DECISION

 

Ingram Industries, Inc. v. stlr it

Claim Number: FA2607002233221

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Ingram Industries, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Ryan D. Levy, Tennessee, USA. Respondent is stlr it ("Respondent"), Pakistan.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <ingramsparksglobalgroup.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 July 16, 2026.

 

On July 20, 2026, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <ingramsparksglobalgroup.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"). The Registrar has further confirmed that the registration agreement is in English, and the Panel accordingly conducts this proceeding in English pursuant to Rule 11(a).

 

Complainant submitted an Amended Complaint on July 22, 2026, following the Registrar's disclosure of the underlying registrant information. The Amended Complaint is the operative pleading, and the caption and Respondent identification in this Decision follow it.

 

On July 22, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 11, 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@ingramsparksglobalgroup.com. Also on July 22, 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 12, 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 the Ingram companies have for decades provided publishing, book distribution, print-on-demand, library, and digital content services worldwide, and that through its IngramSpark platform Complainant offers authors a service by which they may publish, print, promote, and sell books through one of the industry's largest global distribution networks.

 

That Complainant owns United States registrations for INGRAM and INGRAM-formative marks, including U.S. Reg. No. 4,621,330 for INGRAMSPARK, registered October 14, 2014, and U.S. Reg. No. 5,163,854 for INGRAM, registered March 21, 2017.

 

That the Disputed Domain Name <ingramsparksglobalgroup.com> is confusingly similar to the INGRAMSPARK mark because it contains that mark in its entirety, adding only the letter "s," the descriptive terms "global" and "group," and the ".com" gTLD, and that the added terms increase rather than dispel confusion because IngramSpark expressly markets global book distribution to authors.

 

That Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. Respondent is identified in the registration record as "Stlr it," is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name, is not a licensee of Complainant, and has never been authorized to use the INGRAM or INGRAMSPARK marks in a domain name, an e-mail address, a logo, or a distribution agreement. Respondent's use of the Disputed Domain Name is direct impersonation of 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 used an e-mail address at the Disputed Domain Name to send an author a fraudulent solicitation signed in the name of a purported IngramSpark manager, bearing Complainant's IngramSpark logo and attaching a fabricated "Official Distribution Agreement." Respondent thereby intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, the recipients of its correspondence by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), and disrupted Complainant's business under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). Respondent's registration behind a privacy service further supports an inference of bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The Panel finds the following:

 

Complainant owns United States Registration No. 4,621,330 for INGRAMSPARK, registered October 14, 2014 in International Class 42 for media publishing services enabling users to manage the production and publication of physical and electronic books and to offer them for sale to the public. The registration certificate in the record names the registrant as Ingram Industries Inc., a Tennessee corporation. Complainant also owns United States Registration No. 5,163,854 for INGRAM, registered March 21, 2017, covering the digital delivery, distribution, and on-demand printing of books among other services.

 

On the uncontested record, Complainant uses the INGRAMSPARK mark for an author-facing platform offering self-publishing, printing, promotion, and worldwide distribution services, and Complainant's published materials state that its distribution network reaches more than 45,000 bookstores, libraries, online retailers, and educational institutions. The record further contains Complainant's own fraud alerts warning authors that third parties use lookalike Ingram and IngramSpark domain names, logos, and employee names to impersonate it, and ten prior UDRP decisions issued between July 2025 and May 2026 ordering the transfer of INGRAM- and INGRAMSPARK-formative domain names registered by unrelated third parties. The Panel finds on that evidence that the INGRAMSPARK mark is well known within the publishing and author-services sector and is a recurrent target of impersonation. The prior decisions concern other registrants and the Panel does not treat them as a pattern of conduct by this Respondent.

 

The WHOIS record shows that the Disputed Domain Name was created on January 22, 2026, more than eleven years after the INGRAMSPARK registration issued, and that the registrant's identity was masked by a privacy service. The Registrar's verification confirms that Respondent is the registrant and identifies Respondent as "stlr it" of Karachi, Pakistan. Nothing in the record suggests that Respondent has been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name or by any INGRAM-formative name, and Complainant states without contradiction that it has never licensed or authorized Respondent's use of its marks.

 

Screenshots in the record show that the Disputed Domain Name does not resolve to any developed website. It returns a bare server directory index listing a single "cgi-bin" folder.

 

The demonstrated use of the Disputed Domain Name is by e-mail. The record contains an e-mail sent on May 13, 2026 from info@ingramsparksglobalgroup.com to an individual author, congratulating him on the purportedly official selection of his book, identified by title, for a "2026 Global Distribution Program," announcing a large-scale physical distribution initiative, and attaching an "Official Distribution Agreement." The e-mail is signed "Madison Wilson, Sales Operations and Services Manager, IngramSpark" and reproduces Complainant's IngramSpark logo. The author forwarded it to Complainant the next day, describing it as a fraudulent sales effort impersonating IngramSpark.

 

The attached agreement, dated May 12, 2026, also reproduces the IngramSpark logo, names the contracting party as "Ingram Spark Distribution & Retail Division," and commits that entity to a purportedly firm and non-cancelable purchase order for 6,700 paperback copies of the author's book at $31.99 per copy, a stated total of $214,333. The author is made "exclusively responsible" for all printing costs, freight, customs fees, and related pre-delivery expenses, which are excluded from that figure. The document gives legal@ingramsparksglobalgroup.com as the address of the purported "Legal Department" of "Ingram Spark."

 

Complainant states, and Respondent does not dispute, that it neither sent nor authorized the e-mail or the agreement, does not employ the purported sender, and never authorized Respondent to use the INGRAMSPARK mark or logo. The Panel finds that Respondent used the Disputed Domain Name to impersonate Complainant in e-mail correspondence in order to extract money from the recipient. That conduct is phishing. Because it was directed at a specific, identified author, a member of the very constituency Complainant serves under the INGRAMSPARK mark, it is properly identified as spearphishing.

 

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; eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003).

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Complainant's United States registration of INGRAMSPARK establishes its rights in that mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See WIPO Overview 3.1 ¶ 1.2.1.

 

The Disputed Domain Name reproduces the INGRAMSPARK mark in full and adds only the letter "s," the words "global" and "group," and the ".com" gTLD. Rendering the mark plural leaves it fully recognizable within the string, and the added words do nothing to distinguish it: they name the very service, worldwide book distribution, that Complainant markets to authors under the mark. The gTLD is disregarded in this comparison. See Ingram Industries, Inc. v. Arsalan Khan / Author Solutions, FA 2213730 (Forum May 8, 2026) (finding <ingramsparkglobal.com> confusingly similar to INGRAMSPARK, the mark being combined with the generic word "global" and the gTLD, "neither being of distinctive value"); WIPO Overview 3.1 ¶ 1.11.1.

 

The Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's INGRAMSPARK mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name, whereupon the burden shifts to Respondent to demonstrate such rights or interests.

 

The Registrar-confirmed registrant is "stlr it," a name bearing no resemblance to the Disputed Domain Name, and there is no evidence that Respondent has been commonly known by it under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent's use of its marks. The Disputed Domain Name supports no website capable of grounding a claim of bona fide use; its only demonstrated active use is the sending of e-mail in Complainant's name. Impersonating a trademark owner in correspondence in order to induce a payment 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 Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP v. Rosero org, FA 2152297 (Forum May 21, 2025); WIPO Overview 3.1 ¶ 2.13.1.

 

Complainant has made out its prima facie case, and Respondent, having defaulted, has offered nothing in answer to it. The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name on January 22, 2026, long after Complainant's INGRAMSPARK registration issued. Respondent's own communications settle any question of knowledge: within four months of registration Respondent was sending e-mail carrying Complainant's mark, Complainant's logo, an invented IngramSpark job title, and a purported IngramSpark divisional name. The Panel finds that Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights and in order to exploit them.

 

The use Respondent made of the Disputed Domain Name was a spearphishing scheme. Respondent approached an identified author from an address at the Disputed Domain Name with a fabricated distribution offer, the Disputed Domain Name itself lending the approach its apparent authenticity. The commercial object appears on the face of the agreement: the author was to meet all printing, freight, and customs costs in advance, against a promised payment that no Ingram entity had undertaken to make. Use of a domain name to impersonate a trademark owner in e-mail for such purposes is registration and use in bad faith. See WIPO Overview 3.1 ¶ 3.4; Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP v. Will Brooks, FA 2162571 (Forum July 16, 2025) (privacy-shielded domain name used to impersonate the complainant law firm in e-mail in furtherance of a fraudulent phishing scheme; those circumstances held indicative of bad faith registration and use).

 

The same conduct falls within Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). By using the Disputed Domain Name, Respondent intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, the recipient of its correspondence by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's INGRAMSPARK mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the distribution services it purported to offer. That the Disputed Domain Name resolves to nothing more than a directory index does not assist Respondent, since bad faith under the Policy is not confined to conduct worked through a website. Respondent's registration behind a privacy service, in the circumstances of this case, corroborates the finding. See Microsoft Corporation v. Arif Khan, FA 1907105 (Forum Aug. 31, 2020).

 

The Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using 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 <ingramsparksglobalgroup.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

David L. Kreider, Panelist

Dated: August 12, 2026