DECISION

 

ECI Software Solutions, Inc. v. Brendan Vink / 4019 E Toledo St Unit 105

Claim Number: FA2607002231685

 

PARTIES

Complainant is ECI Software Solutions, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Rebecca Givner-Forbes of Cooley LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Brendan Vink / 4019 E Toledo St Unit 105 ("Respondent"), Arizona, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <ecisolutions.org> ('the Domain Name'), registered with NameCheap, 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.

 

Dawn Osborne as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

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

 

On July 10, 2026, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <ecisolutions.org> 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 July 21, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 10, 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@ecisolutions.org. Also on July 21, 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 11, 2026 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Dawn Osborne 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

The Complainant is the owner of the ECI (plus device) mark, registered, inter alia, in the United States for computer software in the retail and distribution industries since 2020 with no disclaimer. It owns and uses ecisolutions.com for its web site.

 

The Domain Name registered in 2025 is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade mark incorporating the Complainant's mark in its entirety with the addition of the generic term 'solutions' and the gTLD .org which does not prevent said confusing similarity.

 

The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, is not commonly known by it and is not authorised by the Complainant.

 

The Domain Name points to the Complainant's web site and

has been used for a fraudulent employment email scheme purporting to advertise job opportunities with the Complainant. Such fraudulent use of a domain name to impersonate and create a false connection with Complainant for fraudulent purposes is not a legitimate use of the domain name or bona fide offering of goods and services.

 

The Respondent's use of the Domain Name shows actual knowledge of the Complainant, its rights and business, and is registration and use in opportunistic bad faith for deceptive purposes.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The Complainant is the owner of the ECI (plus device) mark, registered, inter alia, in the United States for computer software in the retail and distribution industries since 2020. It owns ecisolutions.com.

 

The Domain Name registered in 2025 points to the Complainant's web site and has been used for a fraudulent employment email scheme purporting to advertise job opportunities with the Complainant.

 

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

The Domain Name consist of the distinctive word element of the Complainant's ECI (plus device) mark (which is registered in the USA for computer software in the retail and distribution industries since 2020), the generic term 'solutions' and the gTLD .org.

 

The addition of a generic term and a gTLD does not negate confusing similarity between a domain name and a trade mark contained within it. See Wiluna Holdings LLC v Edna Sherman, FA 1652781 (Forum Jan 22, 2016) (finding the addition of a generic term and gTLD insufficient to distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy 4(a)(i)). The Panel finds that the addition of the generic word 'solutions 'and the gTLD .org does not prevent confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant's mark.

 

Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's registered mark.

 

As such the Panel holds that Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant has not authorised the use of its mark. There is no evidence to suggest the Respondent is commonly known by the Domain Name. See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA 1574905 (Forum Sept. 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS details and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark).

 

The Domain Name has been used in a fraudulent email scheme. This is deceptive and confusing. As such it cannot amount to the bona fide offering of goods and services or a non commercial legitimate or fair use. See Microsoft Corporation v. Terrence Green / Whois Agent / Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc., FA 1661030 (Forum Apr. 4, 2016) (finding the respondent's use of the disputed domain names to send fraudulent emails to be 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)).

 

The Domain Name points to the site of the Complainant itself to further perpetuate the Respondent's deception. The Panel finds this use does not give rise to rights or a legitimate interest. See Direct Line Ins. Plc v Low-cost-domain, FA 1337658 (Forum Sept. 8, 2010) (pointing to Complainant's own site is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate non commercial fair use).

 

The Respondent has not answered this Complaint or rebutted the prima facie case evidenced by the Complainant as set out above.

 

As such the Panelist finds that the Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

In the opinion of the Panel the use made of the Domain Name in relation to a fraudulent email scam is confusing and deceptive in that recipients of the emails will reasonably believe those emails are connected to or approved by the Complainant as communications sent by these emails used the Complainant's ECI mark and the Complainant's corporate name and the Domain Name was chosen to be deliberately similar to the Complainant's own url ECIsolutions.com. This mimicking by the Respondent of the Complainant shows that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and its business and rights.

 

Impersonating a complainant by use of a complainant's mark in a fraudulent email scam is disruptive and evinces bad faith registration and use. See Microsoft Corporation v Terrence Green/ Whois Agent/Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc., FA 1661030 (Forum Apr. 4 2016) (finding that respondent's use of the disputed domain name to send fraudulent emails constituted bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy 4 (b)(iii)).

 

Pointing the Domain Name to the Complainant's web site is also confusing and disruptive in that visitors to the site might reasonably believe the Domain Name was connected to or approved by the Complainant. This usage also shows the Respondent was aware of the Complainant, its rights, business and services. See McKinsey Holdings Inc. v Mgr. Jakob Bystron, FA 1330650 (Forum July 23, 2010).

 

As such, the Panel holds that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith and has satisfied the third limb of the Policy.

 

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

 

 

 

Dawn Osborne, Panelist

Dated: August 11, 2026