DECISION

 

Zscaler, Inc. v. Ola Crown / crownnew

Claim Number: FA2604002214046

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Zscaler, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Jessica L. Davis, California, USA. Respondent is Ola Crown / crownnew ("Respondent"), Illinois, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <redacnary.com> ("Domain Name"), registered with NameCheap, Inc.

 

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.

 

Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on April 5, 2026; Forum received payment on April 5, 2026.

 

On April 6, 2026, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <redacnary.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 7, 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@redacnary.com. Also on April 7, 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 28 April 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Nicholas J.T. Smith 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 registered the RED CANARY mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (e.g. Reg. No. 5,189,391, registered April 25, 2017).  Respondent's <redacnary.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark as it consists of a minor misspelling of the RED CANARY mark (inverting the "c" and "a" letters) and adding the ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD").

 

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <redacnary.com> domain name.  Respondent also does not use the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use, but due to the lack of legitimate reasons for the registration of the Domain Name, must be using the Domain Name to phish for user information.

 

Respondent registered and uses the <redacnary.com> domain name in bad faith to impersonate Complainant to conduct a phishing scheme.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant having failed to establish bad faith registration and use of the domain name <redacnary.com> has not established all required elements of its claim, and thus its complaint must be denied.

 

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").

 

The issue of making unsubstantiated allegations is particularly relevant in the present proceeding.   The Factual and Legal Grounds section of the Complaint consists of 4 brief paragraphs making numerous assertions that the Complainant has not chosen to support in the 4 pages of documentary material provided as part of the Complaint. Much of the documentary material would be entirely within the power of the Complainant to provide. Specifically: 

1) The Complaint provides no evidence of its use of or reputation in the RED CANARY mark. The Complaint provides evidence of a trade mark registration from 2017, but there is no evidence before the Panel that the RED CANARY mark has ever been used or has any reputation, such as an entity registering that mark or a variant would be doing so in awareness of the Complainant. This is particularly relevant noting that the RED CANARY mark consists of two ordinary English words, such that there is a possibility that a party may wish to register those words or a variant/misspelling for their generic (albeit unusual) meaning.

2)  The Complaint asserts repeatedly that the Respondent is using the Domain Name for phishing purposes and to impersonate Complainant, but the Complaint provides no evidence in support of this claim and indeed no evidence about how the Domain Name is actually used; rather this appears to be an speculative assertion based on the theory that because the Domain Name is a misspelling of the Complainant's mark, the Respondent must be using it for phishing purposes.

3)  The Complaint concludes that by reason of the Domain Name being registered anonymously also supports a finding that it was registered in bad faith as Panels regularly find the use of a privacy shield when registering a domain name was in bad faith. This submission does not correctly state the relevant case law under the Policy.  The WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.1 at ¶ 3.6 addresses this question and while noting in certain circumstances the use of privacy shield/proxy servers can support a finding of bad faith commences with the following:

"There are recognized legitimate uses of privacy and proxy registration services (separate from redaction of contact details flowing from privacy regulations) and the use of such services without more would not lead to a finding of bad faith.

In cases where the publicly-available registration data appears as "Redacted [for Privacy]" (or its functional equivalent), insofar as this is seen as an administrative measure employed by the registrar (and also noting that the underlying registrant information is generally provided by the registrar), this would typically not impact the panel's assessment of bad faith…"

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Complainant has rights in the RED CANARY mark based on registration with the USPTO (e.g Reg. No. 5,189,391, registered April 25, 2017). Registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently confers a complainant's rights in a mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Target Brands, Inc. v. jennifer beyer, FA 1738027 (Forum July 31, 2017) ("Complainant has rights in its TARGET service mark for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) by virtue of its registration of the mark with a national trademark authority, the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO").").

 

The Panel finds that the <redacnary.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's RED CANARY mark as consists of a minor misspelling of the mark (inverting the "c" and "a") and adds the ".com" gTLD. Adding a gTLD to a minor misspelling of a mark is generally insufficient to create a distinction between a complainant's mark and a disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).  See Acme Lift Company, L.L.C. v. VistaPrint Technologies Ltd, FA 1607039 (Forum Apr. 11, 2015) (stating, "Where a respondent has created a domain name in an effort to visually deceive Internet users via a simple misspelling (and when such misspellings are visually similar to the mark), a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) is appropriate."); see also Dell Inc. v. Protection of Private Person / Privacy Protection, FA 1681432 (Forum Aug. 1, 2016) ("A TLD (whether a gTLD, sTLD or ccTLD) is disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because the domain name syntax requires TLDs.").

 

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

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

In light of the Panel's dispositive finding on the issue of registration and use in bad faith, the Panel declines to address the question of rights or legitimate interests.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

The Panel finds that Complainant has failed to meet its burden of proof of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).  See Tristar Products, Inc. v. Domain Administrator / Telebrands, Corp., FA 1597388 (Forum Feb. 16, 2015) ("Complainant makes conclusory allegations of bad faith but has adduced no specific evidence that warrants a holding that Respondent proceeded in bad faith at the time it registered the disputed domain name. Mere assertions of bad faith, even when made on multiple grounds, do not prove bad faith."); see also Chris Pearson v. Domain Admin / Automattic, Inc., FA 1613723 (Forum Jul. 3, 2015) (finding that the complainant could not establish the respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith because it failed to present evidence that would support such a holding).

 

The Domain Name consists of a misspelling of the generic words "RED CANARY".   Noting the complete absence of any evidence that the Complainant has ever used the RED CANARY mark or has a reputation in it the Panel is not satisfied that RED CANARY mark is so distinctive, well-known and ubiquitous that the Panel can conclude, for that reason alone, that the Respondent's registration of a domain name consisting of a misspelling of two ordinary English language words was motivated by awareness of Complainant and a desire to take advantage of any confusion (which would generally amount to bad faith registration), as opposed to registration of the Domain Name other purposes.  Nor does Complainant provide any evidence relating to the identity of Respondent, such as past dealings with Complainant, or connection with Complainant's businesses, such that it would be reasonable to infer Respondent was aware of Complainant at the time of registration. Nor is there any evidence before the Panel of the Respondent engaging in a pattern of bad faith behavior or any other conduct that would suggest registration and use of the Domain Name in bad faith.

 

Therefore, in order to determine if Respondent's registration of the Domain Name was motivated by awareness of Complainant or the inherent qualities of the word "RED CANARY", it is necessary to consider evidence of Respondent's use of the Domain Name.  The Complaint submits that the Domain Name is used to impersonate the Complaint and for phishing purposes but provides no evidence for these assertions, indeed there is no evidence of the use of the Domain Name at all. Nor is the mere fact that the Domain Name a misspelling of the RED CANARY mark/words RED CANARY a sufficient basis to find, by itself that the Domain Name was used for phishing purposes. While the Panel is entirely aware that malicious actors often register domain names that are misspellings of trade marks for phishing purposes; it does not follow, as the Complainant submits; that because a domain name is a misspelling of a trade mark (how well-known this mark is has not been established by in evidence before me) I must concluded that it is used for phishing/impersonation purposes.  

 

In the present case the Complainant's mark consists of two generic English-language words. The Domain Name is a misspelling of those words. In the absence of any evidence of the reputation of the mark or the use of the Domain Name I cannot find that the registration of the Domain Name was motivated by awareness of the Complainant or a desire to take advantage of any confusion with the Complainant.  

 

The Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, is designed to deal with clear cases of cybersquatting, see IAFT International LLC v. MANAGING DIRECTOR / EUTOPIAN HOLDINGS, FA 1577032 (Forum Oct. 9, 2014) ("The objectives of the Policy are limited -- designed to obviate the need for time-consuming and costly litigation in relatively clear cases of cyber-squatting -- and not intended to thwart every sort of questionable business practice imaginable. ").  In the present case Respondent has registered a domain name that is a misspelling of the words "red canary", which is also a term that the Complainant has registered as a trade mark.  Noting that the Complainant contains no other evidence whatsoever, and in particular absent any other evidence that Respondent has engaged in bad faith conduct, those facts are not sufficient to establish bad faith under the Policy.  

 

As reasoned above, the Panel finds that Complainant has failed to prove that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith.

 

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED.

 

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

 

 

 

Nicholas J.T. Smith, Panelist

Dated: April 28, 2026