NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM

DECISION

Warburg Pincus & Co. v. Steven Canady / Alliance Energy Fund

Claim Number: FA2509002177629

PARTIES

Complainant is Warburg Pincus & Co. ("Complainant"), represented by Eric J. Shimanoff of Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C., New York, USA. Respondent is Steven Canady / Alliance Energy Fund ("Respondent"), New York, USA.

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <warburgcapital.com> ('the Domain Name'), registered with Launchpad.com 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.

Dawn Osborne as Panelist.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on September 17, 2025; Forum received payment on September 17, 2025.

On September 18, 2025, Launchpad.com Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <warburgcapital.com> Domain Name is registered with Launchpad.com Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Launchpad.com Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Launchpad.com 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 September 18, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 8, 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@warburgcapital.com. Also on September 18, 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 October 9, 2025 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Dawn Osborne 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

The Complainant's contentions can be summarized as follows:

The Complainant is the owner of the mark WARBURG PINCUS, registered, inter alia, in the USA for financial services since 2000.

The Domain Name registered in 2017 is confusingly similar to the Complainant's mark using its first and dominant element 'Warburg' and adding only the generic word 'capital' and the gTLD .com which does not prevent the said confusing similarity.

The Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, is not commonly known by it and is not authorized by the Complainant.

The Domain Name was previously used for a site purporting to offer competing financial services using WARBURG in its masthead so as to appear to be a site emanating from the Complainant which is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate non commercial fair use. This is registration and use in bad faith, diverting and confusing Internet users while in full knowledge of the Complainant and its rights. The Domain Name currently points to a holding page.

Moreover the financial services offered via Respondent's website appear to have been fake. Press reports show that the Respondent has been imprisoned for taking money for services he did not provide using the WARBURG name. The offering of fake services is not a legitimate or bona fide use of a domain name and is registration and use in bad faith.

The Complainant previously brought UDRP proceedings against the Respondent. Those proceedings were withdrawn without prejudice when the Respondent agreed to transfer the Domain Name to the Complainant by a certain date. The Respondent did not so transfer the Domain Name by the due date and so the Complainant has re-commenced UDRP proceedings by way of this Complaint.

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

FINDINGS

The Complainant is the owner of the mark WARBURG PINCUS, registered, inter alia, in the USA for financial services since 2000.

The Domain Name registered in 2017 was previously used for a site purporting to offer competing financial services using WARBURG in its masthead. The Domain Name currently points to a holding page.

Press reports show that the Respondent has been imprisoned for taking money for services he did not provide using the WARBURG name.

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

The Domain Name consists of WARBURG, the first element of the Complainant's WARBURG PINCUS mark (which is registered, inter alia, in the USA for financial services since 2000), the generic word 'capital,' and the gTLD .com.

It has been consistently held by Panels that there is confusing similarity where a complainant's trade mark is abbreviated in a domain name, but is still recognizable within that domain name. See Microsoft Corp. v. Montrose Corp., D2000-1568 (WIPO Jan. 25, 2001) (finding the domain name <ms-office-2000.com> to be confusingly similar even though the mark MICROSOFT is abbreviated). The Panel holds that the term 'WARBURG' is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade mark and was clearly used by the Respondent in the Domain Name, precisely because it is confusingly similar to the Complainant's mark. The Complainant's mark is still recognizable in the Domain Name.

The gTLD .com does not serve to distinguish a domain name from a complainant's mark. See Red Hat Inc v Haecke, FA 726010 (Forum July 24, 2006) (concluding that the redhat.org domain name is identical to the complainant's red hat mark because the mere addition of the gTLD was insufficient to differentiate the disputed domain name from the mark).

Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's registered mark.

As such the Panel holds that Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied.

Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant has not authorized the use of its mark. There is no evidence or reason to suggest the Respondent is commonly known by the Domain Name. See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA 1574905 (Forum Sept. 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark). The use of the Domain Name was commercial and so could not be legitimate non commercial fair use.

The Domain Name carries a risk of affiliation with the Complainant. The web site to which the Domain Name redirected was a competing financial services site which used the dominant and first element of the Complainant's mark WARBURG in its masthead. The Panel finds this use was confusing. As such it could not amount to the bona fide offering of goods and services. See Am. Intl Group Inc v Benjamin, FA 944242 (Forum May 11, 2007) finding that the Respondent's use of a confusingly similar domain name to offer services which competed with the Complainant's business did not constitute a bona fide use of goods and services.); see also Mortgage Research Center LLC v. Miranda, FA 993017 (Forum July 9, 2007) ("Because [the] respondent in this case is also attempting to pass itself off as [the] complainant, presumably for financial gain, the Panel finds the respondent is not using the <mortgageresearchcenter.org> domain name for 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).").

Further press reports show that the Respondent has been imprisoned for taking money for services he did not provide using the WARBURG name. Previous Panels have noted that offering fake services does not constitute a bona fide offer or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy 4(c)(i) and (iii). See Acton Educational Services d/b/a West Coast Univ. v. West Coast Univ. Int'l Inc., FA 1191541 (Forum July 2, 2008) (website offering fake educational services was not a legitimate use of domain name). The site is associated with fraudulent activity which cannot be legitimate use. See DaVita Inc. v Cynthia Rochelo FA 1738034 (Forum July 20, 2017) (finding that 'Passing off in furtherance of a phishing scheme is not considered a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate non commercial or fair use').

The Respondent has not responded to this Complaint and has not rebutted the prima facie case evidenced by the Complainant herein.

As such, the Panelist finds that the Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

In the opinion of the Panel, the use made of the Domain Name in relation to the Respondent's site was confusing and disruptive, in that visitors to the site might reasonably have believed it was operated by or connected to the Complainant, as it offered competing services under a sign confusingly similar to the Complainant's mark, using 'WARBURG' in its masthead, giving the impression that the site attached to the Domain Name was commercially connected with the Complainant when it was not. Further press reports show that the Respondent has been imprisoned for taking money for services he did not provide using the WARBURG name. The web site attached to the Domain Name, therefore, likely offered fake services. Purporting to be a legitimate financial company when the services offered appear to be fake makes it more likely than not that the Respondent is aware of the Complainant and its rights and services, and is actively attempting to take advantage of the Complainant's goodwill to fraudulently deceive and confuse for commercial gain.

Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to his website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trade mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the web site and the services offered on it likely to disrupt the business of the Complainant. See Asbury Auto Group Inc v Tex. Int'l Prop Assocs, FA 958542 (Forum May 29, 2007) (finding that the respondent's use of the disputed domain name to compete with the complainant's business would likely lead to confusion amongst Internet users as to the sponsorship or affiliation of a competing business and was therefore evidence of bad faith and use). See Ripple Labs Inc. v. Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund, FA 1790949 (Forum July 9, 2018) (finding bad faith per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv) where the respondent used the disputed domain name to resolve to a website upon which the respondent passed itself off as the complainant and offered services in direct competition with the complainant's business). Further fraudulent activity is bad faith per se. See Klabzuba Oil & Gas, Inc v LAKHPAT SINGH BHANDARI, FA 1625750 (Forum July 17, 2015). The Panel also notes that although the Respondent agreed to transfer the Domain Name to the Complainant it did not do so, also indicative of bad faith.

As such, the Panelist believes that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith and has satisfied the third limb of the Policy under para 4(b)(iii) and (iv).

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

Dawn Osborne, Panelist

Dated: October 9, 2025