DECISION

 

Venn Marketing, LLC v. Dan Manners

Claim Number: FA2606002226467

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Venn Marketing, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Zach Eyster of Aspire Law, Inc., Georgia, USA. Respondent is Dan Manners ("Respondent"), Texas, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <venn.marketing>, 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.

 

Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

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

 

On June 11, 2026, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <venn.marketing> 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 June 17, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 7, 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@venn.marketing. Also on June 17, 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 July 8, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelist.

 

On July 9 2026 the Panel issued a Panel Order under Rule 12 of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules").  This order sought additional material from Complainant regarding the use of and reputation in the VENN MARKETING mark at the time of registration and the attempts made to contact the Respondent.  On July 15, 2026, Complainant provided additional material including declarations in response to the Panel Order.  Under the terms of the Panel Order Respondent had until July 21, 2026 to respond to Complainant's additional submission.  No response was received.

 

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

Since 2017, Complainant has provided a variety of marketing and IT services under the VENN MARKETING mark, including promotion of those services through its website at www.vennmarketing.com. Complainant asserts rights in the VENN MARKETING mark based upon registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (e.g., Reg. No. 7,562,649, registered November 12, 2024 with a first use in commerce date of May 1, 2017). Respondent's <venn.marketing> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's VENN MARKETING mark because it fully incorporates Complainant's mark in the Domain Name.

 

Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <venn.marketing> domain name. Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant's VENN MARKETING mark and is not commonly known by the Domain Name. Respondent also does not use the Domain Name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent uses the Domain Name to pass off as Complainant and purport to offer competing marketing services at the resolving website ("Respondent's Website").

 

Respondent registered and uses the <venn.marketing> domain name in bad faith. Respondent is attempting to attract Internet users to its website for commercial gain by means of passing itself off as Complainant or associated with Complainant. Furthermore, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the VENN MARKETING mark prior to registering the Domain Name, given the Complainant's reputation prior to the registration and the fact that the Domain Name is essentially identical to the Complainant's registered mark.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

C. Additional Submissions

Complainant's additional material includes a declaration by the principal of the Complainant to the effect that the Complainant has used the VENN MARKETING mark since May 1, 2017 and annexes a copy of the Complainant's website at www.vennmarketing.com. They also contain further information about the Complainant's efforts to contact Respondent, including that each social media link and contact form on the Respondent's Website was broken and unusable.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant holds trademark rights for the VENN MARKETING mark. The Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's VENN MARKETING mark.  Complainant has established that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name and that Respondent registered and has used the Domain Name in bad faith.

 

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 rights in the VENN MARKETING mark through its registration of the mark with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 7,562,649, registered November 12, 2024). Registration with the USPTO can sufficiently establish rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Thermo Electron Corp. v. Xu, FA 713851 (Forum July 12, 2006) (finding that the complainants had established rights in marks where the marks were registered with a national trademark authority).

 

The Panel finds that the <venn.marketing> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's VENN MARKETING mark because it wholly incorporates Complainant's VENN MARKETING mark. The Panel notes that in the present case it has considered the gTLD ".marketing" for the purpose of assessing confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the CHAINLINK mark.  Section 1.11.3 of the WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.1states that "Where the applicable TLD and the second-level portion of the domain name in combination contain the relevant trademark, panels may consider the domain name in its entirety for purposes of assessing confusing similarity (e.g., for a hypothetical TLD ".mark" and a mark "TRADEMARK", the domain name <trade.mark> would be confusingly similar for UDRP standing purposes)." 

 

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

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant alleges that Respondent holds no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. In order for Complainant to succeed under this element, it must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the Domain Name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006) and AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Forum Sept. 25, 2006) ("Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names."). The Panel holds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case.

 

Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name as Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the VENN MARKETING mark. Respondent has no relationship, affiliation, connection, endorsement or association with Complainant. WHOIS information can help support a finding that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, especially where a privacy service has been engaged. See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Dale Anderson, FA 1613011 (Forum May 21, 2015) (concluding that because the WHOIS record lists "Dale Anderson" as the registrant of the disputed domain name, the respondent was not commonly known by the <statefarmforum.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)); see also Kohler Co. v. Privacy Service, FA 1621573 (Forum July 2, 2015) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) where "Privacy Service" was listed as the registrant of the disputed domain name). The WHOIS lists "Dan Manners" as registrant of record. Furthermore, while the Respondent's Website suggests that it is operated by an entity called VENN MARKETING, the Complaint provides uncontested evidence that Respondent's Website does not resolve to a legitimate active business with the various links and contact details on the Respondent's Website being inactive or non-functional. Coupled with Complainant's unrebutted assertions as to absence of any affiliation or authorization between the parties, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name in accordance with Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

The Domain Name resolves to the Respondent's Website where Respondent purports to offer marketing services in the United States in direct competition with Complainant, whose VENN MARKETING mark is registered for marketing services in the United States. The Panel also notes that the Complainant provides uncontested evidence that the Respondent's Website is not operated by a legitimate trading entity. Indeed, as noted in the paragraph above, the Respondent's Website appears to, at best, be inactive with a non-functional contact e-mail, unusable contact form and a the purported social media or third-party links all being inactive.

 

The use of a confusingly similar domain name to redirect to a purportedly competing website does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the name under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See General Motors LLC v. MIKE LEE, FA 1659965 (Forum Mar. 10, 2016) (finding that "use of a domain to sell products and/or services that compete directly with a complainant's business does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)."). See also Dell Inc. v. Devesh Tyagi, FA 1785301 (Forum June 2, 2018) ("Respondent replicates Complainant's website and displays Complainant's products. The Panel finds that this use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) & (iii).").

 

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

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

The Panel finds that, at the time Respondent registered the Domain Name, June 4, 2026, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's VENN MARKETING mark which had been in use since 2017 and had been registered for marketing services. The Respondent is purportedly offering services from the Domain Name that is confusingly similar to the VENN MARKETING mark using a website that either through reproduction of Complainant's VENN MARKETING mark, passes itself off as an official website of the Complainant or alternatively is entirely fraudulent with no active marketing services being provided through the website. In the absence of rights or legitimate interests of its own this demonstrates registration in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

The Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the Domain Name in bad faith as Respondent uses the Domain Name to redirect Internet users to Respondent's own website where Respondent passes off as Complainant and purports to offer marketing services in direct competition with Complainant. Using a confusingly similar domain name to divert Internet users to a respondent's competing website can show bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See ZIH Corp. v. ou yang lin q, FA1761403 (Forum Dec. 29, 2017) (finding bad faith where the respondent used the infringing domain name to disrupt the complainant's business by diverting Internet users from the complainant's website to the respondent's website where it offered competing printer products).  Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the Domain Name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).

 

The Panel finds 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 <venn.marketing> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Nicholas J.T. Smith, Panelist

Dated: July 22, 2026