DECISION

 

The Vanguard Group, Inc. v. Maria Silva

Claim Number: FA2412002128709

 

PARTIES

Complainant is The Vanguard Group, Inc. ("Complainant"), United States, represented by Jacob Bishop of The Vanguard Group, Inc., United States. Respondent is Maria Silva ("Respondent"), United States.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <vanguardoffshore.com>, registered with Porkbun LLC.

 

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 December 10, 2024; Forum received payment on December 10, 2024.

 

On December 10, 2024, Porkbun LLC confirmed by email to Forum that the <vanguardoffshore.com> domain name is registered with Porkbun LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Porkbun LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Porkbun 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 December 12, 2024, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 2, 2025 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@vanguardoffshore.com. Also on December 12, 2024, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email 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 January 3, 2025, 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" 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

Complainant is a financial services firm that provides products or services to more than 50 million investors in over 170 countries, with approximately $10.1 trillion in assets under management. Complainant has used the VANGUARD mark in connection with its products and services since 1975. In October 2023, Complainant publicly announced its plans to open an office in Miami, Florida, that would cater to investors wishing to place assets in offshore investments. Complainant has hundreds of thousands of followers on various social media platforms, and states that it generally spends at least $100 million per year on advertising and marketing the VANGUARD brand worldwide. Complainant owns trademark registrations for VANGUARD, in standard character form and otherwise, in the United States and many other jurisdictions throughout the world, and also asserts common law rights in the VANGUARD mark. Complainant claims that the VANGUARD mark has become famous as a result of Complainant's extensive global use and promotion of the mark and the commercial success of Complainant's products and services. 

 

The disputed domain name <vanguardoffshore.com> was registered in August 2024. The name is registered in the name of a privacy registration service on behalf of Respondent. Until recently the domain name was being used for a website entitled "VANGUARD OFFSHORE" that purported to provide investment advisory services. The domain name currently does not resolve to a website. Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name and is not authorized to use Complainant's mark.

 

Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <vanguardoffshore.com> is confusingly similar to its VANGUARD mark; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is 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/; UDRP Perspectives on Recent Jurisprudence, §§ 0.2, 0.8 (updated Dec. 18, 2024), available at https://udrpperspectives.org/; 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

The disputed domain name <vanguardoffshore.com> incorporates Complainant's registered VANGUARD trademark, adding the generic term "offshore" and the ".com" top-level domain. These additions do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., The Vanguard Group, Inc. v. Godfrey Benjamin, FA 2108422 (Forum Aug. 20, 2024) (finding <crypto-vanguard.com> confusingly similar to VANGUARD); The Vanguard Group, Inc. v. Bryan Davis, FA 2072705 (Forum Dec. 22, 2023) (finding <vanguardcapitalltd.com> confusingly similar to VANGUARD); Capital One Financial Corp. v. CAPO OFFSHORE / capitaloneoffshore, FA 1599896 (Forum Feb. 26, 2015) (finding <capitaloneoffshore.com> confusingly similar to CAPITAL ONE); Morgan Stanley v. MSOB c/o James, FA 1418178 (Forum Jan. 18, 2012) (finding <morganstanleyoffshore.com> confusingly similar to MORGAN STANLEY). The Panel considers the disputed domain name 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 name, 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 name incorporates Complainant's registered mark without authorization. Its sole apparent use has been for a misleading website that attempted to pass off as Complainant and offered or purported to offer directly competing services. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., The Vanguard Group, Inc. v. Rick Taylor, FA 2078481 (Forum Feb. 2, 2024) (finding lack of rights or interests in similar circumstances); The Vanguard Group, Inc. v. Bryan Davis, supra (same).

 

Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, 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 name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered the disputed 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 appears to the Panel to be at least partially fictitious underlying registration information to register a domain name incorporating Complainant's mark, and has used the domain name for a misleading website that attempted to pass off as Complainant and offered or purported to offer directly competing services. Such circumstances are indicative of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See, e.g., The Vanguard Group, Inc. v. Godfrey Benjamin, supra (finding bad faith registration and use in similar circumstances); The Vanguard Group, Inc. v. Rick Taylor, supra (same); The Vanguard Group, Inc. v. Bryan Davis, 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 <vanguardoffshore.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

David E. Sorkin, Panelist

Dated: January 9, 2025