DECISION

 

IDEX Corporation v. Sasha White

Claim Number: FA2607002235900

 

PARTIES

Complainant is IDEX Corporation ("Complainant"), represented by David J. Steele of Tucker Ellis, LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Sasha White ("Respondent"), Germany.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <idexcorp.mom>, registered with Dynadot 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.

 

Alan L. Limbury, as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on July 29, 2026. Forum received payment on July 29, 2026.

 

On July 31, 2026, Dynadot Inc confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <idexcorp.mom> domain name is registered with Dynadot Inc and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Dynadot Inc has verified that Respondent is bound by the Dynadot 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 August 10, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 31, 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@idexcorp.mom. Also on August 10, 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 September 1, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Alan L. Limbury 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 has used its IDEX trademark since at least as early as 1988, providing goods and services in connection with global business operations, including its Fluid & Metering Technologies, Health & Science Technologies, and Fire & Safety/Diversified Products. Those IDEX-branded businesses provide highly engineered products and critical solutions to customers across numerous industries and markets worldwide. Complaint displays and promotes the IDEX mark prominently on its website at "www.idexcorp.com" in connection with said goods and services.

 

The <idexcorp.mom> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's IDEX mark.

 

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <idexcorp.mom> domain name. Nothing in the Whois record nor Respondent's use of the domain name evidences any lawful use. Complainant has not licensed Respondent to use Complainant's IDEX mark, nor does Respondent have any legal relationship with Complainant that would entitle Respondent to use the IDEX mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name. Complainant has not given Respondent permission to use its IDEX mark. Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services at the domain name and is not making legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name. Respondent has used the domain name in connection with a fraudulent website (unlawfully copied from Complainant's own website). Lastly, the domain name has been flagged by a security vendor for malicious use.

 

Respondent registered and has used the <idexcorp.mom> domain name in bad faith with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in its IDEX mark to impersonate and pass itself off as Complainant, including using an unauthorized copy of Complainant's website in connection with an online phishing scheme.

 

The information provided in the Whois record by Respondent is false. The registrant identified is not associated with the address listed according to searches of various public databases including Google Maps. Moreover, several searches of online databases located no person named "Sasha White" in Germany. Respondent's providing false information when registering the domain name further supports a finding of bad faith.

 

Lastly, it is well settled that the registration of a confusingly similar domain name that is obviously connected with a particular trademark owner by someone with no connection with the trademark owner supports a finding of bad faith under the Policy.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has established all the elements entitling it to relief.

 

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

Complainant has shown that it has rights in the mark IDEX, including USPTO Registration No. 3,821,368, registered on July 20, 2010, for inter alia hand tools, namely hand-operated pumps and shears, in International Class 8.

 

It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the complainant's trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview 3.1, ¶ 1.7.

 

The Panel finds Respondent's <idexcorp.mom> domain name to be confusingly similar to Complainant's IDEX mark, only differing by the addition of the abbreviation "corp", which is insufficient to distinguish the domain name from Complainant's mark. The ".mom" generic top-level domain ("gTLD") may be ignored under this element. See Rollerblade, Inc. v. Chris McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000).

 

Complainant has established this element.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides that any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate Respondent's rights or legitimate interests to a domain name for purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(ii):

 

(i)                      before any notice to Respondent of the dispute, the use by Respondent of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or

 

(ii)                      Respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or

 

(iii)        Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert customers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.

 

The <idexcorp.mom> domain name was registered on June 23, 2026, several years after the registration of Complainant's IDEX mark. It resolves to a copy of Complainant's website at "www.idexcorp.com", prominently displaying Complainant's IDEX mark and its Idex Corporation name and replacing Complainant's media enquiries email address <media@idexcorp.com> with <media@idexcorp.mom>.

 

These circumstances, together with Complainant's assertions, are sufficient to constitute a prima facie showing of absence of rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name on the part of Respondent. The evidentiary burden therefore shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the <idexcorp.mom> domain name. See JUUL Labs, Inc. v. Dryx Emerson / KMF Events LTD, FA 1849706 (Forum July 17, 2019). Respondent has made no attempt to do so.

 

The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name.

 

Complainant has established this element.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy is expressed in the conjunctive: "the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith" and Paragraph 4(b) sets out four illustrative circumstances, which, though not exclusive, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii), including:

 

(iv)                      by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location.

The circumstances set out above in relation to the second element satisfy the Panel that Respondent was fully aware of Complainant, its IDEX mark and its website at "www.idexcorp.com" when Respondent registered the <idexcorp.mom> domain name and that Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent's website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent's website and of the products and services promoted on that website. This demonstrates registration and use in bad faith to attract users for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).

 

Further, the Panel finds the <idexcorp.mom> domain name to be a typosquatted version of Complainant's <idexcorp.com> domain name. Typosquatting is independent evidence of bad faith registration and use of a domain name per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Homer TLC, Inc. v. Artem Ponomarev, FA 1623825 (Forum July 20, 2015).

 

Lastly, the Panel finds that Respondent acted in bad faith by providing false information when registering the domain name.

 

Complainant has established this element.

 

DECISION

Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <idexcorp.mom> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Alan L. Limbury, Panelist

Dated: September 3, 2026