Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC v. Suspended Domain
Claim Number: FA2012001924477
Complainant is Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Nathaniel St. Clair, II of Jackson Walker LLP, Texas, USA. Respondent is Suspended Domain (“Respondent”), Panama.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <goldmansachsinc.us>, registered with NameCheap, Inc..
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
David A. Einhorn appointed as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on December 10, 2020; the Forum received payment on December 10, 2020.
On December 11, 2020, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <goldmansachsinc.us> 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 the U.S. Department of Commerce’s usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On December 22, 2020, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 11, 2021 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@goldmansachsinc.us. Also on December 22, 2020, 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, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On January 14, 2021, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed David A. Einhorn as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the “Panel”) finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules to the usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy (“Rules”). Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the usTLD Policy, usTLD Rules, the Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant provides banking, investment, and financial services to individuals and entities throughout the world. Complainant has rights in the GOLDMAN SACHS mark through its multiple registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). (e.g. Reg. 1,975,880, registered May 28, 1996; Reg. 1,985,196, registered July 9, 1996). Respondent’s <goldmansachsinc.us> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as it incorporates the mark in its entirety and adds the generic corporate acronym “inc”, along with the “.us” country code top-level domain (“ccTLD”).
Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <goldmansachsinc.us> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name.
Respondent registered or uses the <goldmansachsinc.us> domain name in bad faith. Respondent disrupts Complainant’s business for commercial gain as it appears to be preparing to pass off as Complainant’s CEO and commit fraud with the disputed domain name. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the mark at the time of registration.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a response in this proceeding. The Panel notes that the <goldmansachsinc.us> domain name was registered on Oct. 12, 2020.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted 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 or is being used in bad faith.
Given the similarity between the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP”) and the usTLD Policy, the Panel will draw upon UDRP precedent as applicable in rendering its decision.
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”).
Complainant claims rights in the GOLDMAN SACHS mark through its multiple registrations with the USPTO. (e.g. Reg. 1,975,880, registered May 28, 1996; Reg. 1,985,196, registered July 9, 1996). Registration with the USPTO is generally sufficient in establishing rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Haas Automation, Inc. v. Jim Fraser, FA 1627211 (Forum Aug. 4, 2015) (finding that Complainant’s USPTO registrations for the HAAS mark sufficiently demonstrate its rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant argues that Respondent’s <goldmansachsinc.us> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Respondent’s GOLDMAN SACHS mark. Adding the generic corporate acronym “inc”, along with the “.us” ccTLD is generally insufficient in differentiating a disputed domain name from the mark it incorporates under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Magnum Piering, Inc. v. Mudjackers, D2000-1525 (WIPO Jan. 29, 2001) (finding that the generic term “INC” does not change the confusing similarity); see also Am. Express Co. v. McWIlliam, FA 268423 (Forum July 6, 2004) (holding that the ccTLD “.us” does not negate confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s GOLDMAN SACHS mark in its entirety and adds the generic acronym “inc”, as well the “.us” ccTLD. Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant argues that Respondent is not commonly known by the <goldmansachsinc.us> domain name, nor has Complainant authorized or licensed Respondent to use its GOLDMAN SACHS mark in the disputed domain name. Under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii), where a response is lacking, relevant WHOIS information may demonstrate that a Respondent is not commonly known by a disputed domain name, and lack of evidence demonstrating authorization may demonstrate that Respondent does not have permission to use a mark in a disputed domain name. See Deutsche Lufthansa AG v. Mohamed elkassaby, FA 1801815 (Forum Sept. 17, 2018) (“The WHOIS lists “Mohamed elkassaby” as registrant of record. Coupled with Complainant’s unrebutted assertions as to absence of any affiliation between the parties, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name. . . .”). Complainant provides copies of the present and former WHOIS information, which first named the domain name registrant as “David M. Solomon” (the name of Complainant’s CEO), and is now known as “Suspended Domain”. Complainant contends that after an internal investigation, it determined that Complainant’s CEO did not authorize or register the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).
The Panel further agrees that there is nothing in the available evidence which indicates that Respondent has rights in a mark identical to the disputed domain name, which would serve to satisfy Policy ¶ 4(c)(i). See Pepsico, Inc. v. Becky, FA 117014 (Forum Sept. 3, 2002) (holding that because the respondent did not own any trademarks or service marks reflecting the <pepsicola.us> domain name, it had no rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i)). Therefore, this Panel concludes that Respondent has failed Policy ¶ 4(c)(i).
Thus, Complainant has also established Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant argues that Respondent registered or uses the <goldmansachsinc.us> domain name in bad faith by disrupting Complainant’s business for commercial gain. Using a disputed domain name to pass off as a complainant may be considered bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). See Chevron Intellectual Property, LLC v. Jack Brooks, FA 1635967 (Forum Oct. 6, 2015) (finding that Respondent’s use of <chevron-corps.com> to impersonate an executive of Complainant in emails is in opposition to Complainant and is therefore in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)); see also Smiths Group plc v. Snooks, FA 1372112 (Forum Mar. 18, 2011) (finding that the respondent’s attempt to impersonate an employee of the complainant was evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)). Complainant provides a copy of the WHOIS information for the disputed domain name, which featured an email address of <DavidMSolomon@goldmansachsinc.us>. Complainant argues that Respondent likely registered the disputed domain name to perpetuate fraud. The name “David M Solomon” is the name of Complainant’s CEO. Therefore, Complainant suspects that Respondent intended to use the disputed domain name to pass itself off as Complainant through emails and/or the resolving webpage. The Panel agrees, and finds that Respondent registered the disputed domain name for bad faith disruption for commercial gain under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv).
Complainant argues that Respondent registered the <goldmansachsinc.us> in bad faith, as it had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the GOLDMAN SACHS mark. Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii), actual knowledge is generally sufficient in establishing bad faith, and may be demonstrated by the incorporation of a widely known or registered mark into a disputed domain name. See AutoZone Parts, Inc. v. Ken Belden, FA 1815011 (Forum Dec. 24, 2018) (“Complainant contends that Respondent’s knowledge can be presumed in light of the substantial fame and notoriety of the AUTOZONE mark, as well as the fact that Complainant is the largest retailer in the field. The Panel here finds that Respondent did have actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark, demonstrating bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”). Complainant argues that actual knowledge is clear based upon the disputed domain name’s incorporation of Complainant’s registered and widely known GOLDMAN SACHS mark. The Panel agrees that actual knowledge is evident, and finds that Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) for this reason as well.
Therefore, Complainant has also satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the usTLD Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <goldmansachsinc.us> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David A. Einhorn Panelist
Dated: January 29, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page