Alliance for Responsible Pet Ownership, Inc. filed a UDRP to get back the domain AdoptARPO.org, the primary domain used by its organization.
Getting the domain “back” isn’t accurate, however, as the Respondent, Josh Huser—a former board member—used his personally chosen credentials to salvage the domain from expiring. Further down the road, when Mr. Huser resigned from the board, he gave these credentials to the board.
A good deed never goes unpunished, it seems. The Forum panelist noted all this:
“The Respondent claims the Complainant was aware of the email address change to his personal email, and there is no indication that the Complainant objected to this change. However, it is uncertain to the Panel whether the Complainant was fully aware of the change in registrant ownership of the domain name itself. Given the fact that the Respondent’s invoices for the domain registration were received and reimbursed by the Complainant, it seems that the Complainant was aware or should have been aware of this change of registration of the domain name.
The Complainant alleges that the Respondent refused to return control of the domain name, sought retribution, lied, etc., based on unspecified correspondence between its counsel and the Respondent. However, this correspondence was not submitted as evidence.
There is no indication that the Respondent profited from the domain name or attempted to harm the Complainant. On the contrary, the Respondent provided the domain transfer code in his resignation letter, as well as his credentials for emails and the website. However, the Complainant apparently failed to act on this so that the domain name registration remained under the Respondent. The Complainant also provides no evidence of the Respondent’s independent usage of the domain name, such as to misdirect users to another website. The domain name remains directed to the Complainant’s website.”
Final decision: Deny the transfer of the domain AdoptARPO.org to the Complainant. The Respondent’s request for a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking was denied.
Copyright © 2025 DomainGang.com · All Rights Reserved.Alliance for Responsible Pet Ownership, Inc. v. Josh Huser
Claim Number: FA2502002141249
PARTIES
Complainant is Alliance for Responsible Pet Ownership, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Erik J. Foley, Indiana, USA. Respondent is Josh Huser (“Respondent”), Indiana, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is adoptarpo.org, registered with Squarespace Domains II LLC.
PANEL
The undersigned certify that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelists in this proceeding.
Bart Van Besien, Alan L. Limbury and Carol Stoner as Panelists.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 20, 2025. Forum received payment on February 20, 2025.
On February 24, 2025, Squarespace Domains II LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the adoptarpo.org domain name is registered with Squarespace Domains II LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Squarespace Domains II LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Squarespace Domains II 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 February 24, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 21, 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@adoptarpo.org. Also on February 24, 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.
A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on March 18, 2025.
On March 25, 2025, pursuant to Respondent’s request to have the dispute decided by a three-member Panel, Forum appointed Bart Van Besien, Alan L. Limbury and Carol Stoner as Panelists.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
Respondent requests that the domain name remains with Respondent. The Respondent further requests the Panel to make a finding that the dispute is not within the scope of Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy and that the complaint was brought in bad faith with the intent to harass the Respondent.
PRELIMINARY ISSUE: CONSENT TO TRANSFER
On March 1, 2024, at the time of his resignation as a board member of the Complainant, the Respondent communicated a DNS transfer code to the Complainant and thus consented to the transfer of the domain name. However, in his Response of March 18, 2025, the Respondent requested the Panel to deny the remedy requested by the Complainant. In other words, the Respondent no longer consents to the transfer of the domain name. The Panel decides that it cannot handle this case as a “consent to transfer” case.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
The Complainant asserts that it owns the following common-law trademarks, used to provide services related to the fostering and adoption of pets, mainly in the State of Indiana: (1) ARPO; (2) Alliance for Responsible Pet Ownership, Inc; (3) Alliance for Pet owners, Inc.; (4) adoptarpo.org; and (5) a logo including both “ARPO” and “Alliance for Responsible Pet Ownership”.
The Complainant claims that the domain name was created by the Complainant and has been owned and controlled by it since at least August 2000.
The Respondent was a former member of the Complainant’s board of directors. The Complainant claims that, without the Complainant’s knowledge or consent, the Respondent listed himself as the Registrant of the domain name. The Complainant further contends that the Respondent abused his access to the domain name to seek retribution against the Complainant after his exit from the board of directors.
B. Respondent
The Respondent disputes that the Complainant has common law trademark rights.
The Respondent does not claim legitimate interests in respect of the domain name.
The Respondent states that he did not register the domain name in bad faith and that the Complainant was fully aware of his change of the domain name registration. The background to this change is as follows: On March 8, 2023, the Complainant’s website stopped working and the Respondent – who was still a board member – found that the domain name had expired and that the registrar had sent emails to the general email address info@adoptarpo.org. However, no action was taken by the Complainant. Since the domain name and the corresponding email address were no longer active, no password could be reset and no verification emails could be received. The Respondent subsequently changed the email address to his own email address and explained this to the other board members. In an email exchange of March 9, 2023 (i.e., a day after the deactivation), somebody within the Complainant’s orbit, using the (reactivated) email address info@adoptarpo.org, answered “I understand why you did it this way.” The Respondent states that he acted in good faith to support the Complainant’s interests.
The Respondent further states that he did not use the domain name in bad faith. The website or other services of the Complainant remain active and in use by the Complainant. In his letter of resignation to the Complainant’s board of March 1, 2024, the Respondent provided his website and email credentials, and an authorization code for the transfer of the domain name.
Finally, the Respondent states that the complaint was brought in bad faith with the intent to harass the Respondent.
FINDINGS
The domain name was created on March 6, 2000.
From an email exchange of March 9, 2023, it follows that the Respondent changed the contact email address linked to the domain registration from info@adoptarpo.org to his personal email address. A response from the Complainant acknowledged understanding the reason for this change but also emphasized the importance of using the general email address. The Complainant did not explicitly object to the change of the contact email address. The Panel notes that this email exchange focused on the change of the contact email address rather than the change of the ownership of the domain name to the Respondent.
On June 21, 2023, a Google invoice for the domain name transfer was addressed to the Respondent.
On August 28, 2023, the Respondent sent domain registration receipts to the Complainant’s board member Shirley Thompson, who responded on August 30, 2023, that they should be submitted closer to their date. No objection was raised regarding the registration of the domain name in the Respondent’s name. The receipts (attachments) were not submitted as evidence and the Panel had no access to these receipts.
On December 12, 2023, an invoice for the domain name was sent to the Respondent, who forwarded it to the Complainant’s board member Shirley Thompson on January 18, 2024. The billing information was in the Respondent’s name (cardholder name and email address). The Complainant does not seem to have raised objections against the invoice (and domain registration) being in the Respondent’s name.
On February 29, 2024, the Complainant’s Board President Leah Bradford sent an email to the other board members regarding the resignation or removal of the Respondent from the board.
On March 1, 2024, the Respondent sent his resignation letter to the Complainant’s board, including his username, password, and the DNS transfer code for the 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.
Identical and/or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant claims to own common-law trademarks in the following signs, used to provide services related to the fostering and adoption of pets, mainly in the State of Indiana: (1) ARPO; (2) Alliance for Responsible Pet Ownership, Inc; (3) Alliance for Pet owners, Inc.; (4) adoptarpo.org; and (5) a logo including both “ARPO” and “Alliance for Responsible Pet Ownership”.
The Panel notes that Policy 4(a)(i) does not require a complainant to own a registered trademark prior to a respondent’s registration of a domain name if the complainant can demonstrate established common law rights in the mark. See Microsoft Corporation v. Story Remix / Inofficial, FA 1734934 (Forum July 10, 2017) (finding that “The Policy does not require a complainant to own a registered trademark prior to a respondent’s registration if it can demonstrate established common law rights in the mark.”). To establish common law rights in a mark, a complainant generally must prove that the mark has generated a secondary meaning. See Goodwin Procter LLP v. Amritpal Singh, FA 1736062 (Forum July 18, 2017) (holding that the complainant demonstrated its common law rights in the mark through evidence of “long time continuous use of the mark, significant related advertising expenditures, as well as other evidence of the mark’s having acquired secondary meaning.”).
The Complainant failed to provide evidence of its alleged common-law trademarks. The Complainant failed to provide evidence regarding the duration and nature of use of the marks, the number of sales under the marks, the nature and extent of advertising using the marks, the degree of actual public recognition (e.g., website traffic), consumer surveys, etc.
The burden of proof is on the Complainant. The Panel finds that the Complainant has not established sufficient secondary meaning in the marks to create common law or unregistered trademark rights in the
marks.
The Panel concludes that the Complainant has not satisfied Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy because it has failed to establish rights in the marks.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
In his response, the Respondent literally states: “Respondent makes no claim of having legitimate interests in respect of the domain name that is the subject of this complaint.”
Consequently, the Panel decides that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
The Complainant claims that, without the Complainant’s knowledge or consent, the Respondent listed himself as the Registrant of the domain name. The Complainant also contends that the Respondent clearly intended to harm the Complainant and abused his access to seek retribution against the Complainant after his exit from the board of directors. Furthermore, the Complainant states that the Respondent lied and said that the domain name was not in his name.
The Respondent claims the Complainant was aware of the email address change to his personal email, and there is no indication that the Complainant objected to this change. However, it is uncertain to the Panel whether the Complainant was fully aware of the change in registrant ownership of the domain name itself. Given the fact that the Respondent’s invoices for the domain registration were received and reimbursed by the Complainant, it seems that the Complainant was aware or should have been aware of this change of registration of the domain name.
The Complainant alleges that the Respondent refused to return control of the domain name, sought retribution, lied, etc., based on unspecified correspondence between its counsel and the Respondent. However, this correspondence was not submitted as evidence.
There is no indication that the Respondent profited from the domain name or attempted to harm the Complainant. On the contrary, the Respondent provided the domain transfer code in his resignation letter, as well as his credentials for emails and the website. However, the Complainant apparently failed to act on this so that the domain name registration remained under the Respondent. The Complainant also provides no evidence of the Respondent’s independent usage of the domain name, such as to misdirect users to another website. The domain name remains directed to the Complainant’s website.
This case appears to stem from an unfortunate combination of the Respondent’s apparently well-intentioned actions and the Complainant’s failure to take timely steps to reclaim the domain name following the Respondent’s resignation from the board. The Panel finds no evidence indicating that the Respondent registered or used the domain name in bad faith.
In light of the factors mentioned above, the Panel finds that the Complainant did not provide evidence of the Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the domain name as per Policy Paragraph 4(a)(iii).
Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
Finally, the Panel finds that the Complaint was not brought in bad faith and does not constitute an abuse of the administrative procedure. Lack of success of a complaint is not itself sufficient for a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking. The Panel takes account of the fact that the Respondent acknowledges that, having resigned from the Board, he does not have legitimate interests in the domain name.
DECISION
Complainant 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 adoptarpo.org domain name REMAIN WITH Respondent.
Bart Van Besien, Chair
Alan L. Limbury, Panelist
Carol Stoner, Panelist
Dated: April 8, 2025
