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Ramanathan Chinnaiah, New York, USA. Respondent is Farjad Fani / Saascentral ("Respondent"), Washington, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <betterfax.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 March 12, 2026; Forum received payment on March 12, 2026.

 

On March 19, 2026, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <betterfax.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. 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 March 20, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 9, 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@betterfax.com. Also on March 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.

 

Having received no response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On April 10, 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 name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant, Deposit Dox, Inc., operates an online internet fax service under the trademark FAXBETTER. Complainant owns United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") Registration No. 4,316,463 (Serial No. 85690004) for the FAXBETTER mark, and has used the mark continuously in interstate commerce in connection with online internet fax services since the mark's registration.

 

Complainant contends that the Domain <betterfax.com> is confusingly similar to its FAXBETTER mark because it constitutes a simple transposition — a reversal of the word order — of the two constituent elements of the mark, namely "Fax" and "Better." Complainant submits that UDRP panels have consistently held that the rearrangement of a trademark's constituent terms does not negate confusing similarity, as the transposition does not alter the overall commercial impression conveyed to consumers. Complainant further contends that the confusing similarity is compounded by the fact that Respondent operates the Domain to provide identical online internet fax services in direct competition with Complainant.

 

Complainant contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain. Complainant has not authorized or licensed Respondent to use the FAXBETTER mark or any variation thereof. The WHOIS registration data identified Respondent through a privacy shield service, and Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain. Complainant further contends that Respondent's use of the Domain to operate a directly competing internet fax service does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services, and that Respondent is making no legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain.

Complainant contends that Respondent registered and is using the Domain in bad faith. Complainant relies upon the following principal contentions. First, Respondent had constructive notice of the FAXBETTER mark by virtue of its USPTO registration under 15 U.S.C. § 1072. Second, on January 30, 2026, Complainant's counsel served a formal Cease and Desist letter on Respondent by email and certified mail, providing actual notice of Complainant's trademark rights and demanding transfer of the Domain. Respondent did not respond. Third, and most significantly, on or about March 5, 2026 - approximately five weeks after receipt of the Cease and Desist letter - Respondent affirmatively altered its website branding from "BetterFax" to Complainant's exact registered mark, "FaxBetter," and manipulated search engine metadata to display Respondent's website as "FaxBetter" in search results. Complainant contends that this deliberate post-notice escalation of infringement constitutes bad faith of the most flagrant kind, falling squarely within Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). Complainant also relies upon Respondent's use of a privacy registration service as an additional indicator of bad faith in the context of the broader circumstances.

 

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 USPTO Registration No. 4,316,463 for the FAXBETTER mark, registered in connection with online internet fax services. The mark is for a stylised form of the term FAXBETTER and is subject to a disclaimer – see discussion below.

2. The Domain <betterfax.com> was registered by Respondent and is apparently being used to operate an online internet fax service in direct competition with Complainant's FAXBETTER-branded service.

3. On January 30, 2026, Complainant's counsel served a formal Cease and Desist letter on Respondent by email and certified mail, providing Respondent with actual notice of Complainant's trademark rights. Respondent did not reply to this communication.

4. On or about March 5, 2026, following receipt of the Cease and Desist letter and without any communication to Complainant, Respondent altered the branding on its website from "BetterFax" to Complainant's exact registered mark, "FaxBetter," and simultaneously manipulated its search engine metadata to cause Respondent's website to appear in search results under the "FaxBetter" designation.

5. Respondent has not been authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted by Complainant to register domain names incorporating the FAXBETTER mark or to use that mark in any manner.

6. There is no evidence that Respondent is commonly known by the Domain or by any name resembling "BetterFax" or "FaxBetter" independent of the conduct described above.

7. Respondent failed to respond to the Complaint, providing no explanation for its choice of domain name, its operation of a competing service, or its post-notice adoption of Complainant's exact mark as its own branding.

 

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 3.1 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 difficulty that arises here is that Complainant's registered trademark is for a stylised mark which contains a disclaimer of textual elements. This was not an issue that was mentioned in the Complaint although it is clearly apparent on inspection of the trademark certificate annexed to the Complaint. That registration is for a stylised form of the term "faxbetter" written in a fancy font and coloured partly in green and partly in blue (see description below). It contains the following disclaimer – "NO CLAIM IS MADE TO THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO USE "FAX BETTER", APART FROM THE MARK AS SHOWN".  The Registration goes on to state that "THE COLORS) GREEN AND BLUE IS/ARE CLAIMED AS A FEATURE OF THE MARK. THE MARK CONSISTS OF THE STYLIZED TEXT "FAXBETTER" WITH THE TERM "FAX" APPEARING IN GREEN AND THE TERM "BETTER" APPEARING IN BLUE EXCEPT THAT THE HORIZONTAL LINE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE "F" IS BLUE AT ABOUT A 20 DEGREE ANGLE AND APPEARS TO BE CIRCLING THE "F" LIKE THE TAIL OF A COMET".

 

Whilst the effect of this registration is a matter of US law it appears to the Panel that the trademark registration does not give Complainant any rights in the term faxbetter and does not entitle Complainant to prevent others using that term (or variations of it) unless portrayed in graphic form within the scope of the mark as shown and described.

 

How does this impact on the application of the Policy? See Minibar North America Inc. v. Ian Musk & GEMS Global Electronic Minibar Systems AS WIPO Case No. D2005-0035 and the cases therein cited. In this case the domain name at issue was <minibarsystems.com> and complainant's registered mark was a device mark which included in stylised form the words "MINIBAR SYSTEMS". It contained a disclaimer that "it does not provide the exclusive right to use the words "Minibar Systems", save where it is used as part of the device trademark". The panel went on to state as follows

 

"6.11 The status and impact of disclaimers has been discussed in a number of UDRP decisions. The fact that words incorporated into either a longer word trademark or in a device mark have been disclaimed does not necessarily mean that a finding of confusing similarity with a domain name using those words is not possible. For example, in Park Place Entertainment Corporation v. Mike Gorman, WIPO Case No. D2000-0699, there was still confusing similarity between the domain name <paris-lasvegas.com> and a design mark that incorporated the words Paris and Las Vegas where the words "Las Vegas" had been disclaimed. Similarly, in Franchise Recruiters, Ltd. v. Franstaff, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2000-1625, the Domain Name was <franchiserecruiters.com>, the mark was "Franchise Recruiters Ltd" and the words Franchise and Recruiters were both disclaimed. Nevertheless there was still confusing similarity. As the panel stated in that case, "the terms 'franchise' and 'recruiters' are each disclaimed standing alone, but together demonstrate the required distinctiveness".

 

6.12 The situation in <paris-lasvegas.com> and in <franchiserecruiters.com> does not appear to be quite the same as the situation now before the Panel. The words "Minibar Systems" have been disclaimed together and "Minibar Systems" is essentially the entire substance of the Domain Name. Once the disclaimed words have been discounted, it would be difficult to see anything left in the trademark with which there can be said to be confusing similarity. The current case appears similar to that in Innovative Measurement Solutions Inc v. Hart Info Systems, WIPO Case No. D2001-0552. There the mark was for the words "Formulation Workstation, the workflow software for formulators", the disclaimer for "Formulation Workstation" and the domain name in issue was <formulationworkstation.com>. The panel in that case concluded there was no trademark right upon which the Claimant could rely". 

 

The panel concluded the complainant lacked relevant trademark rights.

 

See also WIPO Overview 3.1 at ¶1.10 "Where the trademark registration entirely disclaims the textual elements (i.e., the scope of protection afforded to the mark is effectively limited to its stylized elements), panels may find that the complainant's trademark registration is insufficient by itself to establish confusing similarity".

 

The Panel agrees with that approach adopted in the <minibarsystems.com> and as set out in WIPO Overview 3.1(above). The situation in the present case is precisely the same. Complainant ha disclaimed the entirety of the textual content in the trademark relied upon Respondent's adoption of the term BETTERFAX on its own is not confusingly similar to any term that Complainant has relevant trademark rights in. There is no evidence in the present case to support a finding that Complainant has common law trademark rights in the term FAXBETTER.

 

The Panel therefore finds that Complainant has not satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

In view of the Panel's findings on the first element the Panel does not need to determine this issue.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

In view of the Panel's findings on the first element the Panel does not need to determine this issue.

 

DECISION

Having not established the first element required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that the Complaint fails and relief shall be DENIED.

 

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

 

 

 

Nick J. Gardner Panelist

Dated: April 20, 2026