DECISION

 

Quincy Hall / Advice Only v. Steven Fox / Advice Only

Claim Number: FA2511002186579

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Quincy Hall / Advice Only ("Complainant"), represented by Quincy Hall, California, USA. Respondent is Steven Fox / Advice Only ("Respondent"), California, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <adviceonly.com>, registered with Tucows Domains 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.

 

Eugene I. Low as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on November 2, 2025; Forum received payment on November 2, 2025.

 

On November 3, 2025, Tucows Domains Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <adviceonly.com> domain name is registered with Tucows Domains Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Tucows Domains Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Tucows Domains 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 November 4, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 28, 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@adviceonly.com. Also on November 4, 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 November 28, 2025.

 

Complainant filed an unsolicited Additional Submission on December 1, 2025.

 

On December 2, 2025 pursuant to the Parties' requests to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Eugene I. Low 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A.       Complainant

Complainant relies on the following trade mark:

 

Mark: ADVICE-ONLY

U.S. Trademark Registration No.: 6004380

U.S. Serial No.: 88485973

Registration Date: March 3, 2020

Register: Supplemental Register

Mark Type: Service Mark

Owner: Hall Financial Services, Inc. (d/b/a Advice Only)

Owner Address: 7695 Crest Avenue, Oakland, California 94605 USA Legal Entity: Corporation organized under the laws of California

First Use: June 1, 2018

First Use in Commerce: March 1, 2019

Class: 041 – Educational services, namely, providing seminars and online classes in the fields of financial planning and retirement.

 

Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy.

 

1.       Identical or Confusingly Similar:

The disputed domain <adviceonly.com> is identical to the Complainant's mark ADVICE-ONLY, disregarding the hyphen and the top-level domain. Complainant has used the ADVICE-ONLY name continuously since 2019 in connection with educational and financial-planning services, including:

 

● Advice-Only: A Retirement Planning Methodology & Handbook (2019)

● CFP Board–approved continuing-education courses

● Mailer for adviceonly.info and adviceonly.org website

 

These activities clearly identify Advice-Only with Hall Financial Services, Inc. Although the U.S. registration (No. 6004380) appears on the Supplemental Register, panels have consistently held that supplemental registrations and descriptive marks may establish rights once secondary meaning is proven. See Platterz Inc. v. Melcher, NAF FA1705001729887; Yahoo! Inc. v. Yahoo-Asian Co., WIPO D2001-0051; WIPO Overview 3.0 §§ 1.2–1.3.

 

2.       Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests:

Respondent has no connection with the Complainant, is not licensed or authorized to use the ADVICE-ONLY mark, and is not commonly known by that name. Respondent has made no bona fide or otherwise legitimate commercial use of the disputed domain.

 

Non-public, non-bona-fide use. Complainant claims that before 2024, the domain <adviceonly.com> was controlled by Jay Zigmont, an advisor affiliated with the Transparent Advisor Movement (TAM). The domain displayed only a public "Coming Soon" placeholder and linked to a private Slack channel for advisors. After the domain's transfer to Steven Fox, the same "Coming Soon" text reappeared on <adviceonly.com> until late September 2025 before relaunch, confirming that the Respondent inherited and reused the original placeholder rather than developing new, independent content. This continuity demonstrates that the Respondent did not establish a distinct enterprise, but instead continued the non-public, TAM-affiliated use of the domain.

 

Duplicative network and false public-benefit claim. After acquiring the domain, Respondent launched <adviceonly.com> under a Public Benefit Corporation (PBC) structure, describing it as "the first support platform for financial advisors who want to work with clients on an 'advice-only' basis." Public records show that Advice-Only PBC was incorporated days after the Respondent viewed the Complainant's LinkedIn profile, indicating knowledge of the Complainant's brand before forming the entity. In substance, the new site duplicates the pre-existing adviceonlynetwork.com. Mr. Fox was—and remains—listed as a member and performs the same directory and marketing functions. Creating a copy-cat service that does not confer a legitimate interest. See Louis Vuitton v. Manifest Info Services, NAF FA 796276 ("Imitation is not a bona fide offering"). Although organized as a PBC, Respondent has shown no distinct public benefit; the website operates primarily as a commercial lead-generation tool for advisors.

 

Admissions and branding conduct evidencing knowledge. Respondent publicly stated that "this is the evolved version of the "Transparent Advisor Network" that some of you previously heard of. The name was among the many changes made after 150+ conversations providing wonderful feedback on how this should come together." This admission shows that adoption of the Advice-Only name did not arise independently but from discussions within an existing professional circle seeking to rebrand under terminology already identified with the Complainant's mark and methodology. When interviewed, design firm FinArtist confirmed that Mr. Fox "could choose from many other designs," yet selected a logo incorporating a triangle-circle motif confusingly similar to the Complainant's established brand mark. Furthermore, while asserting privately that "the term can't be registered" and is merely descriptive, Mr. Fox simultaneously hired FinArtist to build the "Advice-Only brand" and launched a professionally branded website only weeks later. These inconsistencies reveal knowledge of the Complainant's mark and a deliberate effort to appropriate its goodwill rather than use the term descriptively or in good faith.

 

Pre-transfer acknowledgment and imputed knowledge of the mark. Complainant also refers to the following attempt to purchase: 

On November 16, 2020, domain broker Bill Sweetman, president of Name Ninja, emailed the Complainant in response to an inquiry offering $1,000 to purchase <adviceonly.com>. Mr. Sweetman replied: "For the record, since you mentioned a trademark, my client has owned this generic, two-word .com domain for nearly 10 years, so if you are under the belief that your 2019 trademark (which I just looked up in the WIPO database) gives you some special right to my client's domain name, you would be mistaken." This correspondence shows that the broker personally verified the Complainant's U.S. Trademark No. 6004380 and expressly acknowledged its existence. The broker's review of the mark in the WIPO database constitutes actual knowledge of the Complainant's rights. Because the broker acted as an authorized representative of the then-owner of <adviceonly.com>, that knowledge is imputed both to the owner and to any successor in title. Panels have held that a purchaser cannot acquire greater rights than its predecessor, and that pre-acquisition notice of a mark establishes bad faith at transfer. See Ticketmaster v. Rado, WIPO D2000-1550 (imputed knowledge from agent to owner); Veuve Clicquot v. Polygenix Group, WIPO D2000-0163 (prior awareness supports bad-faith registration). This written exchange—predating the domain's eventual transfer to Steven Fox—proves that the Respondent and his associates were on notice of the Complainant's registered mark and therefore cannot claim to have registered or used the domain in good faith.

 

3.       Bad faith and misappropriation of Complainant's goodwill:

Complainant contends that Respondent registered and uses <adviceonly.com> in bad faith to misappropriate the goodwill of its established brand and methodology.

 

Knowledge and insider continuity. The domain passed from TAM member Jay Zigmont to Mr. Fox, another TAM insider with direct exposure to Complainant's brand. This handoff shows actual knowledge before acquisition. See Veuve Clicquot v. Polygenix Group, WIPO D2000-0163 (awareness before registration indicates bad faith).

 

Misleading representations. The website asserts that "Advice-Only is established to support consumers and advisors committed to transparency" and claims to be "the first support platform for advice-only planners," implying original creation and concealing the Complainant's prior rights. Such phrasing is deliberately misleading and intended to confuse users.

 

Preparatory Educational Use and Concealed Intent. Shortly after registering the domain, the Respondent onboarded advisor Michael Hart, whose professional background specifically includes developing and teaching educational content. The Respondent also began using other advisors to build templates, courses, and instructional materials through the <adviceonly.com> website and the Circle.so platform. Circle.so is a commercial learning-management and membership platform commonly used for monetized courses and community access, further showing that Respondent intended to commercialize educational content identical to the Complainant's services. Hart's own public Vimeo videos confirm that he has previously been retained to produce educational segments. The Respondent's conduct shows a consistent chain of bad faith—from knowledge of the Complainant's rights (Sweet email), to internal coordination (Zigmont transfer), to the recruitment of educators (Hart), and finally to commercial exploitation through the Advice-Only PBC platform. This continuous pattern satisfies UDRP 4(a)(iii) for registration and use in bad faith.

 

Intentional Ambiguity and Inconsistent Usage. When directly confronted by the Complainant in March 2025, the Respondent stated that "I don't think there's likely to be any confusion here between our firms." Yet within weeks, he continued soliciting advisors and clients under the Advice-Only PBC name and promoting the disputed domain as the core of his new business. Panels routinely view such contemporaneous denials—followed by continued use of the disputed name—as evidence of willful blindness and bad faith. See Intocable, Ltd. v. Payaso, WIPO D2000-1520 (denial of knowledge coupled with continued use shows bad faith). This inconsistent conduct demonstrates that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant's prior rights but deliberately chose to proceed, reflecting an intent to misappropriate existing goodwill rather than resolve the conflict. See Swarovski AG v. Liu Ji, WIPO D2013-0150 (preparatory steps toward competitive use held to support bad faith under 4(b)(iv)).

 

Independent findings of confusion and preparatory educational use. Following the Respondent's launch of <adviceonly.com>, independent online platforms verified that his use of "Advice-Only" created consumer confusion:

 

● LinkedIn Support (Case #250213-037877) formally removed the AdviceOnly business listing from its site after verifying the Complainant's complaint and determining that Respondent's use was likely to cause confusion.

● Alignable Trust & Safety (Ref #1364185) formally removed the AdviceOnly business listing from its site following a review of the Complainant's trademark submission.

 

These neutral third-party determinations constitute objective evidence that the Respondent's branding is misleading in commerce. Moreover, the Respondent has engaged advisors—including Michael Hart, who has a background in producing educational programming—to develop templates, training materials, and content through Circle.so, a platform commonly used for hosting and selling online courses. These preparatory steps show intent to deliver educational content identical in class and function to the Complainant's established services, while avoiding overt infringement claims. See Swarovski AG v. Liu Ji, WIPO D2013-0150 (preparatory steps toward competitive use constitute bad faith under 4(b)(iv)). Together, these actions confirm registration and use in bad faith under UDRP 4(a)(iii): the Respondent's denial of confusion, ongoing promotional use, recruitment of educational collaborators, and verified third-party takedowns establish a clear pattern of deceptive intent.

 

Complainant also filed an unsolicited Additional Submission. This will be dealt with as a preliminary issue in the Panel's decision below.

 

B.       Respondent

Respondent asserts that its use of the disputed domain name is fully compliant with UDRP requirements, and that the Complainant has failed to satisfy any of the three required elements under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.

 

Respondent raises a number of preliminary issues, namely

 

(a) Complainant's only trademark registration (U.S. Reg. No. 6004380) is on the Supplemental Register. Marks on the Supplemental Register do not carry a presumption of distinctiveness under the UDRP as a matter of procedure. Because the Complainant relies exclusively on a Supplemental Register registration, it bears the procedural burden of proving distinctiveness and acquired secondary meaning. Complainant has provided no such evidence.

 

(b) The domain name was first registered in 2004, predating any rights claimed in the Complaint by approximately 15 years. Under well-established UDRP precedent, the relevant date for assessing bad-faith registration is the date of the original domain creation unless Complainant demonstrates that the subsequent acquirer targeted its mark, which it has not done and cannot do.

 

(c) The Complainant previously attempted to acquire the domain through a domain broker. This prior acquisition attempt, followed by a UDRP complaint only after negotiations failed, is relevant as a procedural matter because many Panels have held that such conduct represents a "Plan B" misuse of the UDRP system. Respondent confirms that it has never offered to transfer, sell, or assign the domain to Complainant, nor has Respondent ever communicated any willingness to do so. There is no consent-to-transfer issue.

 

(d) Respondent notes that there is only one registrant of the domain name, and no consolidation, joinder, or multi-respondent issues arise. Respondent is the single registrant of record, and no evidence suggests identity theft or improper shielding through privacy services.

 

(e) Respondent respectfully notes that certain factual assertions in the Complaint are unsupported, demonstrably false, or based on incorrect assumptions. For example, Complainant asserts that Respondent is engaged in a "copy-cat service" of the unaffiliated company Advice Only Network and is therefore not engaged in legitimate business interests in its use of the domain name. This is plainly inaccurate, as the two firms have completely different business models. Advice Only Network is a listing service for financial advisors who are operating on what is commonly known throughout the industry as an "advice-only model", while Respondent is a Registered Investment Advisor directly providing financial advisory services to consumers. As another example, Complainant asserts that Respondent's LinkedIn post announcing the launch of their business was removed due to a "neutral third-party determination" of trademark infringement. This is inaccurate, as LinkedIn restored the post upon reviewing Respondent's counter-notice and confirming that no trademark violation occurred. 

 

1.       Complainant lack's enforceable rights:

Respondent contends that Complainant does not have any enforceable rights in the term.

 

Respondent notes that the mark is only registered on the Supplemental Register. As such, Complainant does not have any enforceable rights over the generic term "advice only" (or common variant "advice-only") in the first place. In this case, Complainant has not provided any evidence of acquired distinctiveness sufficient to prove that its registration is entitled to full and exclusive trademark protection. UDRP does not protect generic domain names from legitimate competing uses.

 

Many previous Panels have denied complaints based on marks listed on the Supplemental Register. It is also notable that the decisions in many of these situations tend to issue a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking, as the complainants knew (or should have known) that they did not have enforceable rights for marks on the Supplemental Register and were abusing the process. This Complaint is overreaching by claiming rights that do not exist.

 

Aside from being on the Supplemental Register, the Complainant's mark is for an entirely different class of goods and services (educational services) than the services provided by Respondent (financial planning services).

 

Though not disclosed in the Complaint, it is significant that the Complainant has made several failed attempts to register the term in question. These attempts go back at least as far as 2018, and as recently as 2025. USPTO has repeatedly denied these applications (and subsequent appeals) because the term is "generic" and "merely descriptive". Such denials reflect a finding by USPTO that the mark lacked secondary meaning. Examples of these rejections by USPTO are Application 88771624 and Application 90845352. See the more recent Subsequent Final Office Action for failed application 90845352, dated 2/21/2024: "In the present case, the evidence of record establishes that ADVICE ONLY is generic for a type of financial planning and investment advisory service provided independent of asset management or recommendation of financial products for commission. Because applicant's evidence does not resolve the outstanding refusal nor otherwise put the application in condition for publication or registration, the examining attorney is holding all issues FINAL."

 

Furthermore, the mark may not even be properly listed on the Supplemental Register. See the Final Office Action for denied application 88771624: "In addition to being merely descriptive, the applied-for mark appears to be generic in connection with the identified services. "A generic mark, being the 'ultimate in descriptiveness,' cannot acquire distinctiveness" and thus is not entitled to registration on either the Principal or Supplemental Register under any circumstances... Therefore, the trademark examining attorney cannot recommend that applicant amend the application to proceed under Trademark Act Section 2(f) or on the Supplemental Register as possible response options to this refusal. See TMEP §1209.01(c)."

 

Notably, previous UDRP Panels have determined that complaints failing to mention earlier attempts to register a mark are a careless or intentionally misleading abuse of the process, and have issued findings of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.

 

Complainant has produced no evidence of acquired distinctiveness in its mark on the Supplemental Register, and its acquiescence to amend their application for their mark on the Supplemental Register is itself an acknowledgement of the mark's lack of distinctiveness. As mentioned in the USPTO denials above, the term at issue is widely used in the financial planning industry to refer to financial advisors who provide financial planning services separately from investment management or the sale of financial products.

Aside from the mark on the Supplemental Register, the Complainant has produced no other evidence that it has rights in the disputed domain name. Although Complainant claims to have used the mark in commerce, the USPTO has determined multiple times that Complainant's use was not sufficient to establish secondary meaning.

 

2.       Legitimate interests and use:

(i) Contrary to the incorrect and misleading statements in the Complaint, Respondent has been actively using the domain in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services.

a. "Advice-only" is a widely used and consistently defined term in the financial planning industry, with a primary meaning as financial planning services provided without investment management services or the sale of financial products. Respondent offers advice-only services and is using the domain consistently with its commonly known meaning in the field.

b. The domain name is also consistent with the company Respondent formed through which to provide those services. After formation with the legal name "Advice Only, Public Benefit Corporation" in October 2024, Respondent applied with the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation to become a Registered Investment Advisor (RIA) in connection with plans to provide financial planning services to consumers through its support platform for independent financial advisors. Such RIA status was approved in February 2025, and Respondent soon started onboarding financial advisors to provide advice-only financial planning services to consumers. Respondent is now registered as an RIA in 3 states, is pending registration in approximately 8 more, and has already provided financial planning services to dozens of end clients.

c. The founder of Advice Only PBC, Steven Fox, is a Certified Financial Planner with more than a decade of experience in financial services including founding and selling another financial planning firm.

 

(ii.) Respondent does not claim to have acquired any trademark or service mark rights over the term "advice only", but is commonly known by its legal name "Advice Only, PBC" or by "AdviceOnly". Examples of such reputation include thousands of social media followers, dozens of clients, and an article about the firm in prominent industry publication Financial Planning Magazine.

 

(iii.) As an RIA, Respondent is required to make public filings describing the financial advisory services provided to consumers. Complainant, being also in the financial services industry, knew that Respondent is using the disputed domain name as part of a bona fide business and chose to submit this Complaint claiming otherwise. This is very clearly a case of legitimate business usage of a domain, and Complainant's claim of cybersquatting is absurd.

 

(iv.) The Circle community referenced in the Complaint is for internal use only among the member financial advisors operating on the AdviceOnly RIA platform. It does not provide educational services to the public, nor does the Complaint provide any evidence of such purported infringement.

 

(v.) Respondent has made legitimate fair use of the domain name without intent to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the mark at issue, and the Complaint provides no evidence to the contrary.

a. As stated in the Complainant's own filing, Respondent obtained the domain name from an independent third party upon finding that the Complainant does not have relevant or enforceable trademark rights.

b. Use of the domain for email addresses began immediately upon transfer from the prior owner, and the "Coming Soon" page referenced in the Complaint was published soon thereafter. That page clearly described plans for the launch of an upcoming business completely unrelated to Complainant, and collected email addresses from potential customers until the current site was launched months later.

 

3.       Lack of bad faith:

(i.) The Complaint does not claim that Respondent has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the Complainant.

 

(ii.) The Complaint provides no evidence that Respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the Complainant from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, or otherwise disrupting Complainant's business.

 

(iii.) The Complaint does not provide a clear argument or any evidence that Respondent has 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. There is no evidence provided that Respondent has made attempts to impersonate Complainant, or misappropriate their name and logo, or benefit from their purported brand equity. Prior awareness of the mark by Respondent, as mentioned in the Complaint, is irrelevant in the absence of enforceable rights or attempts to misappropriate. Respondent's use of the domain name could not, under any fair interpretation of the reasonably available facts, have constituted bad faith.

 

(vi.) There may be bad faith here, but not on the part of the Respondent. Indeed, if anything, the record suggests that Complainant has been overbearing in its dealing with Respondent, and has needlessly forced Respondent, to incur significant legal costs defending against baseless allegations. The Respondent welcomes the opportunity for a neutral adjudicator to assess both the lack of merit of the Complainant's claim, and to opine relative to the conduct of the Complainant in pursuing that claim in this forum and the others documented by the Complainant as part of a broad repeated pattern of harassment. A few of the many examples of bad faith by the Complainant include: a. Overstating rights granted by Complainant's mark on the Supplemental Registry. b. Carelessness or attempts to mislead the Panel through Complainant's failure to include material facts such as the rejected trademark attempts or the legitimate business usage of the domain by Respondent. c. Misleading or factually incorrect information in the Complaint as to the facts of the situation. A few examples include: i. The Complaint indicates that LinkedIn removed a post by Respondent announcing the launch of its business upon receipt of an infringement claim submitted by Complainant, and that this is evidence of an "independent finding of confusion". However, it fails to mention that LinkedIn reversed course and restored the post upon reviewing the counterclaim submitted by Respondent. ii. The "Transparent Advisor Movement" referenced multiple times within the Complaint doesn't exist. There's no such entity or organization, nor is there any conspiracy or collusion between others in the industry using the term "advice-only" as stated by Complainant without evidence his statements about "TAM Insiders". The "Transparent Advisor Movement" is simply the name of a monthly webinar series by an independent party named Sara Grillo, who is unaffiliated with Respondent. iii. The references to Michael Hart creating educational content online are not in any way an infringement on Complainant's rights. Hart is in fact one of the financial advisors supported through Respondent's RIA platform, but he creates educational content to support his marketing efforts for financial services and not as a standalone product offering competing with Complainant. Furthermore, Hart is an independent contractor of Respondent operating under the name "Open Book Financial Planning" and marketing through his own site at openbookfp.com. His affiliation with Advice Only as the RIA is required to be disclosed to consumers under securities regulations. d. This Complaint is part of an ongoing harassment with the intent to disrupt Respondent's legitimate business interests. A few of the many examples include: i. Submitting frivolous claims of intellectual property infringement to online platforms such as LinkedIn (described above), Alignable (mentioned in the Complaint) and Yelp. ii. Harassing the independent financial advisors operating on the AdviceOnly platform in attempts to impede their marketing efforts or scare them away from joining the firm. iii. Harassing external vendors or partners supporting Respondent's legitimate business efforts, such as with graphic designer Josh Passler as mentioned in Complainant's own filing. iv. Public posts making defamatory and false statements about Respondent, including childish name-calling. e. Turning to the UDRP process as a "Plan B" attempt to acquire the domain after earlier attempts to purchase the domain failed, as described in the Complainant's own filing. f. Failure to engage with Respondent's good faith efforts to collaborate and resolve misunderstandings.

 

4.       Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH):

Respondent requests a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking against Complainant.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has failed to establish the first element. The Complaint accordingly fails. 

 

The Panel finds Reverse Domain Name Hijacking against Complainant.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: Complainant's unsolicited Additional Submission

The Panel has a discretion whether or not to admit Complainant's Additional Submission. The general principle is that unsolicited submissions are discouraged (See WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Overview") at §4.6).

 

The Panel considers that the gist of the Complainant's Additional Submission is to re-argue the case or rebut the Response. There are no exceptional circumstances which would justify a departure from the general position that unsolicited supplemental submissions ought not to be admitted. Accordingly, the Panel will not admit the Complainant's Additional Submission.

 

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.

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The Panel finds that Complainant has failed to establish the first element.

 

Complainant's case fails on the following aspects:

 

1. It is unclear whether the correct Complainant(s) has been named. The Complainant here is "Quincy Hall / Advice Only", which is different from "Hall Financial Services, Inc.", the owner of the US Trademark Registration No. 6004380 which is the primary basis of Complainant's asserted trademark rights. Meanwhile, some of the evidence of use relied on by Complainant seems to refer to Quincy Hall (e.g. the book titled "Advice-Only: A Retirement Planning Methodology & Handbook"), while some other evidence seems to refer to Complainant (e.g. "Mailer for adviceonly.info and adviceonly.org website"). Without a clear explanation of who is who and which evidence is attributable to who, the Panel can only conjecture that some kind of affiliation between Complainant and the trademark owner may exist (e.g. Complainant may be the founder/owner of the trademark owner). This is highly unsatisfactory, as the Panel should not be expected to decipher the exact relationship (if any) between the various entities referred to in the Complaint.

 

2. Even assuming that Complainant has somehow been authorized or licensed by the trademark owner to file this Complaint, the Panel considers that the Complaint fails to establish the first element under the Policy on a more substantive aspect:

 

(a) The general principle is that a trademark registration on the USTPO Supplemental Register by itself is not sufficient to establish the required trademark rights under the first element of the Policy. Complainant is expected to adduce proof to show that the trademark has acquired a secondary meaning, as in the case of unregistered or common law marks. See WIPO Overview §1.2.2 and UDRP Perspectives §1.10).

 

(b) Here, Complainant's evidence of use falls far short of providing that the mark has acquired distinctiveness through secondary meaning for the purposes of establishing the first element under the Policy. In support of its claim that it has used the ADVICE-ONLY mark continuously since 2019 in connection with educational and financial-planning services, Complainant refers to the following evidence:

 

● Advice-Only: A Retirement Planning Methodology & Handbook (2019)

● CFP Board–approved continuing-education courses

● Mailer for adviceonly.info and adviceonly.org website

 

However, based on the adduced materials (including screenshots of an online application form and a draft mailer), the Panel is unable to discern the relevant dates of use (if there has been use at all), or the extent and history of use of Complainant's mark. The Panel has not been provided with other evidence which is normally expected for proving acquired distinctiveness, e.g. evidence of independent media coverage.

 

(c) The more descriptive the mark is, the higher the evidential threshold is for proving acquired distinctiveness, which is the case here. Complainant plainly fails to meet this threshold. Respondent adduces two pieces of evidence which shows that Complainant has attempted to register the mark ADVICE-ONLY and ADVICE ONLY with USPTO for "financial planning and investment advisory services" in Class 36 (respectively under application no. 88771624 and application no. 90845352). The two applications were respectively refused in 2021 and 2024, on the ground that the mark was considered descriptive or generic. The Panel notes that those two refusals were for Class 36, whereas the mark relied on in the Complainant was registered under a different Class (Class 41). Nevertheless, the underlying services (i.e. "financial planning and investment advisory services" in Class 36 and "educational services, namely, providing seminars and online classes in the fields of financial planning and retirement" in Class 41) are similar, and therefore the Panel considers that those two refusals in Class 36 provide useful references as to the degree of distinctiveness of the mark. Based on Respondent's evidence, in both refusals, USPTO referenced many examples of descriptive and/or generic use of the term ADVICE-ONLY/ADVICE ONLY in the market. Those two refusals should have alerted Complainant that the mark ADVICE ONLY (with or without hyphen) is inherently indistinctive for the services in question, and that Complainant has to overcome a high evidential threshold to prove acquired distinctiveness.

 

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has failed to establish the first element of the Policy.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests / Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Since the Complainant has failed to establish the first element, the Panel will not analyze the two remaining elements of the Policy.

 

REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKING

The Panel finds RDNH against Complainant for the following reasons:

 

(1) Complainant should have been aware of the inherent indistinctiveness of the mark and that the evidence adduced falls far short of meeting the evidential threshold of proving acquired distinctiveness. In other words, Complainant should have known that this Complaint could not have reasonably succeeded based on the submitted evidence.

 

(2) The Panel is extremely troubled by the case citations in Complainant's submission. The Panel finds that most if not all of Complainant's case citations are completely off the mark, as summarised below:

 

·       Complainant's contentions: "Although the U.S. registration (No. 6004380) appears on the Supplemental Register, panels have consistently held that supplemental registrations and descriptive marks may establish rights once secondary meaning is proven. See Platterz Inc. v. Melcher, NAF FA1705001729887; Yahoo! Inc. v. Yahoo-Asian Co., WIPO D2001-0051; WIPO Overview 3.0 §§ 1.2–1.3"

 

The Panel's observations: those two cases do not touch on supplemental registrations at all. While the Platterz Inc. case did at least touch on secondary meaning of the mark, the Yahoo! Inc. case did not touch any such issue at all.

 

·       Complainant's contentions: "... effectively creating a copycat service that does not confer a legitimate interest. See Louis Vuitton v. Manifest Info Services, NAF FA 796276 ("Imitation is not a bona fide offering")."

 

The Panel's observations: This case did not touch on imitation use at all. The decision contains no such quote "(i)mitation is not a bona fide offering".

 

·       Complainant's contentions: "Panels have held that a purchaser cannot acquire greater rights than its predecessor, and that pre-acquisition notice of a mark establishes bad faith at transfer. See Ticketmaster v. Rado, WIPO D2000-1550 (imputed knowledge from agent to owner); Veuve Clicquot v. Polygenix Group, WIPO D2000-0163 (prior awareness supports bad-faith registration)."

 

The Panel's observations: The Panel could not locate the quoted case "Ticketmaster v. Rado". There is another WIPO case Ticketmaster Corporation v. Dmitri Prem under the quoted reference WIPO D2000-1550, but that case did not touch on "imputed knowledge" or "agent/owner". The Veuve Clicquot case did not touch on prior awareness (although the decision suggested that the mark was well-known).

 

·       Complainant's contentions: Intocable, Ltd. v. Payaso, WIPO D2000-1520 (denial of knowledge coupled with continued use shows bad faith)

 

The Panel's observations: The Panel could not locate this case. WIPO D2000-1520 refers to another case Cellular One Group v. Applied Communications which did not touch on the said issue.

 

·       Complainant's contentions: See Swarovski AG v. Liu Ji, WIPO D2013-0150 (preparatory steps toward competitive use held to support bad faith under 4(b)(iv))

 

The Panel's observations: WIPO D2013-0150 refers to another case Swarovski Aktiengesellschaft v. mei xudong. the Panel has located a case Swarovski Aktiengesellschaft v. liu ji at WIPO D2011-0353. Neither case touched on the said issue.

 

Whether or not Complainant did this deliberately, the Panel finds these "case citations" misleading. The Panel shares the observations in a recent decision (WIPO Case No. D2025-4174), in which the learned panelist found RDNH for, inter alia, the citation of non-existent cases by the complainant. While a panel may be prepared to condone occasional mistakes/misquotations, the extent of mistakes/misquotations by Complainant as demonstrated above is unacceptable. Complainant has breached its certification as to the completeness and accuracy of the Complaint.

 

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 <adviceonly.com> REMAIN WITH Respondent.

 

 

Eugene I Low, Panelist

Dated: December 15, 2025