DECISION

 

United States Semiquincentennial Commission v. Bruno Simões / X BRAND

Claim Number: FA2608002239669

 

PARTIES

Complainant is United States Semiquincentennial Commission ("Complainant"), United States, represented by Jonathan Uffelman of Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, United States. Respondent is Bruno Simões / X BRAND ("Respondent"), Portugal.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <america250.store>, registered with HOSTINGER operations, UAB.

 

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 E. Sorkin as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on August 14, 2026; Forum received payment on August 14, 2026.

 

On August 17, 2026, HOSTINGER operations, UAB confirmed by email to Forum that the <america250.store> domain name is registered with HOSTINGER operations, UAB and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. HOSTINGER operations, UAB has verified that Respondent is bound by the HOSTINGER operations, UAB 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 18, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 8, 2026 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@america250.store. Also on August 18, 2026, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email 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 9, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed David E. Sorkin 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 is an agency of the United States government, established by Congress in 2016 to orchestrate the 250th anniversary of the United States' founding. Complainant collaborates with a nonprofit supporting organization, The America250.org, Inc., and many other organizations, including Major League Baseball, the National Football League, the National Hockey League, the U.S. Tennis Association, and the Girl Scouts of the United States, along with sponsors that include Amazon, Coca-Cola, General Mills, Walmart, and other companies. Complainant has used AMERICA 250 since 2021 and an AMERICA 250 logo introduced in late 2023 in connection with a variety of products that it sells on its America 250 official store. Complainant owns a United States trademark registration for AMERICA 250 in standard character form and registrations for related design marks, and also asserts common law trademark rights.

 

The disputed domain name <america250.store> was registered in January 2026. The name is registered to Respondent, although Respondent's identity is redacted from the public domain name registration record. The domain name is being used for a website entitled "America250 Store" that offers for sale t-shirts and other items similar to those offered by Complainant on its America 250 official store. The copyright statement in the footer of the website identifies the operator only as "America250 Store." Complainant states that it sent a cease and desist letter to Respondent in July 2026 but has not received a response. Complainant states further that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name and is not authorized to use Complainant's mark.

 

Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <america250.store> is identical or confusingly similar to its AMERICA 250 mark; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

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 of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions, § 4.3 (version 3.1, 2026), available at https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview; UDRP Perspectives on Recent Jurisprudence, §§ 0.2, 0.8 (updated June 2, 2025), available at https://udrpperspectives.org/; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (dismissing complaint where complainant failed to "produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations").

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The disputed domain name <america250.store> corresponds to Complainant's registered AMERICA 250 trademark, but for the omission of the space and the addition of the ".store" top-level domain. Such alterations are normally disregarded for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. See, e.g., United States Semiquincentennial Commission v. Trai Pham, FA 2205219 (Forum Mar. 11, 2026) (finding <officialamerica250.store> confusingly similar to AMERICA 250); Beauty Holding, LLC v. Benjamin Wilde, FA 1925183 (Forum Jan. 18, 2021) (finding <sallybeauty.store> identical to SALLY BEAUTY). The Panel considers the disputed domain name to be identical to a mark in which Complainant has rights.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Under the Policy, the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc. v. Entertainment Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).

 

The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's registered mark without authorization. Its sole apparent use has been for a misleading website that attempts to pass off as Complainant and promotes directly competing products. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., United States Semiquincentennial Commission v. lin jin rong / shen zhen shi rui bo da ke ji you xian gong si, FA 2234276 (Forum Aug. 19, 2026) (finding lack of rights or interests in similar circumstances); United States Semiquincentennial Commission v. Trai Pham, supra (same).

 

Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of such rights or interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered the disputed domain name "primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor." Under paragraph 4(b)(iv), bad faith may be shown by evidence that "by using the domain name, [Respondent] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [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 [Respondent's] web site or location or of a product or service on [Respondent's] web site or location."

 

Respondent registered a domain name corresponding to Complainant's registered mark without authorization and is using it for a misleading website that attempts to pass off as Complainant and promotes directly competing products. Such circumstances are indicative of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See, e.g., United States Semiquincentennial Commission v. lin jin rong / shen zhen shi rui bo da ke ji you xian gong si, supra (finding bad faith registration and use in similar circumstances); United States Semiquincentennial Commission v. Trai Pham, supra (same). The Panel so finds.

 

DECISION

Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <america250.store> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

David E. Sorkin, Panelist

Dated: September 10, 2026