DECISION

 

eBay Marketplaces GmbH v. N Sanchez

Claim Number: FA2606002229696

 

PARTIES

Complainant is eBay Marketplaces GmbH ("Complainant"), represented by Amanda Marston of Holland & Hart LLP, Colorado, USA. Respondent is N Sanchez ("Respondent"), California, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <tise.org> ("Domain Name"), registered with DropCatch.com 656 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 26, 2026; Forum received payment on June 26, 2026.

 

On July 1, 2026, DropCatch.com 656 LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <tise.org> domain name is registered with DropCatch.com 656 LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. DropCatch.com 656 LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the DropCatch.com 656 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 July 6, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 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@tise.org. Also on July 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.

 

A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on July 27, 2026.

 

On July 27, 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 has for over 25 years operated an online shopping market and auction website and since 2016 (either directly or through a predecessor in title) operated a community-driven secondhand fashion and lifestyle marketplace under the mark TISE and from the website www.tise.com. Complainant has developed a significant global reputation in the TISE mark from the 10 years of trading and the millions of users of the Complainant's TISE marketplace.  Complainant has rights in the TISE mark through Complainant's registration of the mark in numerous jurisdictions including with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (e.g. Reg. No. 5,332,216, registered on November 14, 2017). Respondent's <tise.org> domain name is identical to Complainant's TISE mark as it incorporates Complainant's mark in its entirety and merely adds the ".org" generic top-level-domain ("gTLD").

 

Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <tise.org> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name, nor has Respondent been authorized by Complainant to use the TISE mark. Respondent has not used the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services as the Domain Name is essentially inactive, initially resolving to a non-functional landing page with a link to a placeholder domain and now entirely inactive.

 

Respondent registered and uses the <tise.org> domain name in bad faith. The Domain Name resolves to an inactive webpage. Respondent registered the Domain Name with awareness of Complainant's well-known TISE mark based on Complainant's long-term use of (and significant reputation in) the mark, a coined word with no ordinary meaning in the English language.

 

B. Respondent

The Domain Name is not identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's TISE mark as the Complainant does not have exclusive rights to the TISE mark and the domain name <tise.org> does not indicate any reference to any company, including the Complainant.

 

The Respondent has not engaged in any activity that would indicate any deliberate or apparent confusion with the Complainant. There are numerous entities with rights in the TISE mark and Respondent acquired the Domain Name freely. By reason of the multiple entities using the TISE mark there is no basis to find that the Respondent is using the Domain Name to mislead others or to act in bad faith and Respondent does not offer any goods from the Domain Name that conflict with the Complainant's goods. Finally, the Respondent requests that the Panel find that the Complainant has engaged in Reverse Domain Name Hijacking as the Complainant has sought to file a UDRP proceeding when it does not have exclusive rights to TISE.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant holds trademark rights for the TISE mark.  The Domain Name is identical to Complainant's TISE 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.

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Complainant asserts rights in the TISE mark through its registration of the mark with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 5,332,216, registered on November 14, 2017). Registration of a mark with the USPTO is generally sufficient to establish rights in the mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See DIRECTV, LLC v. The Pearline Group, FA 1818749 (Forum Dec. 30, 2018) ("Complainant's ownership of a USPTO registration for DIRECTV demonstrate its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).").  

 

The Panel finds that the <tise.org> domain name identical to Complainant's TISE mark as it wholly incorporates the mark along with the ".org" gTLD.  Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), the addition of a TLD is irrelevant in determining whether a domain name and mark are identical. See Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association v. Shi Lei aka Shilei, FA 1784643 (Forum June 18, 2018) ("A TLD (whether a gTLD, sTLD or ccTLD) is disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax requires TLDs.") 

 

The Panel does not accept the Respondent's submission that by reason of other entities registering TISE or similar marks for a different range of goods and services, the Complainant lacks sufficient rights in its own trade mark. This is contrary to UDRP precedent, indeed Respondent fails to identify any decisions under the Policy that support its contentions that the satisfaction of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) requires a complainant to establish exclusive rights in its mark, across all goods and services, in all jurisdictions.

 

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 TISE 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 "N Sanchez" as registrant of record. 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 is inactive (either not resolving to an active website or resolving to a landing page with link to an unconnected third party).  In the absence of any additional evidence inactive holding of a disputed domain name is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).  See CrossFirst Bankshares, Inc. v. Yu-Hsien Huang, FA 1785415 (Forum June 6, 2018) ("Complainant demonstrates that Respondent fails to actively use the disputed domain name as it resolves to an inactive website.").  

 

The Panel has reviewed the Response and considers that the Respondent provides no coherent or supported explanation for the registration of the Domain Name or evidence for demonstrable preparations to use the Domain Name for a bona fide offering or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use, and hence (for the reasons set out in the paragraph above) the Respondent's conduct is not by itself a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).  The Response provides no explanation for why the Respondent chose to register the Domain Name or what it has done or seeks to do with it.  The Response merely asserts that by reason of the Complainant not having exclusive rights in TISE (a matter addressed earlier in this decision) that the Respondent must have rights or legitimate interests.  Had the Respondent's registration been motivated by a bona fide purpose unrelated to the Complainant and its rights in the TISE mark, the Respondent should have been able to provide a coherent and supported explanation for the reason behind the registration and the timing of the registration.  No such explanation is provided.  Noting that the term TISE is a coined term with no meaning in the English language (or any other language apparent to the Panelist)¹ and the absence of any explanation for the registration of the Domain Name and the lack of use, the Panel finds that the Respondent's conduct does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).

 

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

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

The Panel finds on the balance of probabilities that, at the time of registration of the Domain Name, (April 11, 2026), Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's TISE mark.  The Complainant's TISE mark has a significant reputation, arising from use as an online marketplace for 10 years from the website www.tise.com.  Respondent has not provided any explanation for the registration a domain name that is identical to the coined TISE mark in the absence of awareness of the TISE mark.  In the absence of rights or legitimate interests of its own, this demonstrates registration in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

The Panel notes that the actions of Respondent in this matter do not fall under the arguments set out in Policy ¶ 4(b). However, these arguments are merely illustrative rather than exclusive to support a finding of bad faith.  See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Domain Admin - This Domain is For Sale on GoDaddy.com / Trnames Premium Name Services, FA 1714157 (Forum Mar. 8, 2017) (determining that Policy ¶ 4(b) provisions are mere illustrative of bad faith, and that the respondent's bad faith may be demonstrated by other allegations of bad faith under the totality of the circumstances).  It is well accepted that the elements of Policy ¶ 4(b) are not exclusive and that a Panel may consider all of the circumstances of a given case, including passive holding, in making its bad faith analysis.  See Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, Case No. D2000-0003 (WIPO Feb. 18, 2000) (after considering all the circumstances of a given case, it is possible that a "[r]espondent's passive holding amounts to bad faith."); Regions Bank v. Darla atkins, FA 1786409 (Forum June 20, 2018) ("Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) because Respondent uses the domain name to host an inactive website.")

 

Respondent has, without a coherent or supported explanation (or active use), registered a domain name that is identical to the coined and well-known TISE mark.  Inactive holding of a domain name can be evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) and, after considering the totality of the circumstances (including the nature of the TISE mark and in the absence of any explanation for the actions by the Respondent (or any possible good faith use of the Domain Name by Respondent)), the Panel finds on the balance of probabilities that this inactive holding of the Domain Name amounts to use in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

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

 

REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKING

The Panel denies the Respondent's request to find that the Complainant has engaged in Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.  The Panel has not identified any credible evidence that Complainant brought this action in bad faith, in an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.  In any event, as the Complainant was successful in these proceedings there is no basis, on its face, to find Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.

 

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 <tise.org> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Nicholas J.T. Smith, Panelist

Dated: July 28, 2026