DECISION

 

T5 Data Centers, LLC v. Emma Andy

Claim Number: FA2607002231673

 

PARTIES

Complainant is T5 Data Centers, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Lena Colin of King & Spalding LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Emma Andy ("Respondent"), Texas, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <t5datacentersprojects.com>, registered with HOSTINGER operations, UAB.

 

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.

 

Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on July 8, 2026; Forum received payment on July 8, 2026.

 

On July 12, 2026, HOSTINGER operations, UAB confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <t5datacentersprojects.com> domain name is registered with HOSTINGER operations, UAB and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. HOSTINGER operations, UAB has verified that Respondent is bound by the HOSTINGER operations, UAB 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 14, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 3, 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@t5datacentersprojects.com. Also on July 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 August 4, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. 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

i) Complainant commenced use of the trademark T5 at least as early as 2009, and since that time, it has continuously used the T5 mark in commerce in the United States in connection with real estate, real estate leasing, and real estate property management. Complainant has rights in the T5 mark (Reg. No. 4,560,198, registered July 1, 2014, in Classes 36, 37, and 42). Complainant registered the domain name <t5datacenters.com> on July 22, 2011. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark T5, as it fully incorporates Complainant's company name, "T5 DATA CENTERS," and includes the ".com" gTLD.

 

ii) Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant authorized or licensed Respondent to use its T5 formative marks in connection with the disputed domain name. Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Emails sent using the disputed domain name give the false appearance of being associated or affiliated with Complainant, particularly because the individual sending the email is impersonating an actual employee of Complainant, and using the T5 logo in their correspondence. The disputed domain name resolves to an insecure and inactive webpage.

 

iii) Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's trademark rights, yet proceeded to register and use the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent's use of the disputed domain name to impersonate Complainant and its employees is evidence of bad faith. Respondent is not currently making active use of the disputed domain name, as the disputed domain name resolves to an error webpage.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

1. The disputed domain name was registered on June 12, 2026.

 

2. Complainant has established rights in the T5 mark (Reg. No. 4,560,198, registered July 1, 2014, in Classes 36, 37, and 42).

 

3. Emails sent using the disputed domain name give the false appearance of being associated or affiliated with Complainant, particularly because the individual sending the email is impersonating an actual employee of Complainant to send purchase order, and using the T5 logo in their correspondence.

 

4. The disputed domain name resolves to an insecure and inactive webpage.

 

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 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 claims rights in the T5 mark (Reg. No. 4,560,198, registered July 1, 2014, in Classes 36, 37, and 42) through its registration with the USPTO. Complainant has provided a copy of its USPTO registration for the relevant mark. Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in the T5 mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Complainant further contends that the disputed domain name <t5datacentersprojects.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark T5, as it incorporates the T5 mark in its entirety and merely adds the generic word "projects" after the domain name <t5datacenters.com>, which is used by Complainant to promote its T5 business.

 

The Panel notes that the mere addition of a descriptive term and a gTLD does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. As the disputed domain name fully incorporates Complainant's T5 mark with the mere addition of the words "Data Centers," which are part of Complainant's company name, "T5 DATA CENTERS," the generic or descriptive term, "projects," and the ".com" gTLD, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's T5 mark.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Section 2.1, WIPO Overview 3.1 ("Where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element.").

 

Complainant argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed  domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name nor has Respondent been authorized by Complainant to use Complainant's mark; and Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant. Relevant information, such as WHOIS information, can be used as evidence to show a respondent is or is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). The Panel notes that the unmasked WHOIS information lists "Emma Andy" as the registrant, and there is no evidence in the record to suggest Respondent was authorized to use the mark. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

Complainant further contends that Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Respondent has used the disputed domain name to engage in a fraudulent scheme by impersonating an employee of Complainant. Complainant provides selected screenshots from emails sent to a third-party vendor. A third-party vendor alerted Complainant to messages from an individual using an email address associated with the disputed domain name to impersonate an employee of Complainant and to send fraudulent purchase orders. These emails give the false appearance of being associated or affiliated with Complainant, particularly because the individual sending the emails is impersonating an actual employee of Complainant and using the T5 logo in their correspondence.

 

The Panel finds that using the disputed domain name to misrepresent oneself as an employee of Complainant in furtherance of a phishing scheme does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii). See FirstEnergy Corp. v. kelly Rowland, FA 2062582 (Forum Oct. 18, 2023) ("Complainant provides copies of emails showing that Respondent has used the disputed domain name in connection with an email address to impersonate an employee of Complainant soliciting Complainant's potential customers for money. Using a disputed domain name to pass off as a complainant's employee for the purpose of furthering a phishing campaign may not be 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 that Complainant has established a prima facie case based on the foregoing circumstances. These factors collectively establish a prima facie case against Respondent. As Respondent has not filed a Response, or taken any steps to rebut the prima facie case, the Panel concludes that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant contends that Respondent is attempting to impersonate an employee of Complainant in connection with a phishing scheme in order to unlawfully profit from Complainant's goodwill and brand recognition. The Panel recalls that Complainant has provided selected screenshots from emails sent to a third-party vendor. A third-party vendor alerted Complainant to messages from an individual using an email address associated with the disputed domain name to impersonate an employee of Complainant and to send fraudulent purchase orders. These emails give the false appearance of being associated or affiliated with Complainant, particularly because the individual sending the emails is impersonating an actual employee of Complainant and using the T5 logo in their correspondence.

 

Registration of a confusingly similar domain name with the intent to disrupt business by furthering an email phishing campaign for commercial gain can demonstrate bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). See FirstEnergy Corp. v. kelly Rowland, FA 2062582 (Forum Oct. 18, 2023) ("Registration of a confusingly similar domain name with the intent to disrupt business by furthering an email phishing campaign can evince bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). Respondent has used the disputed domain name in connection with an email address to impersonate a member of Complainant's staff for purposes of soliciting Complainant's potential customers for money. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)."). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv).

 

Complainant further argues that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's trademark at the time of registration of the disputed domain name. While constructive notice alone is insufficient to support a finding of bad faith, actual knowledge may support a determination of bad faith registration. The Panel infers, in light of Complainant's long-standing use of its T5 mark and its domain name <t5datacenters.com> for more nearly two decades, and the specific manner in which Respondent used the disputed domain name to impersonate an employee of Complainant to send fraudulent purchase orders, that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in its T5 mark at the time of registration. The Panel therefore finds that Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith under 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 <t5datacentersprojects.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist

Dated: August 5, 2026