DECISION

 

Aembit, Inc. v. Katie Ormond

Claim Number: FA2609002246241

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Aembit, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Aaron Hendelman of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, California, USA. Respondent is Katie Ormond ("Respondent"), New Mexico, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <aembits.org> ('the Domain Name'), registered with NameCheap, 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.

 

Dawn Osborne as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on September 18, 2026; Forum received payment on September 18, 2026.

 

On September 22, 2026, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <aembits.org> 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 September 23, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 13, 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@aembits.org. Also on September 23, 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 October 14, 2026 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Dawn Osborne 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

The Complainant is the owner of common law rights in the mark AEMBIT used since at least as early as 2023 to promote its online business providing workload identity and access management services via the Complainant's website hosted at <aembit.io>. Since 2023, the Complainant's revenues have increased by 2000%. The Complainant's website is characterized by a white and orange background with the AEMBIT Mark prominently displayed throughout. This AEMBIT-branded website enjoys significant web traffic, with more than 76,000 sessions in 2026 so far. Since Complainant began using the AEMBIT Mark, it has spent over $4 million dollars on promotion of the AEMBIT name and services. Complainant has been recognized in the press and media for its workload identity and access management services provided to development and IT operations and security teams, including articles from Business Insider, FinTech Global, TechCrunch, and MSSP Alert. Complainant has received awards for its services from CyberSecurity Breakthrough (named "Overall ID Management Solution of the Year" in 2025), Fast Company (named 4 in its annual list of the "100 Best Workplaces for Innovators" in 2025), Notable Capital (named in its "Rising in Cyber" 2025 list of top cybersecurity startups), and KuppingerCole (recognized as a "Rising Star" in 2025). Much of this media publicity occurred prior to when the Domain Name was first registered on July 1, 2026.

 

The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade mark merely adding a single letter 's' and the gTLD .org neither of which prevents said confusing similarity.

 

The Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name, is not commonly known by it and has not been authorised by the Complainant.

 

The Domain Name has been used for a site purporting to be an official site of the Complainant to purport to offer the Complainant's services, using the AEMBIT mark on the site including as a masthead and referring to the Complainant's CEO by name as its CEO. The Respondent's activity was impersonation for phishing purposes, was deliberately confusing and did not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate non commercial or fair use. It was registration and use in opportunistic bad faith for fraudulent purposes, causing confusion for commercial gain and disrupting the Complainant's business. The Domain Name is also a typosquatting registration which is bad faith per se.  

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The Complainant is the owner of common law rights in the mark AEMBIT used since at least as early as 2023 to promote its online business providing workload identity and access management services via its website hosted at <aembit.io>. 

 

The Domain Name registered in 2026 has been used for a site purporting to be an official site of the Complainant to purport to offer the Complainant's services using 'AEMBIT' as the mark on the site including as a masthead and referring to the Complainant's CEO as its CEO by name by way of false misrepresentation.

 

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

The Domain Name consists of the Complainant's distinctive AEMBIT mark (in which the Complainant owns common law rights for workload identity and access management services since 2023), a single letter 's' and the gTLD .org.

 

Panels have found that adding one letter to the registered mark does not distinguish a domain name from that mark. See Twitch Interactive, Inc. v Antonio Teggi, FA 1626528 (Forum Aug. 3, 2015). Accordingly the addition of the single letter 's' does not prevent confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant's trade mark.

 

GTLDs such as .org do not serve to distinguish a domain name from a Complainant's mark. See Red Hat Inc v Haecke, FA 726010 (Forum July 24, 2006) (concluding that the redhat.org domain name is identical to the complainant's red hat mark because the mere addition of the gTLD was insufficient to differentiate the disputed domain name from the mark).

 

Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainant has rights.

 

As such the Panel holds that Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant has not authorised the use of its mark. There is no evidence or reason to suggest the Respondent is, in fact, commonly known by the Domain Name. See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA 1574905 (Forum Sept. 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark). The use of the Domain Name was commercial and so was not legitimate non commercial fair use.

 

The web site attached to the Domain Name was impersonating the Complainant using the AEMBIT mark including as a masthead and referring to the Complainant's CEO as its CEO by name to purport to offer the Complainant's services. The Panel finds this use was confusing and deceptive and for likely phishing purposes. As such it did not amount to the bona fide offering of goods and services. See DaVita Inc. v. Cynthia Rochelo, FA 1738034 (Forum July 20, 2017) ("a phishing scheme is not considered a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use").

 

It is also possible that since the Complainant's url is aembit.io that this could be mistyped with .org as these two TLDs are only a few keystrokes away from each other, albeit the user would also have to mistype the additional letter 's'. It is, therefore, possible that the Domain Name could well be intended to be a typosquatting registration. Typosquatting would also show that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. See Macy's Inc. and its subsidiary Macy's West Stores, Inc. v. chen wenjie c/o Dynadot Privacy, FA 1552918 (Forum May 21, 2014) ("Respondent's disputed domain names are typosquatted versions of Complainant's registered mark. Typosquatting shows a lack of rights or legitimate interests.").

 

The Respondent has not answered the Complaint or rebutted the prima facie case evidenced by the Complainant as set out herein.

 

As such the Panelist finds that the Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

In the opinion of the Panel the use made of the Domain Name in relation to the Respondent's site was confusing and disruptive in that visitors to the site might reasonably have believed it was connected to or approved by the Complainant as it offered competing services using the Complainant's mark including as a masthead and name of the Complainant's CEO to impersonate the Complainant. The mentioning of the Complainant's CEO on the site shows that the Respondent had actual knowledge of the Complainant and its business, products and rights. The Domain Name has been used for closely competing services to the Complainant under a Domain Name containing the Complainant's mark with a false representation that the site is related to the Complainant.

 

Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to her website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trade mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the web site and services offered on it likely to disrupt the business of the Complainant. (See Asbury Auto Group Inc v Tex. Int'l Prop Assocs, FA 958542 (Forum May 29, 2007) finding that the respondent's use of the disputed domain name would likely lead to confusion amongst Internet users as to the sponsorship or affiliation of the business offered via the domain name and was therefore evidence of bad faith and use). Additionally, the purpose of the impersonation appears to be phishing which is evidence of bad faith registration and use within the Policy 4 (a)(iii). See Klabzuba Oil & Gas, Inc v LAKHPAT SINGH BHANDARI, FA 1625750 (Forum July 17, 2015).

 

Further, typosquatting itself is evidence of relevant bad faith registration and use and shows actual knowledge of the Complainant. See Cost Plus Management Services, Inc. v. xushuaiwei, FA 1800036 (Forum Sept. 7, 2018) ("Typosquatting itself is evidence of relevant bad faith registration and use."). If the Panel finds Respondent engaged in typosquatting, it may find bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). The typosquatting issue, however, is not necessary for a finding of bad faith in this case.

 

As such, the Panelist believes that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith and has satisfied the third limb of the Policy under Paragraphs 4(b)(iii) and (iv).

 

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 <aembits.org> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Dawn Osborne, Panelist

Dated: October 14, 2026