DECISION

 

Polaris Industries Inc. v. Domain Admin / FindYourDomain

Claim Number: FA2609002247733

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Polaris Industries Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Lindsay M.R. Jones of Merchant & Gould, P.C., Minnesota, USA. Respondent is Domain Admin / FindYourDomain ("Respondent"), represented by Grant Carpenter, California, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <polarisinc.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.

 

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.

 

Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on September 28, 2026; Forum received payment on September 28, 2026.

 

On September 29, 2026, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <polarisinc.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, LLC 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 30, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 20, 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@polarisinc.com. Also on September 30, 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.

 

A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on October 8, 2026.

 

On October 12, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. as Panelist.

 

On October 13, 2026, the Panel issued a Procedural Order providing Respondent with a specified deadline to submit justifiable grounds for objecting to Complainant's termination request, and simultaneously granting an opportunity to cure the deficient Response. Respondent timely submitted an Additional Submission on October 13, 2026.

 

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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUES: TERMINATION OF PROCEEDING and DEFICIENT RESPONSE

There are two preliminary issues in this proceeding. The first issue concerns a request for termination of the proceeding. Complainant submitted a request to Forum on October 9, 2026, to terminate the proceeding, arguing that it inadvertently identified the wrong domain name due to a spelling confusion, shortly after Respondent submitted a Response on October 8, 2026. The second issue relates to a deficient response. Forum determined that the Response did not comply with paragraph 5(a) of the Rules and paragraph 5(c)(iii) of Forum's Supplemental Rules because it exceeded the file size restrictions set forth in Annex A to the Supplemental Rules, and thus Forum does not consider the Response to be in compliance with paragraph 5 of the Rules.

 

On October 13, 2026, the Panel issued a Procedural Order providing Respondent with a specified deadline to submit justifiable grounds for objecting to Complainant's termination request, and simultaneously granting an opportunity to cure the deficient Response. Respondent timely submitted an Additional Submission on October 13, 2026. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the second issue regarding the deficient Response has been resolved.

 

TERMINATION OF PROCEEDING

The commencement date of this proceeding was September 30, 2026, and Respondent timely submitted a Response on October 8, 2026. On October 9, 2026, Complainant submitted a request to terminate the proceeding pursuant to paragraph 17(b) of the Rules. Complainant asserts that it inadvertently identified the wrong domain name, explaining that the domain name used by intended Respondent is not the disputed domain name <polarisinc.com> as it initially appeared, but rather <polarislnc.com> (polaris + "lnc"), where the first character is a lowercase letter "L," rather than a capital letter "I." The inclusion of the disputed domain name was an error, and Complainant does not seek transfer or cancellation of that domain name. Upon discovering the error, Complainant sought to withdraw the Complaint. Although Respondent has declined to consent to withdrawal, Complainant respectfully submits that continued adjudication is unnecessary because Complainant has unequivocally abandoned the relief requested against the disputed domain name.

 

Respondent objects to Complainant's termination request, asserting that a pending request for a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking under Rule 15(e) constitutes justifiable grounds to refuse a unilateral termination. Panels consistently decline to terminate proceedings when complainants seek to withdraw after a response requesting Reverse Domain Name Hijacking has been filed.

 

Respondent argues the Reverse Domain Name Hijacking claim is valid because Complainant, despite being represented by experienced counsel, filed a fundamentally flawed complaint. Complainant falsely certified the accuracy of the Complaint, baselessly accusing an established business of criminal conduct and seeking to transfer a domain registered in 1995. Complainant's evidence did not even match the disputed domain name, and a simple WHOIS query would have prevented the error. Filing a complaint that Complainant knew or should have known could not succeed justifies a Reverse Domain Name Hijacking finding.

 

Furthermore, Respondent contends that terminating without prejudice would reward reckless filing and defeat the deterrent purpose of Rule 15(e). It would force Respondent to bear the expense of defending a full Response without vindication or protection against refiling, while Complainant escapes all consequences. Citing prior UDRP decisions, Respondent emphasizes that a Reverse Domain Name Hijacking declaration is the Policy's sole sanction for abuse. Therefore, Respondent requests that the Panel deny termination, and proceed to a decision on the merits, including a Reverse Domain Name Hijacking finding.

 

Paragraph 17(b) of the Rules states that if it becomes unnecessary or impossible to continue the administrative proceeding for any reason, the Panel shall terminate the proceeding, unless a Party raises justifiable grounds for objection.

 

The Panel acknowledges Respondent's objection, which is primarily rooted in a request for a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking. However, as analyzed in detail in the Reverse Domain Name Hijacking section below, the circumstances unequivocally demonstrate that Complainant made a genuine typographical error. The creation date of September 22, 2026, explicitly cited in the Complaint, strictly corresponds to the domain name Complainant intended to target, not the disputed domain name registered in 1995. Furthermore, the webpage evidence annexed to the Complaint displays content associated with the intended domain name, not the website resolving from the disputed domain name. These glaring discrepancies conclusively prove that Complainant did not target Respondent with a bad faith intent to harass, but rather committed an understandable spelling mistake between a capital "I" and a lowercase "L," a visual confusion that can inadvertently occur even when represented by legal professionals.

 

The Panel certainly recognizes that identifying an incorrect domain name is a careless act that can inflict unforeseen temporal and financial burdens upon unintended domain owners. Complainant is expected to exercise meticulous care to ensure the accurate identification of a disputed domain name before commencing a proceeding. Nevertheless, adjudicating a dispute over a domain name that Complainant does not wish to challenge would be an inefficient use of administrative resources. Furthermore, terminating this proceeding without prejudice does not harm Respondent's rights. Accordingly, the Panel grants Complainant's request to terminate the proceeding without prejudice.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

In light of the Panel's decision to terminate the proceeding under paragraph 17(b) of the Rules, the Panel finds it unnecessary to summarize the Parties' contentions.

 

FINDINGS

In light of the Panel's decision to terminate the proceeding under paragraph 17(b) of the Rules, the Panel finds it unnecessary to make factual findings.

 

DISCUSSION

Given the termination of this proceeding, the Panel declines to analyze the three elements under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.

 

REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKING

Respondent requests a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking, arguing that Complainant filed a fundamentally flawed complaint with false certifications, failed to conduct a basic WHOIS search, and unjustifiably accused an established business of illicit conduct.

 

While the Panel acknowledges Respondent's frustrations regarding the time and expense incurred due to Complainant's negligence, a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking requires evidence of malicious intent or bad faith targeting of a specific domain name holder, not merely professional negligence or a clerical error.

 

Addressing Respondent's arguments step by step, the Panel first notes that the very evidentiary flaws Respondent highlights actually serve to exonerate Complainant from allegations of bad faith. Respondent points out that Complainant sought to transfer a domain name registered in 1995, yet submitted evidence with a creation date of September 22, 2026. Rather than demonstrating a deliberate abuse of the administrative proceeding, this severe mismatch is the clearest proof that Complainant never intended to target Respondent. If Complainant truly harbored a bad faith intent to hijack Respondent's 1995 domain name, Complainant would not have submitted evidence that completely contradicts the WHOIS record of the disputed domain name.

 

Second, while it is true that Complainant certified the accuracy of the Complaint and a rudimentary WHOIS check would have exposed the error, the failure to perform this basic diligence amounts to sloppiness, not malice. Complainant made a visual error confusing the capital letter "I" with the lowercase letter "L." Although legal representatives are held to a professional standard, an inadvertent typographical error, even a highly negligent one, does not equate to the abusive purpose required to sustain a Reverse Domain Name Hijacking declaration.

 

Third, Respondent's argument that termination without prejudice rewards reckless filing is unavailing in these specific circumstances. Complainant promptly admitted the error and requested termination immediately upon discovering the mistake. Complainant did not attempt to prolong the proceeding or stubbornly pursue a meritless claim against Respondent after the facts were brought to light. The Panel finds no evidence that Complainant engaged in a calculated scheme to harass Respondent or to improperly obtain the disputed domain name.

 

In conclusion, while Complainant's lack of careful scrutiny is regrettable, the record overwhelmingly supports a finding of an innocent, albeit negligent, typographical error. Therefore, the Panel declines to make a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.

 

DECISION

For the reasons set forth above, and pursuant to paragraph 17(b) of the Rules, the Panel orders that this proceeding be TERMINATED without prejudice.

 

Furthermore, the Panel denies Respondent's request for a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <polarisinc.com> domain name REMAIN WITH Respondent.

 

 

 

Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist

Dated: October 13, 2026