DECISION

 

Warburg Pincus & Co. v. Aryanna Sunn / Lilliem Kolp

Claim Number: FA2404002092837

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Warburg Pincus & Co. ("Complainant"), United States, represented by Eric J. Shimanoff of Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C., United States. Respondent is Aryanna Sunn and Lilliem Kolp ("Respondents"), Indonesia.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES 

The domain names at issue are <warburgpincus-stellar.com> and <stellar-warburgpincus.com>, registered with NameCheap, Inc.

 

PANEL

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 E. Sorkin as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on April 11, 2024; Forum received payment on April 11, 2024.

 

On April 12, 2024, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by email to Forum that the <warburgpincus-stellar.com> and <stellar-warburgpincus.com> domain names are registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondents Aryanna Sunn and Lilliem Kolp, respectively, are the current registrants of the names. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondents are bound by the NameCheap, Inc. registration agreement and have 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 15, 2024, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 6, 2024 by which Respondents could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondents' registrations as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@warburgpincus-stellar.com and postmaster@stellar-warburgpincus.com. Also on April 15, 2024, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondents of the email addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondents via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondents' registrations as technical, administrative, and billing contacts.

 

Having received no response from Respondents, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On May 7, 2024, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed David E. Sorkin 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[s]" 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 Respondents.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondents to Complainant.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE RESPONDENTS

Complainant alleges that the disputed domain names are effectively under the control of a single entity operating under several aliases. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") provides that a "complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder."

 

Complainant notes that the disputed domain names are nearly identical to one another; that they previously resolved or redirected to the same website; that they were both used as part of a single concerted scheme to impersonate Complainant; and that they were registered with the same registrar within two days of one another, in both instances using registrant addresses in Indonesia.

 

The Panel considers it appropriate to treat the disputed domain names as being under the common control of a single person or entity (hereinafter "Respondent"). See, e.g., Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Lopz232 morriss / LaQuinta Inn / Rashid Mustafa / David Kallusky, FA 2066467 (Forum Nov. 14, 2023) (treating domain names as being under common control in similar circumstances).

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant and its related and affiliated entities, licensees, and predecessors in interest have used the WARBURG PINCUS name and mark for decades to identify themselves as the source of private investment services, management of private equity funds, and other financial services. Complainant was founded in 1966; its funds have invested more than $110 billion in over 1,000 companies in more than 40 countries. Complainant is headquartered in New York and has offices in Hong Kong, Shanghai, and other locations around the world. Complainant owns longstanding trademark registrations for WARBURG PINCUS in the United States and other jurisdictions.

 

The disputed domain names <warburgpincus-stellar.com> and <stellar-warburgpincus.com> were registered in February 2024. ("Stellar" is an open-source blockchain protocol for cryptocurrency transactions.) The domain names were registered in the name of a privacy registration service on behalf of Respondent. The <warburgpincus-stellar.com> domain name currently displays a blank page; the <stellar-warburgpincus.com> does not resolve. Complainant states that <warburgpincus-stellar.com> is blocked by a fraud warning, and alleges that it has been used to impersonate Complainant in an attempt to phish for client information or to provide fake investment opportunities. Complainant states further that <stellar-warburgpincus.com> previously resolved to the same website as <warburgpincus-stellar.com>. Complainant also offers evidence that Respondent has used the <warburgpincus-stellar.com> domain name to impersonate Complainant on Telegram channels and Stellar trading platforms. Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain names, has no relationship with Complainant, and is not authorized to use Complainant's mark.

 

Complainant contends on the above grounds that each of the disputed domain names <warburgpincus-stellar.com> and <stellar-warburgpincus.com> is confusingly similar to its WARBURG PINCUS mark; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names; and that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The Panel finds that each of the disputed domain names is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; and that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used 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 Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, § 4.3 (3d ed. 2017), available at http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (dismissing complaint where complainant failed to "produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations").

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Each of the disputed domain names <warburgpincus-stellar.com> and <stellar-warburgpincus.com> incorporates Complainant's registered WARBURG PINCUS trademark, omitting the space and adding a hyphen, the term "Stellar" (a blockchain protocol), and the ".com" top-level domain. These alterations do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain names and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., Bridgewater Associates, LP v. Istrati Sergiu, FA 2093737 (Forum May 10, 2024) (finding <bridgewater-stellar.com> confusingly similar to BRIDGEWATER); Blackstone TM L.L.C. v. Muhamad Alfarizi, FA 2091479 (Forum Apr. 26, 2024) (finding <blackstone-stellar.com> confusingly similar to BLACKSTONE); Warburg Pincus & Co. v. Guan Wang, FA 2069627 (Forum Nov. 28, 2023) (finding <warburgpincus.live> and <warburgpincus.online> confusingly similar to WARBURG PINCUS); Warburg Pincus & Co. v. Sinopac, FA 2063792 (Forum Oct. 19, 2023) (finding <warburgpincus.xyz> identical to WARBURG PINCUS). The Panel considers each of the disputed domain names to be confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Under the Policy, the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, and then the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc. v. Entertainment Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).

 

The disputed domain names incorporate Complainant's registered mark without authorization. Their only apparent use has been to pass off as Complainant in connection with what the Panel infers to be a fraudulent scheme. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., Blackstone TM L.L.C. v. Muhamad Alfarizi, supra (finding lack of rights or interests in similar circumstances); Warburg Pincus & Co. v. Guan Wang, supra (same).

 

Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of such rights or interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered a domain name "primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor." Under paragraph 4(b)(iv), bad faith may be shown by evidence that "by using the domain name, [Respondent] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent's] web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [Respondent's] web site or location or of a product or service on [Respondent's] web site or location."

 

Respondent used a privacy registration service and what the Panel infers to be at least partially fictitious underlying registration information to register two domain names incorporating Complainant's registered mark, and has used the domain names to pass off as Complainant for fraudulent purposes. Such circumstances are indicative of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See, e.g., Bridgewater Associates, LP v. Istrati Sergiu, supra (finding bad faith registration and use in similar circumstances); Blackstone TM L.L.C. v. Muhamad Alfarizi, supra (same); Warburg Pincus & Co. v. Guan Wang, supra (same). The Panel so finds.

 

DECISION

Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <warburgpincus-stellar.com> and <stellar-warburgpincus.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

David E. Sorkin, Panelist

Dated: May 12, 2024