CallSpin LLC went after the domain Callspin.com, claiming common-law rights in the CALLSPIN mark since 2009 for its cloud telephony/SaaS services, even though it never registered the mark.
With the Respondent defaulting, the Panel still needed proof of trademark rights predating the domain’s registration.
CallSpin, however, produced almost no supporting evidence – no dated ads, no sales data, no historic screenshots, nothing to show continuous use or that “CALLSPIN” had acquired secondary meaning before the domain was registered. Citing the lack of concrete proof rather than bare assertions, the Panel found CallSpin had not established any rights in CALLSPIN and stopped there, without even examining rights/legitimate interests or bad faith.
Final decision: Complaint denied; callspin.com remains with the Respondent.
Copyright © 2025 DomainGang.com · All Rights Reserved.CallSpin LLC v. JP Barkley
Claim Number: FA2509002178505
PARTIES
Complainant is CallSpin LLC (“Complainant”), represented by David Rees of CallSpin LLC, Washington, USA. Respondent is JP Barkley (“Respondent”), Florida, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is callspin.com, 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.
Héctor Ariel Manoff as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on September 23, 2025; Forum received payment on October 30, 2025.
On October 29, 2025, Namecheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the callspin.com 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 November 6, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 26, 2025 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@callspin.com. Also, on November 6, 2025, 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 December 1st, 2025, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Héctor Ariel Manoff 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
1- Complainant argues to have common-law trademark rights on CALLSPIN.
2- Complainant argues to have been used the trademark on domestic commerce for cloud-based telephony application services, including automated outbound calling; wake-up and reminder calls; configurable call campaigns; and related software-as-a-service (“SaaS”) tools for consumers and businesses as from 2009.
3- Complainant has not a registered trademark.
4- Complainant argues that the disputed domain name callspin.com is identical or confusingly similar to its CALLSPIN mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
FINDINGS
The Panel finds that Complainant has failed to carry its burden regarding the first element of this complaint in that it has failed to prove common law rights in or CALLSPIN mark prior to the registration date of the disputed domain name.
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 3.0 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
Complainant argues that, despite lacking any registrations for the mark CALLSPIN, it has acquired common law rights in the mark.
However, the Panel finds that Complainant has failed to submit appropriate evidence to prove those common-law rights.
Complainant argues that the mark CALLSPIN has been used in domestic commerce for cloud-based telephony application and other services as from 2009. However, the evidence in Annex B is not sufficient to prove it.
The Panel finds that Complainant has failed to carry its burden regarding this first element of this dispute. Complainant has no demonstrable trademark rights in or to CALLSPIN that predate the registration of the disputed domain name.
Complainant has not proved the secondary meaning of the CALLSPIN trademark by submitting examples of use of the mark, advertising etc. See Golden Title Loans, LLC dba 745Cash v. roylee, FA 1618801 (Forum June 23, 2015) (holding, “Relevant evidence of secondary meaning includes continuous and ongoing use of a mark, holding of a domain name identical to the mark, or using the mark in commerce before a disputed domain name is created.” Finding “Complainant has provided evidence of secondary meaning . . . displaying Complainant’s business registration with the state of Tennessee, showing use of the 745-CASH mark since July 2005 . . . showing the creation date as March 30, 2004 of Complainant’s own website 745cash.com.
The Panel finds that Complainant has not provided sufficient evidence in this respect.
The Panel concludes that Complainant has not satisfied Policy 4(a)(i) and declines to analyze the other two elements of the Policy. See Netsertive, Inc. v. Ryan Howard / Howard Technologies, Ltd., FA 1721637 (Forum Apr. 17, 2017) (finding that because the complainant must prove all three elements under the Policy, the complainant’s failure to prove one of the elements makes further inquiry into the remaining element unnecessary); see also Wasatch Shutter Design v. Duane Howell / The Blindman, FA 1731056 (Forum June 23, 2017) (deciding not to inquire into the respondent’s rights or legitimate interests or its registration and use in bad faith where the complainant could not satisfy the requirements of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).
Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Panel declines to analyze this element.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
The Panel declines to analyze this element.
DECISION
Having not established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the callspin.com domain name REMAIN WITH Respondent.
__________________________________________________________________
Héctor Ariel Manoff, Panelist
Dated: December 9, 2025
