DECISION

 

Ingram Industries, Inc. v. Aiden Markam

Claim Number: FA2604002213738

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Ingram Industries, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Ryan D. Levy, Tennessee, USA. Respondent is Aiden Markam ("Respondent"), Pakistan.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <ingramselfpublishers.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.

 

Charles A. Kuechenmeister, Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on April 2, 2026; Forum received payment on April 2, 2026.

 

On April 2, 2026, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <ingramselfpublishers.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 April 6, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint setting a deadline of April 27, 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@ingramselfpublishers.com. Also on April 6, 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 28, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Charles A. Kuechenmeister 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 a Response or any other submittal from Respondent.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant distributes books and provides inventory control services for retail booksellers. It has rights in the INGRAM mark based upon its registration of that mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Respondent's <ingramselfpublishers.com> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the INGRAM mark as it fully incorporates the mark, merely adding the generic terms "self" and "publishers" and the ".com" generic top-level domain (gTLD).

 

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. It has not been commonly known by the domain name, Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its mark, and Respondent is not using the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services but instead is using it for a website that offers services which are identical to or overlap with Complainant's services.

 

Respondent registered and uses the domain name in bad faith. It registered the domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant and its mark, it disrupts Complainant's business and it is using the domain name to attract for commercial gain Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of its website.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted 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 a complainant to prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order cancelling or transferring a domain name:

 

(1)       the domain name registered by the respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and

(2)       the 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, pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules the Panel will decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations 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. Nevertheless, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory allegations unsupported by competent evidence.

 

The Panel finds as follows with respect to the matters at issue in this proceeding:

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The INGRAM mark was registered to Complainant with the USPTO (Reg. No. 1,173,201) on October 13, 1981 (USPTO registration certificate included in Complaint Annex B). Complainant's ownership of this registration of the INGRAM mark establishes its rights in that mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Respondent's <ingramselfpublishers.com> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the INGRAM mark. It fully incorporates the mark, merely adding the generic terms "self" and "publishers" and a gTLD. Complainant's mark is clearly recognizable within the domain name. Adding generic terms and a gTLD does not distinguish the domain name from Complainant's mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

For the reasons set forth above, the Panel finds that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the INGRAM mark, in which Complainant has substantial and demonstrated rights.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

If a complainant makes a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden of production shifts to the respondent to come forward with evidence that it has rights or legitimate interests in it. If the respondent fails to come forward with such evidence, the complainant's prima facie evidence will be sufficient to establish that respondent lacks such rights or legitimate interests. If the respondent does come forward with such evidence, the Panel must assess the evidence in its entirety. At all times, the burden of proof remains on the complainant.

 

Policy ¶ 4(c) lists the following three nonexclusive circumstances, any one of which if proven can demonstrate a respondent's rights or legitimate interests in a domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii):

 

(i)                      The respondent has used or has made demonstrable preparations to use the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or

(ii)                      the respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if the respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or

(iii)                      the respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.

 

Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name because (i) it has not been commonly known by the domain name, (ii) Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its mark, and (iii) Respondent is not using the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services but instead is using it for a website that offers services which are identical to or overlap with Complainant's services.  These allegations are addressed as follows:

 

The WHOIS information provided to Forum by the registrar lists the named Respondent as the registrant of the domain name. This name bears no resemblance to the domain name. Evidence could, of course, in a given case demonstrate that the respondent is commonly known by a domain name different from the name in which it registered the domain name, e.g., the case of a domain name incorporating the brand name of a specific product offered by and associated with the respondent. In the absence of any such evidence, however, UDRP panels have consistently held that WHOIS evidence of a registrant name which does not correspond with the domain name is sufficient to prove that the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name.  The Panel finds that Respondent has not been commonly known by the domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

Complainant states that it has not authorized Respondent to use its mark. Complainant has specific competence to make this statement, it is unchallenged by any evidence before the Panel and is taken as true. Evidence that a respondent is not authorized to use a complainant's mark in a domain name, while not dispositive and while not specifically addressing any of the circumstances listed in Policy ¶ 4(c), may still support a finding that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name.

 

Complaint Annex D is a screenshot of the website resolving from the domain name. It identifies Ingram Self Publishers as the sponsor of the site and states that it is an independent entity, unaffiliated with, sponsored by or associated with any other companies or brands with similar or identical names. The disclaimer is printed in small font but it is at the very top of the first page on the website—it is literally the first thing a visitor would see on arriving at the site. The site advertises its services of providing assistance to persons in getting their manuscripts published and sold. Complainant alleges that these services are identical to or overlap significantly with Complainant's services offered through two of its websites, hyperlinks for which are included in the Complaint. Complainant did not offer screenshots of the content of these websites but it did furnish evidence of identical or similar services offered by it in the USPTO registration certificate for its INGRAMSPARK mark included in Complaint Annex B. Those services include "Media publishing services, namely a web-based service featuring technology that enables users to manage the production and publication of physical books and electronic books (e-books) and related digital content and offer them for sale to the general public."  There is no evidence to suggest that Respondent is not operating a legitimate business or that it began doing so after it received notice of the dispute. By using Complainant's mark in its domain name along with the phrase "self publishers," however, it does falsely suggest an affiliation with Complainant in a line of business in which Complainant operates. This does not qualify as a bona fide offering of goods or services within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), or as a legitimate noncommercial or fair use within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(iv).  Ripple Labs Inc. v. NGYEN NGOC PHUONG THAO, FA 1741737 (Forum Aug. 21, 2017) ("Respondent uses the [disputed] domain name to divert Internet users to Respondent's website… confusing them into believing that some sort of affiliation exists between it and Complainant… [which] is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).").

 

On the evidence presented, and in the absence of any evidence from Respondent, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) requires Complainant to prove that the domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith. Policy ¶ 4(b) sets forth a nonexclusive list of four circumstances, any one of which if proven would be evidence of bad faith use and registration of a domain name. They are as follows:

 

(i)                      circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant which is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the respondent's documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or

(ii)                      the respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

(iii)                      the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or

(iv)         by using the domain name, the respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the 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 the respondent's web site or location or of a product of service on the respondent 's web site or location.

 

The concept of bad faith as illustrated in the above four subparagraphs necessarily involves a subjective intent on the part of a respondent knowingly to trade upon the goodwill of the complainant. The respondent must intentionally have targeted the complainant's mark. Such subjective intent would in turn require that the respondent actually knew of the complainant or its rights in the relevant mark when it registered the domain name.  Constructive notice does not suffice.

 

In attempting to discern actual knowledge and a subjective bad faith intent, panels have looked at many different types of evidence, including but not limited to use of a domain name in direct competition with a trademark owner, impersonation, the parties operating in the same market segment, the parties being physically located in the same general geographic area, a pattern of bad faith conduct, actual prior association between or among the parties, the distinctive nature of the trademark, and the extent to which the trademark has been publicized and is known as a source indicator for the complainant. Unsupported allegations about a respondent's subjective intent are not evidence in this regard.

 

Complainant alleges that it is an internationally recognized conglomerate encompassing 54 units, spanning industries from petroleum refinement to book distribution, that it is the leading distributor of books in the United States. It alleges that its book distribution division has become the predominate American wholesaler of books, with sales exceeding $60 million per year. Its mark, it says, is the surname of its founder, O. H. Ingram. All of this would count heavily toward a finding that Respondent must have known of Complainant and its mark and selected the domain name for its association with Complainant. Complainant, however, furnished no evidence in support of any of these allegations. The only evidence suggesting that Respondent targeted Complainant consists of its use of the INGRAM mark in the domain name and its being involved in a market segment in which Complainant operates. This certainly raises suspicion but it falls short of demonstrating by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent affirmatively intended to target Complainant. The language of its disclaimer quoted above suggests that Respondent may have been aware of Complainant's mark but, as stated above, it appears that Respondent is engaged in a legitimate business of its own, and the domain name is descriptive of that business. It is entirely plausible that its selection of the domain name was for that reason and not intended to trade on the reputation or goodwill of Complainant. There is no evidence of passing off or impersonation. Complainant furnished no evidence bearing upon whether the Ingram name is common or unique, but it does not appear to be so unique as conclusively to demonstrate targeting. According to the Complaint and the USPTO registration certificates for Complainant's marks included in Complaint Annex B, Complainant is actively involved in many diverse industries (book selling, selling DVDs, photos, brochures, catalogs, tarot cards, games and puzzles, and inventory management services, as well as the alleged petroleum refinement and inland waterway transportation services).  There is no evidence of the extent to which its mark has become associated in the minds of the relevant public as a source indicator for its self-publication services. Again, even if Respondent had some awareness of Complainant's existence, Complainant has failed to prove targeting. The evidence does not support a finding of bad faith registration and use.  Complainant has not met the requirements of Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

DECISION

Complainant having failed to establish all three elements required under the Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED.  

 

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

 

 

 

Charles A. Kuechenmeister, Panelist

April 29, 2026