DECISION

 

BB13 IPCO, LLC v. Muhammad Sajjad

Claim Number: FA2608002240703

 

PARTIES

Complainant is BB13 IPCO, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Natasha Reed of Foley Hoag LLP, New York, USA. Respondent is Muhammad Sajjad ("Respondent"), Pakistan.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <blankbythirteen.com>, registered with NICENIC INTERNATIONAL GROUP CO., LIMITED.

 

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.

 

Adam Taylor as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on August 19, 2026; Forum received payment on August 19, 2026.

 

On August 21, 2026, NICENIC INTERNATIONAL GROUP CO., LIMITED confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <blankbythirteen.com> domain name is registered with NICENIC INTERNATIONAL GROUP CO., LIMITED and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NICENIC INTERNATIONAL GROUP CO., LIMITED has verified that Respondent is bound by the NICENIC INTERNATIONAL GROUP CO., LIMITED 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 31, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 21, 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@blankbythirteen.com. Also on August 31, 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 22, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Adam Taylor 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 contends that it has rights in the BLANKS BY THIRTEEN mark based upon registration of that mark with the World Intellectual Property Organization ("WIPO") and upon common law rights arising from long-standing continuous business use. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark.

 

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; on the contrary, Respondent has used the disputed domain name to defraud customers. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Respondent has not made legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. Complainant has never authorized Respondent to use Complainant's mark.

 

Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent's actual knowledge of Complainant's mark is evidenced by its impersonation of Complainant. Respondent has used the disputed domain name to create a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark for commercial gain.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has manufactured and supplied apparel under the BLANKS BY THIRTEEN mark since at least 2022.  Complainant has over 280,000 followers on Instagram.

 

Complainant owns International Registration No. 1856277 for BLANKS BY THIRTEEN, registered with WIPO on April 24, 2025.

 

Complainant operates a website at www.blanksbythirteen.com.

 

The disputed domain name was registered on March 29, 2026.

 

The disputed domain name has been used to resolve to a website that was a near-clone of Complainant's website, including an identical "Blanks" logo.

 

On or about May 27, 2026, a customer purchased a product from Respondent's website, thinking that it was authorized by Complainant, but never received the product.

 

The Respondent has switched payment providers and website hosts at least three times to evade enforcement steps.  

 

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

Since Complainant has provided evidence of registration of the BLANKS BY THIRTEEN mark with WIPO, the Panel finds that Complainant has rights in that mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

The disputed domain name incorporates a misspelling of Complainant's distinctive mark, namely omission of the letter "s" in "blanks". Such variations are considered by panels to be confusingly similar to the relevant mark for purposes of the first element. This stems from the fact that the domain name contains sufficiently recognizable aspects of the relevant mark. See also, WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.1 at ¶  1.9.

 

Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii); then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Neal & Massey 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 argues that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or for legitimate noncommercial or fair use.

 

As discussed under the third element below, the Panel considers that Respondent uses the disputed domain name for fraudulent purposes. Such activity is plainly not bona fide. Nor does it qualify as legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Allianz of Am. Corp. v. Bond, FA 690796 (Forum June 12, 2006) (holding that the respondent's use of the <allianzcorp.biz> domain name to fraudulently acquire the personal and financial information of Internet users seeking Complainant's financial services was not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)).

 

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services, or for legitimate noncommercial or fair use, under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).

 

Complainant further contends that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name since Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name.

 

WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Braun Corp. v. Loney, FA 699652 (Forum July 7, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain names where the WHOIS information, as well as all other information in the record, gave no indication that the respondent was commonly known by the domain names, and the complainant had not authorized the respondent to register a domain name containing its registered mark).

 

The WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as "Muhammad Sajjad" and there is no other information on the record indicating that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name.

 

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

The provisions set out in Policy ¶ 4(b) are merely illustrative. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Domain Admin - This Domain is For Sale on GoDaddy.com / Trnames Premium Name Services, FA 1714157 (Forum Mar. 8, 2017) (determining that Policy ¶ 4(b) provisions are merely illustrative of bad faith, and that the respondent's bad faith may be demonstrated by other allegations of bad faith under the totality of the circumstances). 

 

Complainant has supplied evidence indicating that Respondent has used the disputed domain name for fraudulent purposes. Such activity constitutes registration and use in bad faith. See Hess Corp. v. GR, FA 770909 (Forum  Sept. 19, 2006) (finding that respondent demonstrated bad faith registration and use because it was attempting to acquire the personal and financial information of Internet users through a confusingly similar domain name).

 

Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent has registered, and is using, the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

DECISION

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

 

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

 

 

 

Adam Taylor, Panelist

Dated: September 29, 2026