DECISION

 

EIG Asset Management, LLC v. Sean Patrick / Sean Eyen

Claim Number: FA2506002163071

 

PARTIES

Complainant is EIG Asset Management, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Alberto Zacapa of DLA Piper LLP (US), District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Sean Patrick / Sean Eyen ("Respondent"), Florida, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES 

The domain names at issue are <eigglobaltrust.com> and <eigglobalresources.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.

 

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of her knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

 

Ivett Paulovics as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 27, 2025; Forum received payment on June 27, 2025.

 

On June 30, 2025, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <eigglobaltrust.com> and <eigglobalresources.com> domain names (together the "Disputed Domain Names") are registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, 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 July 2, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 22, 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@eigglobaltrust.com, postmaster@eigglobalresources.com. Also on July 2, 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.

 

A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on July 21, 2025.

 

On July 22, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Ivett Paulovics as Panelist.

 

On July 23, 2025, an Additional Submission was received by Forum from Complainant. On July 24, 2025, an Additional Submission was received by Forum from Respondent.

 

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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the Disputed Domain Names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

Respondent requests dismissal of the Complaint with prejudice.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUES

Multiple Respondents

Although the Disputed Domain Names were registered by individuals listed as "Sean Patrick" and "Sean Eyen," respectively, Respondent submitted his Response as "Sean Patrick Eyen." The Panel therefore finds that "Patrick" is Respondent's middle name. In his Response, Respondent further declared: "I hereby acknowledge that I registered the domains eigglobaltrust.com and eigglobalresources.com on my GoDaddy account on behalf of USA-based EIG Global Trust, a Delaware statutory trust, File # 7558673, registered on 13 July 2023." 

 

On this basis, the Panel finds sufficient evidence of common control and accepts consolidation.

 

Parties' Additional Submissions

Paragraph 12 of the Rules makes clear that it is for the Panel to request, in its sole discretion, any further statements or documents from the parties that it deems necessary. Paragraph 10 of the Rules similarly vests the Panel with the authority to determine the admissibility, relevance, materiality and weight of the evidence, and to conduct the proceedings with due expedition.

 

Panels are generally reluctant to accept unsolicited supplemental filings, unless there are "exceptional circumstances" requiring their admission into evidence. In the present case, the Panel has not requested any additional communications from the parties. Nevertheless, both parties have submitted unsolicited Supplemental Filings. The Panel has reviewed these submissions and finds that none of the circumstances raised can be considered as "exceptional circumstances". On the contrary, they reinforce the Panel's preliminary conclusion that this case involves complex factual and legal issues falling outside the UDRP's limited remit, as discussed in the following section.

 

Dispute outside the scope of the UDRP

The UDRP is intended to provide a remedy for clear-cut cases of abusive domain name registration (i.e., cybersquatting), not to adjudicate complex trademark or business disputes involving competing rights. It is not the appropriate forum for resolving factual disputes over the existence or priority of rights where both parties claim legitimate interests in an acronym used in a domain name. Likewise, addressing or investigating alleged non-compliant, deceptive, or fraudulent financial activities falls outside the UDRP's limited remit and is more appropriately pursued before the competent regulatory or judicial authorities.

 

This limitation is reflected in the WIPO Final Report on the WIPO Internet Domain Name Process, which formed the basis for the Policy ("the scope of the procedure is limited so that it is available only in respect of deliberate, bad faith, abusive domain name registrations or 'cybersquatting' and is not applicable to disputes between parties with competing rights acting in good faith") and in ICANN's Second Staff Report on Implementation Documents for the UDRP ("administrative resolution [is] for only a small, special class of disputes. Except in cases involving 'abusive registrations' made with bad-faith intent to profit commercially from others' trademarks … the adopted policy leaves the resolution of disputes to the courts [or arbitrators where agreed by the parties]…").

 

See also Commercial Publ'g Co. v. EarthComm., Inc., FA 95013 (Forum July 20, 2000), which clarified that: "The adopted policy establishes a streamlined, inexpensive administrative-dispute resolution procedure intended only for the relatively narrow class of cases of "abusive registrations". Thus, the fact that the policy's administrative dispute-resolution procedure does not extend to cases where a registered domain name is subject to a legitimate dispute is a feature of the policy, not a flaw. The policy relegates all "legitimate disputes" to the courts. Only cases of abusive registrations are intended to be subject to the streamline administrative dispute-resolution procedure."

 

In this proceeding, both parties have submitted detailed factual and legal arguments. Complainant relies on its European Union trademark registration for EIG, filed in 2021, and asserts commercial use of the mark since 2012. However, the record contains no documentary evidence substantiating reputation or distinctiveness beyond the registration itself. The mark is a three-letter acronym, and the record shows that similar or identical acronyms are in use by other businesses and are the subject of multiple trademark registrations in various jurisdictions, including pre-existing registrations by third parties.

 

Respondent asserts that the Disputed Domain Names were registered and used on behalf of EIG Global Trust, a Delaware statutory trust incorporated in 2023. The name of this entity corresponds to <eigglobaltrust.com>, while <eigglobalresources.com> incorporates "EIG Global" with the addition of the descriptive term "resources." Complainant has not provided evidence disproving the existence of the trust or showing that Respondent's explanation of the acronym's origin is false.

 

Complainant also raises allegations concerning Respondent's regulatory status, business practices, and the plausibility of certain financial claims made on the associated website. Respondent disputes these allegations and asserts that third-party materials relied upon by Complainant are unrelated. The record contains no independent verification of either party's claims in this regard, and some assertions relate to matters—such as compliance with financial regulation—that fall outside the scope of the Policy.

 

The parties also refer to pre-complaint interactions involving individuals allegedly connected with Respondent, but no contemporaneous correspondence or documentary evidence of these exchanges has been submitted.

 

In light of these circumstances, the Panel considers that the dispute raises substantial issues of trademark law (including the strength and scope of Complainant's rights in the acronym EIG, coexistence of third-party rights, and potential concurrent good-faith use), factual disputes requiring cross-examination or discovery, and allegations of regulatory non-compliance. These are matters that cannot be effectively resolved on the limited, document-only record available in UDRP proceedings.

 

On the evidence presented, the Panel is not persuaded that this is a straightforward case of cybersquatting. Rather, it appears to involve a complex factual and legal dispute in which both parties assert plausible claims to the use of the acronym EIG. Such disputes are more appropriately addressed in a court of competent jurisdiction or another forum equipped to hear evidence, test credibility, and determine rights on a full record.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant is a global investment firm founded in 1982, specializing in energy and infrastructure investments. It operates its official website at <eigpartners.com>, which it states is central to its business and serves as a source identifier for clients.

 

Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations worldwide for the mark EIG, used in connection with investment advisory and financial services since at least 2012. Its portfolio includes European Union trademark registration no. 018409271 for EIG, filed in 2021. Complainant states that it invests substantial resources annually to promote its marks and has never authorized Respondent to use them or to register any domain name containing them.

 

The named registrants of the Disputed Domain Names are "Sean Patrick" and "Sean Eyen." According to Complainant, WHOIS privacy initially obscured these details, which were later disclosed. Complainant submits that the Disputed Domain Names are under common control, as <eigglobaltrust.com> hosts a website for EIG Global Trust and <eigglobalresources.com> redirects to that website.

 

According to Complainant, Respondent claims to operate a digital financial firm offering asset management, investment banking, and other services, as well as a proprietary cryptocurrency called "EIG Bank Coin," described on the website as backed by USD 5 trillion in gold and other assets. Complainant asserts that these claims are implausible and unsupported.

 

Complainant states that it first became aware of Respondent in April 2024 when an individual claiming to be the CEO of a Brazilian subsidiary of EIG Global Trust contacted it via LinkedIn. Complainant reports that attempts to contact Respondent directly or through intermediaries were unsuccessful, including emails that were returned undeliverable. Complainant also contacted an individual, Chris Paget, whom it believed to be linked to EIG Global Trust UK via LinkedIn. Complainant states that Mr. Paget denied any affiliation, although it refers to other online content suggesting otherwise.

 

Complainant further contends that Respondent is not registered with financial regulators in the United States or the United Kingdom, that links to key documents on its website are inaccessible, and that certain third-party reviews have described Respondent as high-risk and potentially fraudulent.

 

On the first element of the Policy, Complainant submits that the Disputed Domain Names incorporate its EIG mark in full, with only the addition of descriptive terms such as "global," "trust," and "resources," which does not avoid a finding of confusing similarity.

 

On the second element, Complainant argues that Respondent is neither affiliated with nor authorized by it, and that use of the EIG mark in connection with financial services is infringing. Complainant contends that Respondent is trading on its goodwill and that the activities described are connected to deceptive or illegal schemes, which cannot constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial use.

 

On the third element, Complainant argues that Respondent had actual or constructive knowledge of its EIG marks, given their alleged distinctive nature and global reputation, and that Respondent's registration and use of the Disputed Domain Names in the financial sector was intended to create a false association with Complainant for commercial gain. Complainant points to factors such as the redirection between the Disputed Domain Names, the concealment of ownership, the absence of verifiable business information, the financial claims made on the website, and the lack of regulatory registration as evidence of bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent disputes Complainant's factual assertions and denies that the Disputed Domain Names infringe Complainant's EIG mark. Respondent asserts that "EIG" is not a unique or inherently distinctive term but a common set of initials used by numerous companies in various industries, including multiple entities in Class 36 (financial services).

 

Respondent states that Complainant's name, "EIG Asset Management," is derived from the words "Energy & Infrastructure Group" and that Complainant holds no registered rights in the EIG word mark in the United States. It refers to USPTO records, stating that there are 42 live U.S. word marks for "EIG," none owned by Complainant, and that the registration in Class 36 belongs to Ellenbecker Investment Group, Inc. Respondent argues that Complainant lacks standing under the Policy and is attempting to obtain the Disputed Domain Names without proper basis.

 

Respondent states that the Disputed Domain Names were registered on behalf of a Delaware statutory trust, EIG Global Trust, formed in July 2023 and operating in the digital currency sector. It describes its business as focused on stablecoins pegged to the U.S. dollar for use by central and commercial banks in multiple jurisdictions, distinct from Complainant's investment activities in the energy sector. It states that it has never attempted to imitate Complainant's name, logo, or business model, has not been confused with Complainant by clients, and does not wish to be associated with it. According to Respondent, the acronym "EIG" in its name is derived from the names of three trustee entities—Espiris Group, In-Touch Capital, and Genesis.

 

In response to Complainant's claims of concealment or lack of legitimacy, Respondent states that it uses domain privacy services as a common practice, maintains an "About Us" page listing management, and has engaged an independent auditor to conduct security audits of its products. Respondent disputes Complainant's reliance on third-party reviews, stating that they concern unrelated entities, and rejects allegations of fraudulent or bad-faith conduct.

 

On the first element, Respondent argues that Complainant does not hold rights in the EIG word mark in the United States, that "EIG" is widely used, and that the inclusion of "global trust" and "global resources" distinguishes the Disputed Domain Names.

 

On the second element, Respondent asserts that it is a legitimate, lawfully formed business using the Disputed Domain Names in connection with bona fide services in a separate industry, without intent to trade on Complainant's goodwill.

 

On the third element, Respondent denies any intent to mislead or exploit Complainant's reputation, notes that <eigglobalresources.com> is not actively used, and states that it has minimal search visibility for "EIG," showing no diversion of traffic.

 

Respondent requests that the Complaint be denied, arguing that a transfer of the Disputed Domain Names would set an adverse precedent for other businesses using "EIG" in good faith.

 

C. Additional Submissions

Complainant's Supplemental Filing

Complainant alleges that Respondent altered its website after the UDRP Complaint was filed in order to mislead the Panel. It states that when the proceedings began, there was no "About Us" page, and that this page—listing leadership names and contact details—was added afterward along with other changes, such as a revised logo. Complainant notes that Chris Paget is listed as Trustee and CEO despite having previously denied affiliation. Complainant argues these changes undermine Respondent's claim of longstanding transparency and support its assertion of bad faith. It also reiterates that its reliance on an EU trademark makes the absence of U.S. trademark rights irrelevant under the Policy.

 

Respondent's Supplemental Filing

Respondent denies making changes to mislead the Panel, stating that the redesign was part of a planned update and that gold accents were added to the logo for branding reasons. It states that the information in the new "About Us" page was previously available in other materials, and that some personnel names had already appeared in audit reports. Respondent denies that Mr. Paget's statements indicated a lack of involvement and asserts that Complainant misrepresented his position. Respondent reiterates that multiple "EIG" trademarks exist and that Complainant's rights do not entitle it to exclusive worldwide control over the acronym.

 

FINDINGS

The following findings are made for procedural completeness; they do not affect the Panel's threshold conclusion above that the dispute lies outside the UDRP's limited scope.

 

Complainant is a Delaware corporation specializing in energy and infrastructure investments, with activities including the provision of capital to companies in sectors such as oil and gas, renewables, and power generation. Public records from the Division of Corporations of the Department of State of the State of Delaware indicate that Complainant was incorporated on May 26, 2010.

 

Complainant holds European Union Trademark Registration No. 018409271 for the word mark EIG, filed on February 26, 2021 and registered on June 24, 2021 in Class 36 for "Investment advisory and financial services for companies and projects in the energy, oil and gas, midstream, infrastructure, power and renewables sectors."

 

Respondent is identified in the record as a licensed certified public accountant in Florida.

 

The domain names <eigglobaltrust.com> and <eigglobalresources.com> were registered on July 24, 2023 and December 15, 2023, respectively. At the time of the filing of the Complaint, both domain names resolved to an active website promoting a cryptocurrency identified as "EIG Bank Coin." Following the filing of the Complaint, Respondent made changes to the website, including adding sections, text, and documents.

 

Public records indicate that EIG Global Trust is a Delaware statutory trust incorporated on July 13, 2023.

 

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.

 

The burden of proof rests with Complainant. The applicable standard in proceedings under the Policy is the balance of probabilities.

 

For the reasons set out in the Preliminary Issues above, the Panel finds that this dispute falls outside the limited scope of the UDRP. The Panel therefore declines to make findings on the elements set out in Paragraph 4(a)(i)–(iii) of the Policy. The Complaint is therefore dismissed without prejudice.

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Not determined.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Not determined.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Not determined.

 

DECISION

Having not established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <eigglobaltrust.com> and <eigglobalresources.com> domain names REMAIN WITH Respondent.

 

 

 

Ivett Paulovics, Panelist

Dated: August 11, 2025