DECISION

 

Office Depot, LLC and OMX, Inc. v. Liran Zablo

Claim Number: FA2608002236902

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Office Depot, LLC and OMX, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Joshua M. Dalton of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Massachusetts, USA. Respondent is Liran Zablo ("Respondent"), USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <maxoffice.store>, registered with Namify Domains 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.

 

Steven M. Levy as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on August 3, 2026; Forum received payment on August 3, 2026.

 

On August 5, 2026, Namify Domains Inc confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <maxoffice.store> domain name is registered with Namify Domains Inc and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Namify Domains Inc has verified that Respondent is bound by the Namify Domains 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 12, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 1, 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@maxoffice.store. Also on August 12, 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 2, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Steven M. Levy 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.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE COMPLAINANTS

The Complaint is brought by Office Depot, LLC and by OMX, Inc., which is its wholly owned subsidiary. Paragraph 3(a) of the Rules provides that "[a]ny person or entity may initiate an administrative proceeding by submitting a complaint," and Forum's Supplemental Rule 1(e) defines "The Party Initiating a Complaint Concerning a Domain Name Registration" as "a single person or entity claiming to have rights in the domain name, or multiple persons or entities who have a sufficient nexus who can each claim to have rights to all domain names listed in the Complaint." Panels have treated a corporate parent and its wholly owned subsidiary as a single entity for this purpose. See Skechers U.S.A., Inc. and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II v. kim seong su, FA 1840242 (Forum June 3, 2019) (treating a parent and its wholly owned subsidiary as a single entity where the two were in privity with one another); see also Bed Bath & Beyond Procurement Co. Inc. v. shaoxuan li / lishaoxuan, FA 1829423 (Forum Mar. 11, 2019) (finding that a parent and two wholly owned subsidiaries had "a sufficient nexus to each other and to the matters complained such that they may be treated as if a single entity").

 

The trademark registrations upon which the Complaint relies stand in the name of OMX, Inc. The Panel finds that the two named Complainants have a sufficient nexus to each other and to the matters complained of in this proceeding, and it will therefore treat them as a single entity referred to in the singular as "Complainant."

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant, Office Depot, LLC, is a retail and business to business distribution company that provides business services, supplies, products and technology solutions to individuals and companies of all sizes. It employs approximately 37,000 individuals, operates approximately 1,154 stores throughout the United States, and offers its products and services online at officedepot.com. It states that its total sales exceeded USD $9 billion in 2020 and that in that year alone it spent USD $179 million advertising its goods and services, including those offered under the OFFICEMAX mark. Complainant asserts rights in the OFFICEMAX mark through its registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO"), including Reg. No. 1511330¹, registered on November 1, 1988 for retail sales of office supplies, and Reg. No. 3701666, registered on October 27, 2009 for printing and desktop publishing services. It states that the mark has been in continuous use since 1989 and that it has been used in connection with retail store services since 2004.

 

The disputed domain name, registered on June 30, 2026, is confusingly similar to the OFFICEMAX mark. Complainant contends that the disputed domain name incorporates the mark in its entirety, merely reversing the words MAX and OFFICE with no additional letters or words, and that it adds only the ".store" TLD. It reasons that a domain name which wholly incorporates a mark in reverse order is confusingly similar to that mark and that its rights in the OFFICEMAX mark predate the registration of the disputed domain name by many years.

 

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Complainant asserts that the parties have never had a business relationship, that Respondent is not affiliated with, sponsored by, or endorsed by Complainant, and that Respondent has never been authorized to use the OFFICEMAX mark in any manner. It further asserts that there is no evidence that Respondent was commonly known as MAXOFFICE before it registered the disputed domain name, noting that the WHOIS record identifies the registrant as "Liran Zablo." Complainant states that the disputed domain name directs consumers to a website that purports to sell office supplies and office furniture identical to the products that Complainant offers under the OFFICEMAX mark.

 

Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Complainant reasons that, given the notoriety of the OFFICEMAX mark, it is inconceivable that Respondent could have registered the disputed domain name without actual knowledge of Complainant's rights, and that it would be outright impossible for Respondent to have used the mark and to offer products identical to those legitimately sold by Complainant without knowing the company as well as its specific marketing. It states that Respondent passes itself off as Complainant by offering what purport to be Complainant's products on a website that prominently displays a mark confusingly similar to the OFFICEMAX mark, and that Respondent thereby seeks to divert internet users to its website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

–        Complainant owns rights in its OFFICEMAX mark dating back to 1988.

–        The disputed domain name is composed of the two words that make up Complainant's mark, set out in reverse order, followed by the ".store" TLD and is thus confusingly similar to the mark.

–        The disputed domain name resolves to an online store branded MaxOffice that offers a desk mat mousepad, a desktop fan and a portable air cooler, and that makes no reference to Complainant, to Complainant's marks, or to any product sold under those marks.

–        The record contains no evidence that Respondent registered or has used the disputed domain name in order to target Complainant or its OFFICEMAX mark.

 

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 asserts rights in its OFFICEMAX mark through its registrations with the USPTO. Registration of a mark with a national trademark authority is sufficient to establish a complainant's rights in that mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See DIRECTV, LLC v. The Pearline Group, FA 1818749 (Forum Dec. 30, 2018) ("Complainant's ownership of a USPTO registration for DIRECTV demonstrate its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)."). Complainant submits copies of its USPTO Trademark Registration Certificates² and the Panel finds that it has rights in the OFFICEMAX mark.

 

The disputed domain name consists of the two words that comprise Complainant's mark, transposed, followed by the ".store" TLD. A TLD is generally disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis. See Marquette Golf Club v. Al Perkins, FA 1738263 (Forum July 27, 2017). Panels have held that reversing the order of the two words of a mark does not, without more, create a distinct impression capable of overcoming a claim of confusing similarity where both words remain present and recognizable. See SPG IP Holdings, LLC v. Registration Private, FA 2177873 (Forum Oct. 27, 2025) ("The disputed domain name, <simonshop.us>, is confusingly similar to Complainant's SHOP SIMON mark because it merely reverses the order of the words in the mark and adds the country-code top-level domain '.us.' Numerous panels have held that such reversal of a two-word mark does not eliminate confusing similarity."). The Panel finds that the OFFICEMAX mark is recognizable in the disputed domain name and so the domain name is confusingly similar to the mark. Thus, Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp., FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massy Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) ("Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests").

 

Complainant states that it has never authorized Respondent to use the OFFICEMAX mark, that the parties have never had a business relationship, and that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. The public WHOIS record names the registrant as "Liran Zablo" and there is no evidence in the record that Respondent has been known as MaxOffice apart from its own use of the disputed domain name. Respondent has not come forward to say otherwise. On these points the Panel accepts Complainant's submission.

 

The remainder of Complainant's case under this element rests upon its assertions that the disputed domain name "directs consumers to a website that purports to sell office supplies and office furniture identical to products offered by Complainant under its OFFICEMAX mark," that the website "prominently displays a confusingly similar mark to the OFFICEMAX Mark," and that Respondent thereby "passes itself off as Complainant." However, none of these assertions is adequately supported by the evidence that Complainant itself has submitted. No screenshots of Complainant's own website, sales catalog, or other product materials are submitted and, although the phrase "office supplies" is stated in its trademark registrations, it is unclear what type of office supplies it sells. Next, the screenshots of the resolving website show a storefront headed "Welcome to MaxOffice" that offers three items: a desk mat mousepad printed with programming shortcuts, a decorative desktop fan, and a portable air cooler. The OFFICEMAX mark does not appear on any of the submitted pages, nor does Complainant's gold and black logo, nor any reference to Complainant, to Office Depot, or to any specific product sold under Complainant's mark. The site's "About Us" page describes the store as an online shop founded by "a passionate office worker" and, again, says nothing of Complainant. The Panel finds no ground in this evidence upon which to conclude that Respondent is impersonating Complainant or offering Complainant's goods.

 

The words "max" and "office" are ordinary English words, and their combination conveys a readily understood meaning that suits a store selling desk accessories. The use of a domain name composed of such words, for a business that corresponds to their ordinary meaning, may give rise to a legitimate interest where it is not done in order to trade upon the trademark of another. The converse is also true, and the ordinary meaning of the words in a domain name is no shield to a respondent shown to have set out to take advantage of another's mark. See Pilot Fitness, LLC v. Max Wettstein / Max Wettstein Fitness, FA 1799942 (Forum Aug. 30, 2018) ("That principle, however, is not to be used by the registrant of a domain name to damage or degrade a similar trademark nor, as it is sometimes put, to 'target' a trademark owner and do it damage."). Everything therefore turns upon whether the record shows that Respondent has targeted Complainant, a question the Panel takes up under the third element below.

 

Based upon the submitted evidence, and for the reasons given in the following section, the Panel is unable to conclude that Respondent selected or has used the disputed domain name in order to trade upon Complainant's OFFICEMAX mark. In these circumstances Respondent's use of the disputed domain name, for an online store whose name corresponds to the ordinary meaning of the words that compose it and which makes no reference to Complainant, appears on this record to be a bona fide offering of goods under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i). Complainant has not satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant's theory of bad faith is that of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), namely that Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract internet users to its website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark. That theory requires a showing that Respondent had Complainant's mark in mind when it registered the disputed domain name and has since used the name to trade upon it. The burden of making that showing rests upon Complainant and must be carried by a preponderance of the evidence (i.e., more likely than not).

 

"Targeting presupposes that the mark is of such a quality that a respondent's denial of knowledge of it would be implausible." The Clash Of Trademarks And Domain Names On The Internet, at 11.02-D.1 (Gerald M. Levine, Legal Corner Press, June 1, 2026). Among the circumstances that inform the question are the strength and distinctiveness of the mark, the geographic scope of the mark's reputation, whether the domain name carries a plausible meaning apart from the mark, whether the respondent's use of the domain name refers to the complainant or its goods, and whether registration followed closely upon such occurrences as the issuance of a trademark or a major public announcement. UDRP Perspectives on Recent Jurisprudence, at § 3.5 (updated Jan. 15, 2025), available at https://udrpperspectives.org).

 

Complainant's evidence of the standing of its mark consists of copies of its USPTO Trademark Registration Certificates. The fact of registration, while it may establish trademark rights, does not establish a mark's reputation. Beyond the certificates, Complainant offers only the assertions in its Complaint that it operates approximately 1,154 stores, that its total sales exceeded USD $9 billion in 2020, and that it spent USD $179 million on advertising in that year. Further, the latter two figures are given for Complainant's business as a whole rather than for the OFFICEMAX mark, and no evidence in support of any of them, whether sales or advertising records, media coverage, or consumer survey material, accompanies the Complaint. The Panel is left with an asserted notoriety that has not been demonstrated by evidence.

 

The disputed domain name also carries a plausible meaning apart from Complainant's mark. "Max office" is an English phrase, and MaxOffice is a name at which a seller of desk accessories might arrive without any thought of Complainant. Nor does Respondent's use of the disputed domain name point back to Complainant. The website is not a copy of Complainant's own site, it does not display the OFFICEMAX mark or logo, it does not offer goods under Complainant's marks, it makes no claim of any relationship with Complainant, and nothing in the record suggests that a visitor arriving at the site would have reason to associate it with Complainant. The ordinary indicia of an effort to trade upon a mark are simply absent, and the Panel is asked to infer targeting from the transposition of two dictionary words.

 

The remaining circumstances set out in Policy ¶ 4(b) fare no better on this record. There is no evidence that Respondent has offered to sell the disputed domain name to Complainant or to anyone else, no evidence that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of registering domain names that reflect the marks of others, and no evidence that Respondent is a competitor of Complainant whose object is to disrupt Complainant's business. Complainant does not contend otherwise.

 

Respondent's failure to submit a Response permits the Panel to accept the reasonable allegations of the Complaint and to draw such inferences as it considers appropriate. It does not relieve Complainant of its burden of proof, and it does not permit the Panel to accept allegations that are contradicted by the evidence which Complainant itself has placed before the Panel.

 

The Panel wishes to be clear about what it does and does not decide. It does not find that Respondent's website is a model of candor. The customer testimonials that it displays are attributed to nothing more than a first name and an initial, its claim to have "over 10,000 customers proudly served" sits oddly with a domain name registered little more than a month before this Complaint was filed, and the contact information in the public WHOIS record, which gives a street address of "AutoDS customer Default Address" and a telephone number consisting of nothing but the digit 1, is plainly not genuine. The Policy, however, is not a general remedy for careless or deceptive online trade. It reaches the registration and use of a domain name that takes unfair advantage of another's trademark, and on this record Complainant has not shown that Respondent more likely than not had the OFFICEMAX mark in mind when it registered the disputed domain name, or that it has used the disputed domain name to trade upon that mark. Complainant has not satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). Should Complainant feel strongly that Respondent is a competitor and that it's <maxoffice.store> domain name is an infringement of its OFFICEMAX mark, it is free to pursue a claim for such in a court of law.

 

DECISION

Having not established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <maxoffice.store> domain name REMAIN WITH Respondent.

 

 

 

Steven M. Levy, Esq., Panelist

Dated: September 6, 2026