DECISION
RunPod, Inc. v. Johnson Smith
Claim Number: FA2608002239479
PARTIES
Complainant is RunPod, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Brendan J Hughes of Cooley LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Johnson Smith ("Respondent"), Pennsylvania, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <runpod.work>, registered with Gname.com Pte. Ltd.
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.
Charles A. Kuechenmeister, Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on August 13, 2026; Forum received payment on August 13, 2026.
On August 13, 2026, Gname.com Pte. Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <runpod.work> domain name is registered with Gname.com Pte. Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Gname.com Pte. Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Gname.com Pte. Ltd. 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 25, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint setting a deadline of September 14, 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@runpod.work. Also on August 25, 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 15, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Charles A. Kuechenmeister 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 a Response or any other submittal from Respondent.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES' CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
Complainant operates an AI developer cloud platform that empowers developers to build and operate custom AI systems. It has rights in the RUNPOD mark based upon its registration of that mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Respondent's <runpod.work> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the RUNPOD mark. It fully incorporates the mark, merely adding the ".work" generic top-level domain (gTLD).
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. It is using the domain name to impersonate and pass off as Complainant and to engage in phishing, and it has not been commonly known by the domain name.
Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith. It is using the domain name to impersonate and pass off as Complainant and engage in phishing, and it registered the domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant and its mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding.
FINDINGS
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted 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 a complainant to prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order cancelling or transferring a domain name:
(1) the domain name registered by the respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and
(2) the 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, pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules the Panel will decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations 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. Nevertheless, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory allegations unsupported by competent evidence.
The Panel finds as follows with respect to the matters at issue in this proceeding:
Identical and/or Confusingly Similar
The RUNPOD mark was registered to Complainant with the USPTO (Reg. No 8,068,225) on December 16, 2025 (USPTO registration certificate and TSDR printout included in Complaint Exhibit 5). Complainant's registration of the RUNPOD mark with the USPTO establishes its rights in that mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Respondent's <runpod.work> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the RUNPOD mark. It fully incorporates the mark, merely adding the ".work" gTLD. Complainant's mark is clearly recognizable within the domain name. Adding a gTLD does not distinguish the domain name from Complainant's mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
For the reasons set forth above, the Panel finds that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the RUNPOD mark, in which Complainant has substantial and demonstrated rights.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name involves the difficult task of "proving a negative," requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. Accordingly, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with competent, relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. At all times, the burden of proof remains on the complainant. Guggenheim Capital, LLC v. John Hawkins, Louvre Abu Dhabi Museum Case No. DAI2026-0035
Policy ¶ 4(c) lists the following three nonexclusive circumstances, any one of which if proven can demonstrate a respondent's rights or legitimate interests in a domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii):
(i) The respondent has used or has made 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) the respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if the respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) the respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name because (i) it is using the domain name to impersonate and pass off as Complainant and to engage in phishing, and (ii) it has not been commonly known by the domain name. These allegations are addressed as follows:
Complaint Exhibits 8(a) and (b) are screenshots of sign-in pages on Respondent's website. These pages solicit information such as login, user name and password from the visitor. This is the type of sensitive private information associated with phishing, which is a fraudulent attempt to obtain sensitive information such as usernames, passwords and credit card details by disguising oneself as a trustworthy entity in an electronic communication. Respondent is using the domain name and resolving website to engage in phishing. This is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services for the purposes of Policy ¶4(c)(ii) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(iv). 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)."), VectivBio AG v. John McLellan, FA 2047090 (Forum, June 30, 2023) ("Using a confusingly similar domain name to engage in phishing is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services for the purposes of Policy ¶4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).").
Complaint Exhibit 9 contains copies of text correspondence between an individual purporting to act on behalf of Complainant and a person he contacted about employment opportunities with Complainant. The purported Complainant representative referred the third party to Respondent's website at the domain name. When this person requested confirmation that Respondent's website was an official site of Complainant, Respondent sent a message back saying that it was an authorized agent of Complainant and sent a fraudulent "Authorization Letter," purportedly signed by officers of Complainant, authorizing "RunPod Agency" to act on behalf of Complainant. This is further evidence of Respondent's use of the domain name to impersonate Complainant and engage in phishing, as any further discussion about remote employment opportunity would eventually lead to information about the prospective employee's bank account. This conduct is wholly inconsistent with any notion of bona fides or legitimate or fair use of a domain name.
The information furnished to Forum by the registrar lists the named Respondent as the registrant of the domain name. This name bears no resemblance to the domain name. Evidence could, of course, in a given case demonstrate that the respondent is commonly known by a domain name different from the name in which it registered the domain name, e.g., the case of a domain name incorporating the brand name of a specific product offered by and associated with the respondent. In the absence of any such evidence, however, UDRP panels have consistently held that WHOIS evidence of a registrant name which does not correspond with the domain name is sufficient to prove that the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name. Respondent has not been commonly known by the domain name.
Complainant has made its prima facie case. On the evidence discussed above, and in the absence of any evidence from Respondent, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) requires Complainant to prove that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Policy ¶ 4(b) sets forth a nonexclusive list of four circumstances, any one of which if proven would be evidence of bad faith use and registration of a domain name. They are as follows:
(i) circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant which is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the respondent's documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) the respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain name, the respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the respondent's 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 the respondent's web site or location or of a product of service on the respondent 's web site or location.
The concept of bad faith as illustrated in the above four subparagraphs necessarily involves a subjective intent on the part of a respondent knowingly to trade upon the goodwill of the complainant. The respondent must intentionally have targeted the complainant's mark. Such subjective intent would in turn require that the respondent actually knew of the complainant or its rights in the relevant mark when it registered the domain name. Constructive notice does not suffice.
In attempting to discern actual knowledge and a subjective bad faith intent, panels have looked at many different types of evidence, including but not limited to use of a domain name in direct competition with a trademark owner, impersonation, the parties operating in the same market segment, the parties being physically located in the same general geographic area, a pattern of bad faith conduct, actual prior association between or among the parties, the distinctive nature of the trademark, and the extent to which the trademark has been publicized and is known as a source indicator for the complainant. Unsupported allegations about a respondent's subjective intent are not evidence in this regard.
The evidence in this case conclusively demonstrates that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant when it registered the domain name in July 2026 (WHOIS printouts submitted as Complaint Exhibits 1 and 2 show registration date). Respondent had to have had actual knowledge of Complainant and its mark in order to impersonate it with the domain name and the resolving website, and the text messages with a third party about employment opportunity with Complainant, even to the extent of furnishing that third party with a fraudulent "Authorization Letter" from Complainant Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant when it registered the domain name and selected it with the intent to target this Complainant. It registered the domain name in bad faith.
The evidence of Respondent's conduct discussed above in the rights or legitimate interests analysis supports a finding of bad faith registration and use based upon the grounds articulated in the Policy and upon additional grounds adopted by UDRP panels over the years. First, by passing off and posturing as Complainant, Respondent is using the confusingly similar domain name to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its web site by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of its website. Respondent's website lacks any content describing services or product offered, or any terms of service, contact email addresses or phone numbers for its business. It appears from this that commercial gain results or is intended from the phishing and other fraudulent misconduct described above, rather than from the sale of product or services from the website. Nevertheless, Respondent's conduct fits squarely within the circumstances described in Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) and is manifest evidence of bad faith registration and use
Next, as discussed above, Respondent is using the domain name to pass off as Complainant. This does not fit precisely within any of the scenarios listed in Policy ¶ 4(b) but that paragraph recognizes that mischief can manifest in many different forms and takes an open-ended approach to bad faith, listing some examples without attempting to enumerate all its varieties. The non-exclusive nature of Policy ¶ 4(b) allows for consideration of additional factors in an analysis for bad faith, and passing off as a complainant, in and of itself, is evidence of bad faith. Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum Dec. 27, 2017) (finding bad faith where "Respondent registered and uses the <lbittrex.com> domain name in bad faith by directing Internet users to a website that mimics Complainant's own website in order to confuse users into believing that Respondent is Complainant or is otherwise affiliated or associated with Complainant.").
Respondent has used the domain name to engage in phishing. This also is evidence bad faith registration and use. Klabzuba Oil & Gas, Inc. v. LAKHPAT SINGH BHANDARI, FA 1625750 (Forum July 17, 2015) ("Respondent uses the <klabzuba-oilgas.com> domain to engage in phishing, which means Respondent registered and uses the domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)."), McKinsey & Company, Inc., and McKinsey Holdings, Inc. v. Privacy Protection, report abuse to / Registrar: DELTA-X Ltd., FA 1580883 (Forum Oct. 25, 2014) (holding that the respondent had engaged in phishing, which is further evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii), when the respondent used the disputed domain name in an attempt to obtain Internet users' personal information including their driver's license number and name).
For the reasons first set forth above, the Panel finds that Respondent registered or is using the domain name in bad faith within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
DECISION
Complainant having established all three elements required under the Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <runpod.work> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Charles A. Kuechenmeister, Panelist
September 16, 2026
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page