DECISION

 

Tucker Ellis LLP v. mad max FURIOSA

Claim Number: FA2604002217652

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Tucker Ellis LLP ("Complainant"), represented by David J. Steele of Tucker Ellis LLP, California, USA. Respondent is mad max FURIOSA ("Respondent"), Texas, USA.

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <tuckersellis.com> (the "Disputed Domain Name"), 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.

David L. Kreider, Chartered Arbitrator (UK), as Panelist.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on April 23, 2026; Forum received payment on April 23, 2026.

On April 24, 2026, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <tuckersellis.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 27, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 18, 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@tuckersellis.com. Also on April 27, 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 May 19, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed David L. Kreider 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 alleges:

That it is Tucker Ellis LLP, a full-service law firm founded in 2003 that has grown to more than 240 attorneys in 11 offices across the United States, offering legal services in over 60 practice areas to Fortune 250 litigation clients, intellectual property clients, and other sophisticated business clients.

That it owns the exclusive rights to the TUCKER ELLIS service mark, including United States Service Mark Registration No. 4,644,397 for TUCKER ELLIS, registered November 25, 2014 in International Class 45 for legal services, which registration is incontestable pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1065; and that it has continuously and exclusively used the TUCKER ELLIS mark in connection with its legal services since 2003, thereby also acquiring common law rights in the mark.

That it uses the domain name tuckerellis.com in connection with its business, including to host its website and to send and receive e-mail, and that it is recognized in leading industry rankings such as Chambers USA and The Legal 500 United States.

That the Disputed Domain Name <tuckersellis.com> is confusingly similar to the TUCKER ELLIS mark and to Complainant's own domain name tuckerellis.com because it differs only by the addition of a single letter "s" and the ".com" gTLD, a minor misspelling that does not distinguish the Disputed Domain Name from the mark.

That Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name: Respondent is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name, being identified in the WHOIS data as "mad max FURIOSA"; Respondent has not been licensed or authorized to use the TUCKER ELLIS mark; and Respondent has used the Disputed Domain Name to host a commercial parking page displaying pay-per-click sponsored links to third-party services unrelated to Complainant, which is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.

That Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith: Respondent has used a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant's mark to attract Internet users, for commercial gain, to a commercial parking page generating click-through revenue, within Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv); the Disputed Domain Name has been configured with active mail exchange (MX) records, indicating that it has been set up for e-mail and creating a risk of e-mail fraud; and there is no plausible good-faith use to which Respondent could put the Disputed Domain Name.

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

FINDINGS

The Panel finds as follows:

Complainant holds rights in the TUCKER ELLIS service mark by virtue of United States Service Mark Registration No. 4,644,397, registered November 25, 2014 and incontestable under 15 U.S.C. § 1065, as well as common law rights arising from its continuous and exclusive use of the TUCKER ELLIS mark in connection with legal services since 2003.

The Disputed Domain Name <tuckersellis.com> was registered on April 14, 2026. It differs from the TUCKER ELLIS mark, and from Complainant's own domain name <tuckerellis.com>, only by the addition of a single letter "s" and the ".com" generic top-level domain.

The Disputed Domain Name has resolved to a website (the "Respondent's Website") displaying pay-per-click sponsored links to third-party commercial services unrelated to Complainant, and has been configured with active mail exchange (MX) records. Following Complainant's request to the Registrar, the Disputed Domain Name has been placed on "clientHold" status and no longer resolves to an active website.

Respondent is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name, is not a licensee of Complainant, and has not been authorized by Complainant to register or use the TUCKER ELLIS mark. Respondent did not file a Response and is in default.

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:

(i) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and

(ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

(iii) 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 3.0 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 has established its rights in the TUCKER ELLIS mark through United States Service Mark Registration No. 4,644,397. Registration of a mark with a national trademark authority such as the United States Patent and Trademark Office is sufficient to establish rights in that mark for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 1.2.1. Complainant has also asserted, on an unrebutted record, common law rights in the TUCKER ELLIS mark arising from its continuous use of the mark in connection with legal services since 2003.

The Disputed Domain Name <tuckersellis.com> wholly incorporates the TUCKER ELLIS mark, omitting only the space between the two words — which cannot be reproduced in a domain name — and inserting a single additional letter "s," followed by the ".com" gTLD. The addition or alteration of a single letter is a classic typosquatting technique that does not distinguish a domain name from the mark it imitates; it produces a domain name that is visually and phonetically nearly indistinguishable from the mark and from Complainant's own domain name <tuckerellis.com>. See Tucker Ellis LLP v. John Taylor / John T Inc, FA 2158982 (Forum June 30, 2025) (finding <tuckerelliss.com> confusingly similar to the TUCKER ELLIS mark because the domain name merely added the letter "s" to the mark); Victoria's Secret v. Zuccarini, FA 95762 (Forum Nov. 18, 2000) (finding that, by misspelling words and adding letters to words, a respondent does not create a distinct mark but nevertheless renders the domain name confusingly similar); Intelius, Inc. v. Kim Sang Hyun, FA 703175 (Forum July 5, 2006) (finding <intellus.com> confusingly similar to the INTELIUS mark where the domain name differed from the mark by a single letter and was visually similar). The ".com" gTLD is a technical requirement of registration and is disregarded in assessing confusing similarity.

The Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights, and that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant bears the initial burden of making out a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. Once that showing is made, the burden of production shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence that it does have such rights or interests. Where, as here, the complainant establishes a prima facie case and the respondent fails to respond, the Panel may accept the complainant's reasonable, unrebutted allegations as true. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 2.1.

Respondent is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name. The registrant identified in the WHOIS data, "mad max FURIOSA," bears no resemblance to the Disputed Domain Name, and nothing in the record suggests that Respondent has been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Respondent is not a licensee of Complainant and has not been authorized to use the TUCKER ELLIS mark.

Respondent has used the Disputed Domain Name to host the Respondent's Website, a commercial parking page displaying pay-per-click sponsored links to third-party services — such as car and life insurance and medication — unrelated to Complainant. Use of a domain name that is confusingly similar to a complainant's mark to host a parking page of pay-per-click links for the registrant's commercial benefit 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). See Hard Rock Cafe International (USA), Inc. v. Ryhan Estate Vineyards, FA 1235573 (Forum Jan. 14, 2009) (use of a confusingly similar domain name to resolve to a website displaying third-party links to unrelated websites is not a bona fide offering of goods or services). The Disputed Domain Name has, in addition, been configured with active MX records; the configuration of a typosquatted domain name for e-mail purposes likewise cannot give rise to rights or legitimate interests. See Home Depot Product Authority, LLC v. Domain Owner / Knowbe4, FA 1990823 (Forum May 25, 2022) (using a domain name to gain commercially through a fraudulent e-mail scam is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use).

Complainant having made out an unrebutted prima facie case, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name, and that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

The TUCKER ELLIS mark had been in continuous use since 2003 and federally registered since 2014 when Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name in April 2026. The Disputed Domain Name is a deliberate, single-letter misspelling of Complainant's distinctive mark and of Complainant's own domain name. Such typosquatting is, in itself, evidence of bad faith and supports the inference that Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name with knowledge of, and to take advantage of, Complainant's mark. There is no plausible good-faith use to which Respondent could put a domain name so obviously connected with Complainant. See Indymac Bank v. Ebeyer, FA 175292 (Forum Sept. 19, 2003) (finding bad faith where there was no conceivable way the respondent could use the disputed domain names without infringing the complainant's mark).

Respondent has used the Disputed Domain Name, which is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark, to host the Respondent's Website — a commercial parking page of pay-per-click advertising links. By doing so, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent's Website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's TUCKER ELLIS mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of that website. This is bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Office Depot, LLC and The Office Club, Inc. v. Milen Radumilo, FA 1978700 (Forum Feb. 10, 2022) (use of a confusingly similar domain name to display third-party hyperlinks and collect click-through fees is evidence of bad faith).

The Disputed Domain Name has also been configured with active mail exchange (MX) records, indicating that it has been set up for e-mail communications. The configuration of a typosquatted domain name confusingly similar to an established mark with active MX records is further evidence of bad faith, given the attendant risk that the Disputed Domain Name will be used for the fraudulent practice known as "phishing" — the sending of deceptive e-mails purporting to originate from the trademark owner in order to extract information or property from recipients — or other e-mail fraud. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 3.4 (use of a domain name for per se illegitimate activity such as phishing can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent, and constitutes manifest evidence of bad faith); Taylor Made Golf Company, Inc. v. Susan Peton, FA 2193294 (Forum Jan. 7, 2026) (the configuration of a disputed domain name with active MX records demonstrates bad faith use, particularly where the intent is to engage in phishing or e-mail fraud); Agilent Technologies, Inc. v. li wei wei, FA 1990953 (Forum May 23, 2022) (finding registration and use in bad faith where MX records showed the domain name could be used for fraudulent e-mails).

The Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith, and that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

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 <tuckersellis.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

 

David L. Kreider, Panelist

Dated: May 20, 2026