DECISION

 

The Bank of New York Mellon v. JULIAN AREY

Claim Number: FA2508002173189

 

PARTIES

Complainant is The Bank of New York Mellon ("Complainant"), United States, represented by Johanna Schmitt of Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, United States. Respondent is JULIAN AREY ("Respondent"), United States.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <bnybankingservice.com>, registered with Gandi SAS.

 

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 August 22, 2025; Forum received payment on August 22, 2025.

 

On August 25, 2025, Gandi SAS confirmed by email to Forum that the <bnybankingservice.com> domain name is registered with Gandi SAS and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Gandi SAS has verified that Respondent is bound by the Gandi SAS 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 August 26, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 15, 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@bnybankingservice.com. Also on August 26, 2025, 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 September 16, 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 global financial services and investments company that was established in 1784. Complainant has used BNY in connection with its financial and investment services since at least 2006, and asserts that BNY is regularly ranked among the most well-known banking brands. Complainant owns trademark registrations for BNY and related marks in jurisdictions around the world, including a longstanding United States registration for BNY in standard character form.

 

The disputed domain name <bnybankingservice.com> was registered in December 2024. The name is registered to Respondent, although Respondent's identity is redacted from the public domain name registration record. The domain name does not resolve to a website. Complainant asserts that "Respondent is using the domain name to impersonate Complainant and defraud Complainant's clients and affiliates, who believe they are dealing with Complainant," and that "Respondent has been using @bnybankingservice.com email addresses, including <info@bnybankingservice.com>, to send Complainant's clients and affiliates fraudulent emails impersonating Complainant." Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name, has no relationship with Complainant, and is not authorized to use Complainant's mark.

 

Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <bnybankingservice.com> is confusingly similar to its BNY 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 June 2, 2025), 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 <bnybankingservice.com> incorporates Complainant's registered BNY trademark, adding the generic terms "banking" and "service," 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., Bank of New York Mellon v. Kilman Kim, D2024-2604 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2024) (finding <bnybank.com> confusingly similar to BNY); Bank of New York Mellon v. Host Master, Transure Enterprise Ltd, D2024-1269 (WIPO May 16, 2024) (finding <bnywealth.com> confusingly similar to BNY); Early Warning Services, LLC v. Zelle Pay et al., D2023-2025 (WIPO Aug. 2, 2023) (finding <zellebankingservice.com> confusingly similar to ZELLE). 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. The domain name does not correspond to Respondent's name nor to any other information in the domain name registration record. There is no evidence that Respondent has made any active use of the domain name, nor engaged in preparations for such use, suggesting that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. See, e.g., Health Catalyst, Inc. v. Javid Henry, FA 2158701 (Forum July 1, 2025) (finding lack of rights or interests in similar circumstances); 7-Eleven, Inc. v. Grace Chichipa / 7eleven, FA 2158965 (Forum June 27, 2025) (same); Blink Health Inc. v. Asif Khan / BlinkRXhealth, FA 2156708 (Forum June 17, 2025) (same); Early Warning Services, LLC v. Zelle Pay et al., supra (same).

 

The Panel disregards Complainant's allegations regarding Respondent's use of the domain name, since Complainant failed to provide any evidence to support these allegations. The Complaint includes the required certification, signed by outside counsel, that the information it contains "is to the best of Complainant's knowledge complete and accurate." However, Complainant could easily have supported its allegations with redacted copies of email correspondence or other appropriate documentation.

 

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)(i) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that a domain name was acquired "primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of [Respondent's] documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name." Under paragraph 4(b)(iii), 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 incomplete and possibly fictitious contact information to register a domain name incorporating Complainant's well-known registered mark. There is no evidence that Respondent has made any active use of the domain name, nor engaged in preparations for such use, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any explanation for the selection of the name or its intended use. Under the circumstances, the Panel considers it reasonable to infer that Respondent registered the domain name intending to use it in a manner calculated to create and exploit confusion with Complainant and its mark, likely either by using the domain name to attract or defraud Internet users seeking Complainant or by selling the domain name to Complainant or a competitor, and that Respondent is maintaining the domain name for that purpose. See, e.g., Health Catalyst, Inc. v. Javid Henry, supra (finding bad faith registration and use in similar circumstances); 7-Eleven, Inc. v. Grace Chichipa / 7eleven, supra (same); Blink Health Inc. v. Asif Khan / BlinkRXhealth, supra (same); Early Warning Services, LLC v. Zelle Pay et al., supra (same). The Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

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 <bnybankingservice.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

David E. Sorkin, Panelist

Dated: September 16, 2025