DECISION

 

Textron Innovations Inc. v. Joseph Rodney

Claim Number: FA2608002238320

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Textron Innovations Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Jeremiah A. Pastrick of Pastrick Law LLC, Indiana, USA. Respondent is Joseph Rodney ("Respondent"), Massachusetts, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <textronsystems-it.com>, 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.

 

Alan L. Limbury, as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on August 8, 2026. Forum received payment on August 8, 2026.

 

On August 11, 2026, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <textronsystems-it.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 August 13, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 2, 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@textronsystems-it.com. Also on August 13, 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 3, 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, Textron Innovations Inc., is the owner of the TEXTRON marks that it licenses to Textron Inc., one of the world's best known multi-industry companies and a pioneer of the diversified business model. Complainant became aware of the <textronsystems-it.com> domain name in August 2026 after receiving a report from the FBI that this domain was likely registered as global phishing/social engineering campaign being undertaken by the Silent Ransom Group (SRG).

 

The <textronsystems-it.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's registered TEXTRON marks.

 

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <textronsystems-it.com> domain name. Complainant's TEXTRON marks are so well-known that the only plausible inference that can be derived from Respondent's registration of the domain name is that Respondent did so to take advantage of and intentionally trade on the goodwill associated with Complainant's marks. 

 

Respondent is not using the domain name in connection with any bona fide offering of goods and services or for any legitimate or fair use because the domain name does not resolve to an active website. Complainant has not licensed nor otherwise permitted any organization to utilize its TEXTRON marks in connection with any goods or services or to own any domain names or create any related email extensions incorporating the TEXTRON mark.

 

Respondent is not commonly known as "Textronsystems-it". Respondent has utilized a domain proxy registration service to hide their true identity. Respondent's likely purpose for registering the domain name is to engage in some form of impersonation of Textron and/or phishing associated with the domain name.

 

Respondent both registered and is using the <textronsystems-it.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent registered the domain name with knowledge of Complainant's rights in the TEXTRON marks; is likely using the domain name intentionally to disrupt the business of Complainant; and is likely using the domain name in an intentional attempt to attract victims for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website/domain.

 

Complainant's trademark registrations predate Respondent's domain registration by almost 50 years and, as one of the world's most well-known multi-industry corporations that consistently ranks in the Forbes 50, a strong inference exists that Respondent was fully aware of Complainant's rights in the Textron name and marks.

 

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 TEXTRON, including USPTO Registration No. 1,090,704, registered on May 9, 1978, for inter alia motors (not for land vehicles), in International Class 7.

 

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 <textronsystems-it.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to Complainant's TEXTRON mark, only differing by the addition of the word "systems", a hyphen and the abbreviation "it", which differences are insufficient to distinguish the domain name from Complainant's mark. The inconsequential ".com" 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 <textronsystems-it.com> domain name was registered on June 24, 2026, many years after the registration of Complainant's TEXTRON mark, which is distinctive and famous. The domain name does not resolve to an active website.

 

On August 4, 2026, a Supervisory Special Agent, Cyber Criminal Squad, Federal Bureau of Investigation, wrote regarding the <textronsystems-it.com> domain name:

 

"We believe the creation of the domain is a precursor to a silent ransomware social engineering attack in an attempt to gain access. 

 

"Silent currently uses the following methods to gain access to a company:

 

"Employees at the company will likely receive emails that are very easy to detect phishing emails from a random Gmail account. Once an employee receives the phishing email, they will receive a call from SRG claiming to be their IT help desk and will typically provide the true name of one of the company's IT employees. While on the phone, Silent will send emails from the newly created fictitious domain in order to "verify" their identity as the company's IT help desk. Once their identity has been "verified", Silent will convince them to join a remote access session, typically using Zoho Assist, Quick Assist, Rust Desk, or Any Desk. Silent has also recently started using Zoom screen and file sharing to gain access to victim data. Occasionally, if Silent is unable to gain remote access, they will send someone in person to the company. Additionally, some victim companies do not receive emails from the fake help desk, and just receive vishing calls from Silent posing as their help desk.

 

"Occasionally, Silent will also start the social engineering campaign by sending employees at the targeted company an email containing a legitimate looking subscription themed invoice that includes a number to call if they do not want to be charged for the subscription. The same methods described above will then be used to attempt to gain remote access to an employee's device.

…

"We wanted to notify you to alert employees to be on the lookout for the social engineering campaign…"

 

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 <textronsystems-it.com> 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

The four illustrative circumstances set out in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy as evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) are not exclusive.

 

The circumstances set out above in relation to the second element satisfy the Panel that Respondent was fully aware of Complainant and its famous TEXTRON mark when Respondent registered the <textronsystems-it.com> domain name and that Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith for the purpose of impersonating one or more of Complainant's employees and engaging in a fraudulently phishing/social engineering campaign.

 

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 <textronsystems-it.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Alan L. Limbury, Panelist

Dated: September 4, 2026