Photoshop-Online.com: Famous trademark owner won UDRP

Adobe dominates the suite of tools used by professionals to create images, video, and art. Photoshop is one of the most popular tools by Adobe.

While some reference “photoshop” as an actionable verb and “photoshopped” to indicate the editing or alteration of images, the term is very much trademarked and not at risk of genericide.

Searching for “Photoshop online” in Google returns a series of third party editors, some of which are very good as in-browser alternatives to Photoshop. Photopea, in particular, helps its users retain the muscle memory of using Adobe Photoshop on the desktop.

But none of these, long-established alternatives to Photoshop proclaims to be “Photoshop online” in their domain names. In the case of Photoshop-Online.com, Adobe filed and won a UDRP.

The Panel finds that Respondent uses the photoshop-online.com domain name to divert users to its competing website, disrupting Complainant’s business for its own commercial gain, demonstrating bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Adobe Inc. v. Md. Mizanur Rahmani, FA 2110001968753 (Forum Nov. 5, 2021) (finding bad faith where respondent was taking predatory advantage of complainant’s mark which was readily identifiable in the domain name to divert Internet traffic to respondent’s competing website). The Panel also finds that Respondent registered the photoshop-online.com domain name with knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the PHOTOSHOP mark, based on the fame of the mark and Respondent’s use of the domain name to directly compete with Complainant […]

Final decision: Grant the transfer of the domain Photoshop-Online.com to the Complainant.

Adobe Inc. v. Sufal Pramanik

Claim Number: FA2504002152639

PARTIES

Complainant is Adobe Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Griffin Barnett of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Sufal Pramanik (“Respondent”), Bangladesh.

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is photoshop-online.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.

Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on April 28, 2025; Forum received payment on April 28, 2025.

On April 28, 2025, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the photoshop-online.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 April 29, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 19, 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@photoshop-online.com. Also on April 29, 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 May 20, 2025, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin 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. Respondent’s photoshop-online.com domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s PHOTOSHOP mark.

2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the photoshop-online.com domain name.

3. Respondent registered and uses the photoshop-online.com domain name in bad faith.

B. Respondent did not file a Response.

FINDINGS

Complainant Adobe Inc. holds a registration for the well-known PHOTOSHOP mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 1,850,242, registered August 16, 1994).

Respondent registered the photoshop-online.com domain name on July 25, 2022, and uses it to compete with Complainant.

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

The Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the PHOTOSHOP mark based upon the registration of the mark with the USPTO. See Brooks Sports, Inc. v. Joyce Cheadle, FA 1819065 (Forum Dec. 28, 2018) (finding that Complainant’s registration of the BROOKS mark with the USPTO sufficiently conferred its rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).

Respondent’s photoshop-online.com domain name uses Complainant’s PHOTOSHOP mark and simply adds a hyphen, the word “online” and the “.com” gTLD. These changes do not distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Ant Small and Micro Financial Services Group Co., Ltd. v. Ant Fin, FA 1759326 (Forum Jan. 2, 2018) (“Respondent’s antfinancial-investorrelations.com Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ANT FINANCIAL mark. It incorporates the mark entirely. It adds a hyphen, the descriptive terms “investor relations,” and the “.com” gTLD, but these additions are insufficient to distinguish the Domain name from complainant’s mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”) Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s photoshop-online.com domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s PHOTOSHOP mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Once Complainant makes a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), 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.”)

Complainant argues that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the photoshop-online.com domain name because Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name and is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant’s PHOTOSHOP mark. The WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as “Sufal Pramanik”. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and thus has no rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). 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).

Complainant argues that Respondent is not using the photoshop-online.com domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii), using a disputed domain name to sell competing goods or services is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Invesco Ltd. v. Premanshu Rana, FA 1733167 (Forum July 10, 2017) (“Use of a domain name to divert Internet users to a competing website is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.”) Complainant provides screenshots of the website at the disputed domain name where Respondent offers competing services. The Panel finds that this is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, and thus Respondent has no rights under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).

The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

The Panel finds that Respondent uses the photoshop-online.com domain name to divert users to its competing website, disrupting Complainant’s business for its own commercial gain, demonstrating bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Adobe Inc. v. Md. Mizanur Rahmani, FA 2110001968753 (Forum Nov. 5, 2021) (finding bad faith where respondent was taking predatory advantage of complainant’s mark which was readily identifiable in the domain name to divert Internet traffic to respondent’s competing website).

The Panel also finds that Respondent registered the photoshop-online.com domain name with knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the PHOTOSHOP mark, based on the fame of the mark and Respondent’s use of the domain name to directly compete with Complainant, and finds further bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had “actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark when registering the disputed domain name”); see also iFinex Inc. v. xu shuaiwei, FA 1760249 (Forum Jan. 1, 2018) (“Respondent’s prior knowledge is evident from the notoriety of Complainant’s BITFINEX trademark as well as from Respondent’s use of its trademark laden domain name to direct internet traffic to a website which is a direct competitor of Complainant”).

The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied 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 photoshop-online.com domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist

Dated: May 21, 2025

Copyright © 2025 DomainGang.com · All Rights Reserved.