DECISION

 

The Vanguard Group, Inc. v. Nikita Bykadarov / Backlinkswappers, inc.

Claim Number: FA2501002137458

PARTIES

Complainant is The Vanguard Group, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Jacob Bishop of The Vanguard Group, Inc., Pennsylvania, USA. Respondent is Nikita Bykadarov / Backlinkswappers, inc. ("Respondent"), California, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES 

The domain names at issue are <vanguardbizlend.com>, <vanguardbizfunds.com>, <vanguardbizloans.com>, <vanguardpathadvisors.com>, <vanguardhavenfunding.com>, <vanguardlegacyadvisors.com>, <vanguardtrustsolutions.com>, <vanguardsuccessfunding.com>, <vanguardlegacyfundinghq.com> and <vanguardlegacyfunding.com> (collectively "Domain Names"), registered with Dynadot 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.

 

Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

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

 

On January 29, 2025, Dynadot Inc confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <vanguardbizlend.com>, <vanguardbizfunds.com>, <vanguardbizloans.com>, <vanguardpathadvisors.com>, <vanguardhavenfunding.com>, <vanguardlegacyadvisors.com>, <vanguardtrustsolutions.com>, <vanguardsuccessfunding.com>, <vanguardlegacyfundinghq.com> and <vanguardlegacyfunding.com> domain names are registered with Dynadot Inc and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Dynadot Inc has verified that Respondent is bound by the Dynadot 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 January 29, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 18, 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@vanguardbizlend.com, postmaster@vanguardbizfunds.com, postmaster@vanguardbizloans.com, postmaster@vanguardpathadvisors.com, postmaster@vanguardhavenfunding.com, postmaster@vanguardlegacyadvisors.com, postmaster@vanguardtrustsolutions.com, postmaster@vanguardsuccessfunding.com, postmaster@vanguardlegacyfundinghq.com, postmaster@vanguardlegacyfunding.com. Also on January 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 February 19, 2024, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Nicholas J.T. Smith 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 Names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant is one of the world's largest investment companies, with more than 50 million investors in about 170 countries and total assets under management of approximately $10.1 trillion as of September 30, 2024. Complainant has rights in the VANGUARD mark through Complainant's registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (e.g. Reg. No. 1,784,435, registered July 27, 1993). The domain names <vanguardbizlend.com>, <vanguardbizfunds.com>, <vanguardbizloans.com>, <vanguardpathadvisors.com>, <vanguardhavenfunding.com>, <vanguardlegacyadvisors.com>, <vanguardtrustsolutions.com>, <vanguardsuccessfunding.com>, <vanguardlegacyfundinghq.com> and <vanguardlegacyfunding.com> are confusingly similar to the VANGUARD mark as they wholly incorporate the VANGUARD mark and add the various generic or descriptive financial services terms along with a generic top-level domain ("gTLD").

 

Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the Domain Names. Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Names, nor has Complainant authorized or licensed Respondent to use its VANGUARD mark in the Domain Names. Respondent does not use the Domain Names for any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor any legitimate noncommercial or fair use, but instead the Domain Names resolve to a website ("Respondent's Website") at www.suddenfunds.com which offers competing financial services under the SUDDEN FUNDS mark. Moreover, the Respondent's Website is subject to a significant number of online complaints suggesting that it is in fact a scam site that does not provide the financial services promised.

 

Respondent registered and uses the Domain Names in bad faith. The Domain Names resolve to the Respondent's Website where Respondent either offers competing financial services or commits fraud on visitors. Respondent registered the Domain Names with knowledge of Complainant's rights in the VANGUARD mark.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant holds trademark rights for the VANGUARD mark. Each of the Domain Names is confusingly similar to the VANGUARD mark. Complainant has established that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names and that Respondent registered and has used the Domain Names 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 has rights in the VANGUARD mark through registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 1,784,435, registered July 27, 1993). Registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently confers a complainant's rights in a mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Target Brands, Inc. v. jennifer beyer, FA 1738027 (Forum July 31, 2017) ("Complainant has rights in its TARGET service mark for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) by virtue of its registration of the mark with a national trademark authority, the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO").").

 

The Panel finds that each of the Domain Names is confusingly similar to the VANGUARD mark as they each incorporate the VANGUARD mark and add a set of generic or descriptive terms or abbreviations and a gTLD. Addition of generic or descriptive terms and a gTLD to a trademark is generally insufficient to negate confusing similarity between a domain name and a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognisable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element."); see also Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (finding top-level domains are irrelevant for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant alleges that Respondent holds no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names. In order for Complainant to succeed under this element, it must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the Domain Names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006) and AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Forum Sept. 25, 2006) ("Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names."). The Panel holds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case.

 

Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names as Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Names, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the VANGUARD mark. Respondent has no relationship, affiliation, connection, endorsement or association with Complainant. WHOIS information can help support a finding that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, especially where a privacy service has been engaged. See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Dale Anderson, FA1504001613011 (Forum May 21, 2015) (concluding that because the WHOIS record lists "Dale Anderson" as the registrant of the disputed domain name, the respondent was not commonly known by the <statefarmforum.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)); see also Kohler Co. v. Privacy Service, FA1505001621573 (Forum July 2, 2015) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) where "Privacy Service" was listed as the registrant of the disputed domain name). The WHOIS lists "Nikita Bykadarov / Backlinkswappers, inc." as the registrant of record. Coupled with Complainant's unrebutted assertions as to absence of any affiliation or authorization between the parties, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Names in accordance with Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

The Domain Names presently resolve to the Respondent's Website where Respondent purportedly offers financial services in direct competition with Complainant. The use of a confusingly similar domain name to redirect to a competing website does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the name under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See General Motors LLC v. MIKE LEE, FA 1659965 (Forum Mar. 10, 2016) (finding that "use of a domain to sell products and/or services that compete directly with a complainant's business does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).").

 

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

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

The Panel finds on the balance of probabilities that, at the time of registration of the Domain Names, between July and November 2024, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's VANGUARD mark. The Complainant has developed a significant reputation in its VANGUARD mark in the almost 50 years since it commenced offering its services. Furthermore, it is improbable that a party would register 10 domain names containing the VANGUARD mark and words describing the services offered by the Complainant and use them to offer competing financial services in the absence of any awareness of the VANGUARD mark. In the absence of rights or legitimate interests of its own this demonstrates registration in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

The Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the Domain Names in bad faith as Respondent uses the Domain Names to redirect Internet users to Respondent's own website where Respondent purports to offer financial services in direct competition with Complainant. Using a confusingly similar domain name to divert Internet users to a respondent's competing website can show bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See ZIH Corp. v. ou yang lin q, FA1761403 (Forum Dec. 29, 2017) (finding bad faith where the respondent used the infringing domain name to disrupt the complainant's business by diverting Internet users from the complainant's website to the respondent's website where it offered competing printer products).  Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and used the Domain Names in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).

 

The Panel finds 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 <vanguardbizlend.com>, <vanguardbizfunds.com>, <vanguardbizloans.com>, <vanguardpathadvisors.com>, <vanguardhavenfunding.com>, <vanguardlegacyadvisors.com>, <vanguardtrustsolutions.com>, <vanguardsuccessfunding.com>, <vanguardlegacyfundinghq.com> and <vanguardlegacyfunding.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Nicholas J.T. Smith, Panelist

Dated: February 20, 2025