DECISION

 

Navia Benefit Solutions, Inc. v. Sixty Sixty / Navia Solution

Claim Number: FA2607002233499

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Navia Benefit Solutions, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Rachel Hofstatter of Honigman LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Sixty Sixty / Navia Solution ("Respondent"), Canada and USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES 

The domain names at issue are <naviabenefit-solutions.com> and <naviabenefits.org>, ('the Domain Names') registered with HOSTINGER operations, UAB.

 

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 17, 2026; Forum received payment on July 17, 2026.

 

On July 30, 2026, HOSTINGER operations, UAB confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <naviabenefit-solutions.com> and <naviabenefits.org> Domain Names are registered with HOSTINGER operations, UAB and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. 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 August 6, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 26, 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@naviabenefit-solutions.com and postmaster@naviabenefits.org. Also on August 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.

 

Having received no response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On August 27, 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 Names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE RESPONDENTS

In the instant proceedings, Complainant has alleged that the Domain Names are effectively controlled by the same person and/or entity, which is operating under several aliases. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") provides that a "complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder." The Complainant has shown that the Domain Names share data registration details. The Respondent has not answered this Complainant or challenged any of these assertions. The Panel finds it more likely than not that the Domain Names have been registered by the same entity and that the Complaint can proceed in respect of both Domain Names.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A.       Complainant

 

The Complainant is the owner of the mark NAVIA BENEFIT SOLUTIONS, registered, inter alia, for services relating to employee benefits services in the USA since 2024. It has used <naviabenefits.com> as its domain name since 2015.

 

The Domain Names were registered in 2026.

 

<naviabenefit-solutions.com> is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade mark adding only a hyphen and the gTLD .com neither of which prevents said confusing similarity.

 

<naviabenefits.org> is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade mark omitting the descriptive element 'solutions' and adding only a single letter 's' and the gTLD .org neither of which prevents said confusing similarity.

 

The Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in either of the Domain Names, is not commonly known by either of them and has not been authorised by the Complainant. The Domain Names both carry a high risk of affiliation with the Complainant.

 

<naviabenefits.org> has been used for a page appearing to be an official site of the Complainant using the Complainant's mark in the masthead with the Complainant's logo to present a log in screen. This is a concerted act of phishing and does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate non commercial or fair use. It is registration and use in bad faith, phishing, confusing Internet users for commercial gain and disrupting the Complainant's business in actual knowledge of the Complainant's rights.

 

<naviabenefit-solutions.com> has not been used so there is no bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate non commercial or fair use. Passive holding does not prevent a finding of bad faith registration and use where it is demonstrated that the domain name is registered in opportunistic bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The Complainant is the owner of the mark NAVIA BENEFIT SOLUTIONS, registered, inter alia, for services relating to employee benefits services in the USA since 2024 and used since 2015.

 

The Domain Names were registered in 2026.

 

<naviabenefits.org> has been used for a page appearing to be an official site of the Complainant using the Complainant's mark in the masthead with the Complainant's logo to present a log in screen.

 

<naviabenefit-solutions.com> has not been used.

 

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

<naviabenefit-solutions.com> consists of the Complainant's NAVIA BENEFIT SOLUTIONS mark (which is registered in USA for employee benefits related services since 2024), a hyphen and the gTLD .com.

 

The addition of a hyphen to a mark does not distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark incorporated therein per Policy 4(a)(i). See ADP, LLC. v. Ella Magal, FA 1773958 (Forum Aug. 2, 2017) ("Respondent's <workforce-now.com> domain name appropriates the dominant portion of Complainant's ADP WORKFORCE NOW mark and adds a hyphen and the gTLD ".com." These changes do not sufficiently distinguish the disputed domain name from the ADP WORKFORCE NOW mark.").

 

<naviabenefits.org> consists of the NAVIA BENEFIT element of the Complainant's registered mark, a single letter 'S' and the gTLD .org.

 

The mere abbreviation of a mark combined with a gTLD does not sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark. See Sainato's Restaurant and Catering Limited v. chen xue ming, FA 1781748 (Forum June 4, 2018) (finding the <sainatos.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the SAINATO'S RESTAURANT mark as it "appends the gTLD ".com" to an abbreviated version of the mark").

 

The Panel agrees that misspellings such as the addition of a letter does not distinguish a domain name from a complainant's trade mark pursuant to the Policy. See Google, Inc. v. DktBot.org, FA 286993 (Forum Aug. 4, 2004) ("The mere addition of a single letter to the complainant's mark does not remove the respondent's domain names from the realm of confusing similarity in relation to the complainant's mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)."). As such, the addition of a single letter 's' to <naviabenefits.org> does not prevent confusing similarity between it and the Complainant's mark.

 

gTLDs do not serve to distinguish a domain name from a complainant's mark. See Red Hat Inc v Haecke, FA 726010 (Forum July 24, 2006) (concluding that the redhat.org domain name is identical to the complainant's red hat mark because the mere addition of the gTLD was insufficient to differentiate the disputed domain name from the mark).

 

Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Names are both confusingly similar to the Complainant's NAVIA BENEFIT SOLUTIONS registered mark.

 

As such the Panel holds that Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied in respect of both Domain Names.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant has not authorised the use of its mark. Although 'navia' appears in the Respondent's data registration details the Domain Names was not registered until 2026 and there is no corroborating evidence to show that the Respondent is commonly known by either of the Domain Names. see Ripple Labs Inc. v. Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund, FA 1790949 (Forum July 9, 2018) (finding that, although the respondent listed itself as "Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund" in the WHOIS contact information, it did not provide any affirmative evidence to support this identity; combined with the fact that the complainant claimed it did not authorize the respondent to use the mark, the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name).

 

<naviabenefits.org> appears to have been registered to reference the Complainant's url www.naviabenefits.com and carries a high risk of affiliation with the Complainant. The web site attached to naviabenefits.org has been used for a page appearing to be an official site of the Complainant using its mark and logo as a masthead complete with a log in screen. The site appears to be gathering information for phishing purposes. Under Policy 4(c)(i) and (iii), the use of a disputed domain name in furtherance of a phishing scheme is not considered a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Enterprise Holdings, Inc. v. I S / Internet Consulting Services Inc., FA 1785242 (Forum June 5, 2018) ("On its face, the use of a domain name that is confusingly similar to the mark of another in order to facilitate a phishing scheme cannot be described as either a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶4(c)(iii).").

 

There has been no use of <naviabenefit-solutions.com> which is being passively held. See Hewlett-Packard Co. v Shemesh, FA 434145 (Forum April 20, 2005) (where the panel found inactive use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy 4(c)(i)).

 

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

 

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

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

In the opinion of the panelist the use made of <naviabenefits.org> is confusing and disruptive in that visitors to the site attached to it might reasonably believe it is connected to or approved by the Complainant as it used the Complainant's mark and logo to offer a log in screen and differs only by its gTLD from the Complainant's url www.naviabenefits.com. The use of the Complainant's logo showed that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and its business.

 

Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to its website attached to <naviabenefits.org> by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trade mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of that web site and services offered on it likely to disrupt the business of the Complainant.  Also this appears to be collection of log in details for phishing purposes. see United States Postal Service v. kyle javier, FA 1787265 (Forum June 12, 2018) ("Use of a domain name to phish for Internet users' personal information is evidence of bad faith."). 

 

The overriding objective of the Policy is to curb the abusive registration of domain names in circumstances where the registrant seeks to profit from or exploit the trade mark of another. The Respondent is passively holding <naviabenefit-solutions.com> which contains the whole of the Complainant's mark. Passive holding of a domain name containing a mark with a reputation that will inevitably be associated with a trade mark owner without legitimate excuse is bad faith registration and use. See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows, D2000-0003 (WIPO Feb. 18, 2000).

 

As such, the Panelist believes that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Names were registered and used in bad faith and has satisfied the third limb of the Policy in respect of both Domain Names.

 

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 <naviabenefit-solutions.com> and <naviabenefits.org> Domain Names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Dawn Osborne, Panelist

Dated: August 27, 2026