DECISION

 

Nomad Freight, Inc. v. Stefan Efros / EFROS

Claim Number: FA2604002215249

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Nomad Freight, Inc. ("Complainant"), self-represented by Bakhtiyar Zhumanov of Nomad Freight, Inc., Illinois, USA. Respondent is Stefan Efros / EFROS ("Respondent"), Indiana, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <nomadfreight.com>, registered with Cloudflare, 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.

 

Steven M. Levy as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

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

 

On April 13, 2026, Cloudflare, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <nomadfreight.com> domain name is registered with Cloudflare, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Cloudflare, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Cloudflare, 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 14, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 4, 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@nomadfreight.com. Also on April 14, 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 16, 2026, Complainant sent an email to Forum setting out what it claims is "additional bad faith conduct by Respondent…"

 

On May 5, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Steven M. Levy 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 is a corporation incorporated in the State of Indiana and operating in Illinois, United States, engaged in freight transportation and logistics services since 2015. The domain name <nomadfreight.com> was registered on April 6, 2015 — the same date Complainant's business was established — and has been used continuously as the company's primary corporate domain for email communications, business operations, and client-facing correspondence. Respondent was employed by Complainant as an IT contractor or administrator. In his capacity as IT personnel, Respondent was granted access to various company accounts and infrastructure, including domain management credentials, solely

for the purpose of performing his employment duties on behalf of

Complainant. On or about June 20, 2025, while still employed by Complainant, Respondent unlawfully transferred registration and control of the domain <nomadfreight.com> to himself, without Complainant's knowledge or authorization. Complainant discovered this unauthorized transfer upon attempting to access domain management controls. Respondent's employment was subsequently terminated in August 2025. Following the unauthorized transfer, Respondent also terminated access to the telephone number associated with Complainant's business, causing further disruption to Complainant's operations. Complainant contacted Cloudflare (the registrar) to report the unauthorized transfer. Cloudflare declined to take action, citing its policy of not adjudicating domain ownership disputes.

 

Complainant owns common law rights to the NOMAD FREIGHT trademark and the <nomadfreight.com> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the mark.

 

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name where it is not commonly known by the domain name and its resolution to Complainant's former website content is not a bona fide offering of goods or services by Respondent.

 

The disputed domain name was registered and is used in bad faith where Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark and based on its above-mentioned use of the domain name.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

C. Additional Submissions

Complainant states that, on or about April 16, 2026, Respondent modified the DNS/DMARC records for <nomadfreight.com> in a manner that causes email sent from the domain to be rejected by recipient mail servers. As a result, Complainant's business email communications originating from <nomadfreight.com> are now being rejected with a DMARC rejection error.

 

This action was taken by Respondent after the formal commencement of these UDRP proceedings on April 14, 2026, and constitutes further evidence of Respondent's bad faith use of the domain name and deliberate intent to disrupt Complainant's business operations.

 

FINDINGS

-       Complainant has common law rights in the NOMAD FREIGHT trademark and the <nomadfreigh.com> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the mark;

-       Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and it's resolution to Complainant's former website content is not a bona fide offering of goods or services and it does not otherwise have rights or legitimate interests in the domain name; and

-       The disputed domain name was registered and is used in bad faith where Respondent, a former employee of Complainant, improperly transferred the domain name to itself and resolved it to Complainant's former website content.

 

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

Complainant asserts that it has common law trademark rights in the term NOMAD FREIGHT based on its longstanding use thereof. Registration of a trademark is not required when a complainant can demonstrate established common law rights in an asserted mark. See Klabzuba Oil & Gas, Inc. v. LAKHPAT SINGH BHANDARI, FA 1625750 (Forum July 17, 2015) ("Complainant does not claim to own a trademark registered with a governmental authority. However, Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) does not require such registration if a complainant can demonstrate having common law rights."). To establish common law rights in a name, a complainant generally must show extensive and continuous use in commerce such that the mark has developed a secondary meaning with respect to the complainant and its business. See Iacocca v. Tex. Int'l Prop. Assocs., FA 1088017 (Forum Nov. 29, 2007) ("In order to garner the benefit of common law trademark rights, Complainant must lay out, not only evidence of extensive and continuous use of the mark in commerce, but also evince some strong probability that as a result of such exposure, that consumers have come to associate the mark with Complainant, as to the source of the goods."). Here, Complainant claims to have continuously and exclusively used its NOMAD FREIGHT mark for ten years in connection with the provision of freight transportation and logistics services. In support thereof, it submits a copy of its Articles of Incorporation from the Illinois Secretary of State, dated March 20, 2013. It also notes that it has used the <nomadfreight.com> domain name for its website at which it promotes its services. The Panel has reviewed this site content and notes that it contains a graphic logo under which appears the word NOMAD and the copyright notice "© 2024 Nomad Freight, Inc." The page also contains links to various social media pages at which the NOMAD FREIGHT mark appears and at which Complainant has a significant number of followers and has posted dated material promoting its business (i.e., Instagram, Facebook, Telegram, and YouTube). Although the submitted evidence is minimal, it does show the use of the term NOMAD FREIGHT as an indication of the source of Complainant's products and services (i.e., as a trademark). Further, Respondent has not participated in this case to dispute Complainant's evidence and claims and, as discussed more fully below, it has directly targeted Complainant and its NOMAD FREIGHT mark thus indicating that its sees value and reputation in such mark. See Change Healthcare Operations, LLC v. Privacy Service Provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf / Yogesh Kumar, D2022-0063 (WIPO Mar. 7, 2022) ("the Respondent's use of the PERYOURHEALTH mark to brand a cloned version of the Complainant's website itself further affirms the Complainant's position regarding its claim to unregistered trademark rights in this term, as it indicates that the Respondent is targeting the said mark, making deliberate reference to the Complainant's business as conducted via the online portal at <peryourhealth.com>."). As such, the Panel finds that Complainant has met the threshold to support a claim of common law rights in its NOMAD FREIGHT mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Next, Complainant argues that Respondent's <nomadfreight.com> domain name is confusingly similar to its mark because the disputed domain name incorporates the NOMAD FREIGHT mark in its entirety and only adds the ".com" TLD. The use of an entire trademark and the addition only of a TLD is not sufficient to distinguish a disputed domain name from an asserted mark. Rollerblade, Inc. v. Chris McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000) ("There can be no question that Respondent's domain name <ROLLERBLADE.NET> is identical to Complainant's trademark 'Rollerblade', and this Panel so finds. It is already well established that the specific top level of the domain name such as 'net' or 'com' does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar."). The Panel thus finds that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Should it succeed in this effort, the burden then shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) ("Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests.").

 

Complainant first argues that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name nor has Respondent been given license or consent to use the NOMAD FREIGHT mark. In considering this issue, WHOIS information may be reviewed to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. LY Ta, FA 1789106 (Forum June 21, 2018) (concluding that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name where the complainant asserted it did not authorize the respondent to use the mark, and the relevant WHOIS information bore no resemblance to the domain name). Additionally, lack of authorization to use a complainant's mark may indicate that the respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) ("lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant's mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)"). The WHOIS record for the disputed domain name, as revealed by the concerned Registrar after the Complaint was filed, identify Respondent as "Stefan Efros" and Respondent has not participated in these proceedings to claim that it is known otherwise. Further, Complainant specifically states that "Respondent unlawfully transferred registration and control of the

domain NOMADFREIGHT.COM to himself, without Complainant's knowledge or authorization" and Respondent has not made any claim to the contrary. Therefore, the Panel finds insufficient evidence upon which to conclude that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name or that it has been granted any rights relevant thereto under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

Complainant further contends that Respondent fails to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. Rather, Respondent is resolving the domain name to Complainant's former website content. Such use has been held not to meet the standards of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i). See Direct Line Ins. plc v. Low-cost-domain, FA 1337658 (Forum Sept. 8, 2010) ("The Panel finds that using Complainant's mark in a domain name over which Complainant has no control, even if the domain name redirects to Complainant's actual site, is not consistent with the requirements of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or ¶ 4(c)(iii)."). Here, the content to which the <nomadfreight.com> domain name resolves is identical to that which was hosted by Complainant prior to Respondent's transfer. As Respondent is no longer employed by Complainant, this resolution appears to be improper and there is no evidence that Respondent is actually offering any goods or services under the NOMAD FREIGHT mark or otherwise. As such, the Panel that Respondent's use of the domain name is not a bona fide offering of goods or services nor is it a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

A somewhat unusual circumstance exists in this case where the disputed domain name was originally registered and owned by the Complainant but then transferred away by an employee without Complainant's consent. As is clear from Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii), it must be shown that the disputed "domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith" (emphasis added). Due to this conjunctive requirement, registration of a domain name by an employer as the domain owner, is clearly a good faith registration. However, an improper transfer of the <nomadfreigh.com> domain name by an employee, without Complainant's consent, creates a new "registration". Celilo Group Media, Inc. v. Domain Administrator, D2010-1119 (WIPO Aug. 19, 2010) ("there has been a change of control amounting to a new registration for the purposes of this element of the Policy."). As discussed more fully below, the Panel finds that the conjunctive requirement of Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) is satisfied here as Respondent's new registration of the domain name was in bad faith.

 

Next, Complainant asserts that Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in its NOMAD FREIGHT mark. Actual knowledge can provide a solid foundation upon which to build an argument of bad faith registration under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) and this can be demonstrated based on the reputation of the mark as well as the use to which a disputed domain name is put. See UDRP Perspectives on Recent Jurisprudence, § 3.4 (updated Jan. 15, 2025), available at https://udrpperspectives.org) ("For bad faith to be present, the Respondent must have actual knowledge of the existence of the Complainant, the trademark owner.") See also WordPress Foundation v. mich delorme / mich d dots tlds, FA 1584295 (Forum Nov. 25, 2014) ("Because Respondent here relies on the WORDPRESS mark in the disputed domain name and also makes use of Complainant's services at the resolving page, the Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark, and that such knowledge evidences Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith."). While there is only limited evidence of the reputation of Complainant's mark, Complainant asserts that "Respondent was fully aware that NOMADFREIGHT.COM belonged to Complainant — he managed it on Complainant's behalf as an IT employee. There can be no claim of innocent registration." The Panel that Respondent's actual knowledge of Complainant's mark (including its logo) is clear as the website to which the <nomadfreight.com> domain name resolves is identical to that of Complainant's own former site content. Based on the available evidence, the Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark at the time that it registered the disputed domain name and that it did so in bad faith. 

 

Further, "[w]hether an employer has an actionable claim under the UDRP depends on the circumstances under which the employee became listed as the registrant". The Clash Of Trademarks And Domain Names On The Internet, at p.323 (Gerald M. Levine, Legal Corner Press, 2025). For example, where an employee withholds a domain name from its employer based on a claimed lien or debt, this has been determined to be bad faith use. In Kiko Technology Limited v. Robert Gibellini, D2018-1814 (WIPO Oct. 30, 2018) the Panel held that the respondent lacked any right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name where respondent transferred the disputed domain name to his own name and held it as leverage in a financial dispute. Respondent transferred the disputed domain name from Complainant's ownership to its own during the time that it was under Complainant's employ and there is no evidence that it did so with Complainant's knowledge or consent. Respondent's reason for transferring the <nomadfreight.com> domain name and its objective in holding it at present are unclear but the fact that his employment was terminated by Complainant upon learning of the transfer supports the claim that it was done improperly and perhaps with the goal of monetary gain. In view of the above, the Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) and ¶ 4(a)(iii) by a preponderance of the available evidence.

 

DECISION

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

Steven M. Levy, Panelist

Dated: May 6, 2026