DECISION

 

Crane NXT, Co. v. Flamzy Mapo

Claim Number: FA2607002234010

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Crane NXT, Co. ("Complainant"), represented by Allison Ainsworth Johns of Munck Wilson Mandala, LLP, Texas, USA. Respondent is Flamzy Mapo ("Respondent"), California, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <cranevend.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 on July 21, 2026.

 

Complainant submitted an Amended Complaint on July 27, 2026, following the Registrar's disclosure of the underlying registrant information.

 

On July 22, 2026, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <cranevend.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").

 

On July 28, 2026, Forum served the Amended Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 17, 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@cranevend.com and sales@cranevend.com. Also on July 28, 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 18, 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 its Crane Payment Innovations business unit makes and distributes vending machines through its Crane Merchandising Systems division, that it has used the CRANE mark for vending machines since at least as early as 1985, and that it owns registrations for the CRANE and CRANE NXT marks in numerous jurisdictions.

 

That the Disputed Domain Name <cranevend.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant's marks because it incorporates the CRANE mark in its entirety, and the first and dominant element of the CRANE NXT mark, adding only the descriptive term "vend," which names the goods covered by the registrations, and the ".com" gTLD.

 

That Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. Respondent is not commonly known by Complainant's marks, is not affiliated with Complainant, and holds no license to use them. The website resolving from the Disputed Domain Name offers competing vending machines, attributes them to an entity called Crane Vend LLC that does not appear on the Texas business register, and copies listings from a third-party website.

 

That Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith. Respondent registered it with actual or constructive knowledge of Complainant's rights; the resolving website diverts Internet users to competing offerings for commercial gain and disrupts Complainant's business under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and 4(b)(iv); the payment arrangements offered there suggest a phishing scheme; and the Disputed Domain Name so resembles <cranevending.com>, transferred to Complainant in an earlier Forum proceeding, that the two form a pattern of conduct under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The Panel finds the following:

 

Complainant makes and distributes vending machines through its Crane Payment Innovations business unit and Crane Merchandising Systems division. The trademark office records in evidence show that Complainant is the registered proprietor of United Kingdom Trademark Registration No. UK00901012939 for CRANE (the "CRANE Mark"), entered in the register on June 9, 2000 in class 9, and of United Kingdom Trademark Registration No. UK00003774436 for CRANE NXT (the "CRANE NXT Mark"), entered on September 2, 2022. United States Registration No. 1,663,928 for CRANE, registered November 12, 1991, covers currency-operated vending apparatus in class 9; its owner is recorded as Crane Holdings, Co., the name Complainant bore until the Delaware certificate of amendment in evidence changed it to Crane NXT, Co. in April 2023. Complainant's rights in the CRANE Mark for vending machines predate the Disputed Domain Name by decades.

 

The WHOIS record in evidence shows that the Disputed Domain Name was registered on June 22, 2025 in the name of the privacy service Withheld for Privacy ehf, the registrant's details redacted. The Registrar's verification of July 22, 2026 discloses the underlying registrant as Flamzy Mapo of San Francisco, California, and records that the registration agreement is in English and that the registration runs to June 22, 2027. Complainant's statements that Respondent is unaffiliated with it and was never licensed to use its marks stand uncontested.

 

The screenshots in the record show that the Disputed Domain Name resolves to an online store (the "Respondent's Website") trading as "Crane Vend," its masthead setting the word "CRANE" above the word "VEND," and offering new and refurbished vending machines. The Respondent's Website describes itself as "an official distributor of the world's most respected brands — Crane Merchandising Systems (USA), Necta, Wittern, and more," promises "100% authentic Crane USA" machines, and lists a "Crane COTI Bean-to-Cup Coffee Vending Machine" among its products. Crane Merchandising Systems is Complainant's own vending division and COTI its coffee machine. The Respondent's Website carries no disclaimer and identifies no source other than Complainant's marks and the trading name built upon them.

 

Several features of the Respondent's Website satisfy the Panel that it is not what it holds itself out to be. Its terms and contact pages attribute it to "Crane Vend LLC" of Fort Worth, Texas, an entity which on Complainant's uncontested statement does not appear on the Texas Secretary of State's business register, and which answers in no way to the individual registrant in San Francisco whom the Registrar disclosed. On the uncontested record, the listings and photographs are taken from those of the third-party retailer at <vending.com>. The "About Us" page gives the business a founding year of 1579, the testimonials are attributed in stock terms to purchasers in scattered places, the money-back guarantee is seven days on one page and ninety on another, and a further page headed "SAVE 20% WHEN YOU PAY WITH Bitcoin Ethereum" presses visitors to pay in cryptocurrency.

 

On the uncontested record, the Panel finds that the Respondent's Website is a deceptive storefront presented as an authorized outlet of Complainant, soliciting payment from members of the public under Complainant's mark and offering a 20% discount to those who pay in cryptocurrency. The Panel finds that this solicitation of payment behind Complainant's mark is phishing.

 

The record also contains screenshots of the website formerly at <cranevending.com>, whose listings carry the titles of listings at <vending.com>, and Complainant's account of Crane NXT, Co. v. Michele R. Garcia, FA 2139675 (Forum Mar. 13, 2025), in which a Forum panel ordered that domain name transferred to Complainant. As the Amended Complaint acknowledges, the registrant there was a different person from Respondent.

 

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) (dismissing the complaint, notwithstanding the respondent's default, where the complainant failed to produce clear evidence supporting its subjective allegations).

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Complainant's rights in the CRANE Mark and the CRANE NXT Mark rest on the national registrations described above in the FINDINGS; a nationally or regionally registered trademark prima facie satisfies the threshold rights requirement under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See WIPO Overview 3.1, ¶ 1.2.1.

 

The Disputed Domain Name <cranevend.com> reproduces the CRANE Mark in its entirety and adds only the term "vend." Far from distinguishing it, "vend" names the very goods for which the CRANE Mark is registered, so that the composite reads as the vending arm of the mark owner. See PULSUP LTD v. Eugene Gonzales, FA 2169606 (Forum Sept. 2, 2025) (the addition of a generic word naming the goods offered under the mark does not negate confusing similarity). The ".com" gTLD is a technical requirement of registration and is disregarded in the comparison. See WIPO Overview 3.1, ¶ 1.11.1. The Disputed Domain Name likewise reproduces the first and dominant element of the CRANE NXT Mark.

 

The Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's CRANE Mark and CRANE NXT 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 of production shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of such rights or interests. See WIPO Overview 3.1, ¶ 2.1.

 

The registrant disclosed by the Registrar is "Flamzy Mapo," a name bearing no relation to the Disputed Domain Name. The trading name "Crane Vend" carried on the Respondent's Website is not evidence that Respondent is commonly known by it; that name is the very appropriation complained of, and it is attributed to a company which on the uncontested record does not exist. Respondent holds no license or authorization from Complainant. The Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Novo Nordisk A/S v. aditi sharma, FA 2227366 (Forum July 9, 2026) (respondent not commonly known by a domain name where the WHOIS information lists an unrelated personal name and the mark owner has authorized nothing).

 

Nor does Respondent's use of the Disputed Domain Name confer rights or legitimate interests. Respondent uses the CRANE Mark for a store offering vending machines of the kind Complainant makes, held out as those of an official distributor of Complainant's brands. That 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 Guitar Center, Inc. v. Eveline Simon, FA 2150637 (Forum May 14, 2025) (use of a confusingly similar domain name to address a website purporting to sell products of the kind also offered by the complainant is "neither indicative of a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor of a non-commercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)").

 

Complainant has made out its prima facie case, and Respondent, having filed no Response, has come forward with nothing to rebut 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

The Respondent's Website names Complainant's own vending division, claims to distribute "Crane USA" machines, and lists Complainant's own coffee machine. Respondent therefore knew of Complainant and its marks, and paired the CRANE Mark with the word for Complainant's trade. The Panel finds that Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name on June 22, 2025 with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights.

 

By using the Disputed Domain Name for a store held out as an authorized outlet for Complainant's vending machines, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract Internet users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's marks as to source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement, within Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), and has sought to divert custom that would otherwise reach Complainant and its authorized distributors, disrupting Complainant's business within Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See CCL Label, Inc. v. tu he, FA 2221416 (Forum June 12, 2026) (passing off as the complainant through a misleading website promoting competing and likely counterfeit or nonexistent products is indicative of bad faith registration and use).

 

The Respondent's Website does more than compete. It trades behind a corporate identity that answers to no registered entity, an impossible founding date, stock testimonials and another trader's product photographs, and urges visitors to send payment in cryptocurrency for machines held out as Complainant's own. Soliciting payment from the public through a page held out, falsely, as Complainant's authorized outlet is phishing, and the Panel finds that Respondent has used the Disputed Domain Name to that end. That the record does not show what became of any payment does not alter the character of the solicitation, which is complete on the face of the Respondent's Website. See WIPO Overview 3.1, ¶ 3.4; see also Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP v. Will Brooks, FA 2162571 (Forum July 16, 2025) (impersonation of the complainant in furtherance of a phishing scheme is indicative of bad faith registration and use).

 

Complainant further invites a finding of a pattern of conduct under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii), on the footing that the Disputed Domain Name and <cranevending.com> are controlled by the same or related registrants. Paragraph 4(b)(ii) is directed to the respondent's own pattern, and the registrant in the earlier proceeding was a different person. A resemblance between two websites drawing their listings from the same third-party retailer does not establish common control. The Panel declines that finding; bad faith is established on other grounds.

 

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 <cranevend.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

 

David L. Kreider, Panelist

Dated: August 19, 2026