HaitiChildren, a Colorado non-profit caring for abandoned and disabled children in Haiti, brought a UDRP against Doms Most / MostDomCorps over HaitiChildren.com.
The charity showed long and continuous use of the HAITICHILDREN name since at least 2015, plus ownership of haitichildren.org since 2004, and explained that it had previously operated on haitichildren.com for about 20 years before the domain dropped and was re-registered in 2025. On that basis, the Panel accepted common law rights in the HAITICHILDREN mark and found the .com domain identical to that mark.
The Respondent’s story was very different: he claimed he bought haitichildren.com without knowing its history, wiped all legacy files as soon as he learned of the complaint, never tried to sell the domain, and insisted it had remained inactive. He also argued that “Haiti” and “children” are descriptive terms that could be used in many unrelated contexts. The Panel didn’t accept that narrative, because the evidence in the annexes showed that the live site under Respondent’s control reproduced HaitiChildren’s old photos, logo, and content, effectively mirroring prior versions of the charity’s website. That use—trading on the same name and history—was the opposite of “inactive” or generic; it was impersonation.
On rights and legitimate interests, the Panel noted there was no authorization from the charity, no indication that the Respondent was commonly known by “Haiti Children,” and no bona fide or fair use when the site was built around copied materials from the Complainant’s prior web presence.
For bad faith, the timing (registration long after HaitiChildren’s mark had acquired distinctiveness), combined with the wholesale reuse of the charity’s content, led the Panel to conclude that the domain was registered and used to make users believe they’d reached the official HaitiChildren site.
Final decision: Transfer of haitichildren.com to HaitiChildren.
Copyright © 2025 DomainGang.com · All Rights Reserved.
HaitiChildren v. Doms Most / MostDomCorps
Claim Number: FA2511002188219
PARTIES
Complainant is HaitiChildren (“Complainant”), represented by Neil Peluchette of Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP, Indiana, USA. Respondent is Doms Most / MostDomCorps (“Respondent”), Minnesota, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is haitichildren.com, registered with Network Solutions, 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.
Héctor Ariel Manoff as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on November 11, 2025; Forum received payment on November 11, 2025.
On November 12, 2025, Network Solutions, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the haitichildren.com domain name is registered with Network Solutions, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Network Solutions, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Network Solutions, 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 November 12, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 2, 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@haitichildren.com. Also on November 12, 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 November 21, 2025.
On November 21, 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.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
1- Complainant is a non-profit organization that provides care and education to abandoned, orphaned, and disabled children in Haiti.
2- Complainant has acquired distinctiveness or secondary meaning in the HAITICHILDREN trademark through its extensive use and common law rights.
3- Complainant has been operating under the trademark HAITICHILDREN since at least as early as 2015.
4- Complainant also owns the domain name www.haitichildren.org, which was registered on January 23, 2004.
5- Complainant previously owned the disputed domain name and used it to operate its website throughout the past 20 years—under the name MERCY & SHARING then under the HAITICHILDREN mark.
6- The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s well-known trademark HAITICHILDREN,
7- Respondent is not associated with Complainant in any way and is not authorized to use the HAITICHILDREN trademark
8- The website associated with the disputed domain name impersonates Complainant, the website mirrors past versions of Complainant’s website, while using Complainant’s name and logo.
B. Respondent
1- Respondent purchased the disputed domain haitichildren.com as without knowing its historical connection to the Complainant or any prior usage.
2- Respondent removed and cleared all files associated with the disputed domain name immediately after notification.
3- Respondent argued that he did not acquire, restore, or hold the domain in bad faith.
4- Respondent denied use to impersonate the Complainant.
5- Respondent has never attempted to sell the disputed domain name.
6- Respondent argued that the domain name remained completely inactive.
7- Respondent argued that the disputed domain name consists of two generic and descriptive terms that can be used in various contexts unrelated to the Complainant.
FINDINGS
Complainant, HaitiChildren, is a non-profit organization—registered in the state of Colorado—that provides care and education to abandoned, orphaned, and disabled children in Haiti. Complainant owns longstanding common law trademark rights in the word mark HAITICHILDREN, which was formally adopted in July 2015. Complainant also owns the domain name www.haitichildren.org, which was registered in 2004. Respondent registered the haitichildren.com domain name in 2025 and is using it in bad faith.
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 asserts common law rights in its HAITICHILDREN mark and provided evidence to prove that It has been operating under the trademark HAITICHILDREN since at least as early as 2015 (Annex 2).
Complainant has also proved to be the owner of the domain name www.haitichildren.org, which was registered on January 23, 2004. (Annex 3).
Complainant also submitted evidence about the continuos use of the trademark HAITICHILDREN to provide care and education to abandoned, orphaned, and disabled children in Haiti (Annex 5).
This Panel finds that the evidences provided is sufficient to establish common law rights. See Laugo Arms USA, LLC v. Mason Century, FA 2099335 (Forum June 19, 2024) (“Common law rights are sufficient to establish rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”). See also See Artistic Pursuit LLC v. calcuttawebdevelopers.com, FA 894477 (Forum Mar. 8, 2007) (finding that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) does not require a trademark registration if a complainant can establish common law rights in its mark).
Complainant previously owned the disputed domain name and used it to operate its website for 20 years—under the name MERCY & SHARING then under the HAITICHILDREN mark. (Annex 6).
The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s HAITICHILDREN mark in its entirely without any other additional element.
This Panel finds that Complainant has proved common law rights on HAITICHILDREN and that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to that trademark.
Respondent argues that the name “Haiti Children” consists of two generic and descriptive terms. However, the Panel finds that such a determination is not necessary under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Retail Royalty Company and AE Direct Co LLC v. Daniel Cormier, FA 1698852 (Forum Nov. 23, 2016) (“While Respondent contends that aeried.com domain is comprised of a common and generic or descriptive term and as such cannot be found to be identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark, the Panel finds that such a determination is not necessary under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) as this portion of the Policy considers only whether Complainant has rights in the mark and whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark.”). See also Precious Puppies of Florida, Inc. v. kc, FA 1028247 (Forum Aug. 10, 2007) (examining Respondent’s generic terms arguments only under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) and Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) and not under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also Vitello v. Castello, FA 159460 (Forum July 1, 2003) (finding that the respondent’s disputed domain name was identical to complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), but later determining the issue of whether the disputed domain name was comprised of generic terms under Policy ¶¶ 4(a)(ii) and 4(a)(iii))”.
The Panel finds that the domain name is identical and confusingly similar to Complainant marks under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Rights or Legitimate Interests
Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and 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 Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also 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.”).
The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the haitichildren.com domain name because Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use the HAITICHILDREN mark. See Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) (“lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant’s mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)”).
In addition, WHOIS information does not suggest that Respondent is named or commonly known by the disputed domain name (Annex 1). This Panel finds that Respondent has never been commonly known by the domain name. See Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Fred Wallace, FA 1626022 (Forum July 27, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the chevron-europe.com domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), as the WHOIS information named “Fred Wallace” as registrant of the disputed domain name).
The evidence submitted by Complainant shows that Respondent’s use of the haitichildren.com domain is not a bona fide offering of goods. (Annex 13). Respondent’s website at the disputed domain name includes Complainant’s photos and trademark of prior websites.
This Panel finds that the purpose of the disputed domain name is to try to show that the disputed domain name is associated with Complainant and that Respondent is not using the domain name in connection with a legitimate noncommercial use or fair use under Policy 4(c)(iii).
Therefore, the Panel agrees that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name does not have legitimate interest under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
The domain registration by Respondent was done in 2025 according to the information available on WHOIS, it is almost ten years after Complainant’s beginning of use of its trademark HAITICHILDREN on which Complainant has proved common law rights (Annexes 1 and 2).
The haitichildren.com domain name was registered by including the exact mark and there are photos and contents of Complainant’s prior websites on Respondent´s website (Annexes 4, 13, 15, 16 and 19). See Nautica Apparel, Inc. v. Web Commerce Communications Limited / Client Care, FA 2084211 (Forum Mar. 26, 2024) (“On the resolving website, Respondent uses the NAUTICA trademarks and images of products bearing NAUTICA trademarks. Respondent has no reason to use the NAUTICA trademarks in the domain names or on the associated website other than to attract internet users to its site for commercial gain. Thus, Respondent is intentionally trying to create a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement.”).
The Panel finds bad faith in these two circumstances.
Despite Respondent’s grounds about lack of bad faith, the copy of images and content which belong to Complainant’s prior websites proves Respondent’s bad faith. (Annex 4 versus Annex, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18 and 19).
Respondent argued that the domain has never been used to impersonate the Complainant and that the domain name remained completely inactive under its ownership. However, according to Annexes 13, 14, 15 and 16 the Panel finds that the domain has been in used and included images and content that had been used by Complainant in the past.
The Panel finds that Respondent has used the disputed domain name to impersonate Complainant.
The Panel determines that Respondent registered and used 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 haitichildren.com domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Héctor Ariel Manoff, Panelist
Dated: November 29, 2025
