DECISION

 

Junto Capital Management LP v Craig Seaton Guy

Claim Number: FA2511002186597

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Junto Capital Management LP ("Complainant"), represented by Scott Kareff of McDermott Will & Schulte LLP, New York, USA. Respondent is Craig Seaton Guy ("Respondent"), Great Britain.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <juntomoney.com>, registered with IONOS SE.

 

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.

 

Steven M. Levy as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on November 3, 2025; Forum received payment on November 3, 2025.

 

On November 4, 2025, IONOS SE confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <juntomoney.com> domain name is registered with IONOS SE and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. IONOS SE has verified that Respondent is bound by the IONOS SE 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 24, 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@juntomoney.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.

 

Having received no formal response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On November 25, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Steven M. Levy 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 prominent SEC-registered investment management firm that invests in liquid listed equity securities as well as equity-related securities and derivatives. Complainant offers long/short strategies to their clients, which include institutional investors, family offices, endowments and foundations, and pensions and it manages over USD $8 billion in assets. Complainant is headquartered in New York City, New York and is the owner of the United States (and international) trademark registrations for the marks JUNTO, JUNTO CAPITAL MANAGEMENT and JUNTO CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LP (e.g. Untied States Reg. No. 4585561 dated August 12, 2014; United States Reg. No. 4684312 dated February 10, 2015; Hong Kong Reg. Nos. 305680918 and 305680909, both dated July 9, 2021; International Reg. Nos. 1611568 and 1611805, both dated July 7, 2021) (collectively, the "JUNTO Marks"). Complainant also owns and maintains its website at the domain name <juntocap.com>.

 

The <juntomoney.com> domain name, registered on October 8, 2025, is confusingly similar to the JUNTO Marks as it incorporates the term "Junto" and only adds the generic word "money" and the ".com" TLD.

 

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name where it is not commonly known by the domain name and it operates a phishing scheme to improperly obtain its users' personal and financial information and/or to induce the payment of funds under false pretenses.

 

Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith based on its prior knowledge of the JUNTO Marks and on its above-mentioned phishing activity.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a formal Response in this proceeding.  However, an email from Respondent was received by Forum on Nov. 5, 2025 stating, in full, as follows:

 

I have attempted to have this domain deleted and refunded to me so that the complainant may purchase it themselves (despite their spurious claims). The domain provider has indicated they will delete it as soon as you allow them to do so. I believe this is an amicable solution which will lead to a swift outcome and closure of this complaint. The organisation which rents this domain has no interest in responding to a weak complaint from a USA and India based complainant which has no legal jurisdiction in the countries in which they operate. The loss of the name is of little consequence to them as a newly named product of a much larger portfolio. With this in mind, if the complainant does not agree to my solution, they may make an offer to lease the domain from me.

 

Kind regards

Craig  

 

FINDINGS

-        Complainant owns rights to the JUNTO Marks and the <juntomoney.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the Marks;

-        Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and its perpetuation of a phishing scheme indicates that it is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services and that it is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use; and

-        The disputed domain name was registered and is used in bad faith based on Respondent's impersonation of Complainant through a phishing scheme.

 

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 asserts rights in its JUNTO Marks through its registrations in the United States, Hong Kong, and other jurisdictions. Registration of a mark in this manner is a valid showing of rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Red Hat, Inc. v. Muhammad Shahzad, FA 1787738 (Forum June 19, 2018) ("Registration of a mark with multiple trademark agencies is sufficient to demonstrate rights to a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)."). Here, Complainant provides information regarding its trademark registrations.¹ Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the JUNTO Marks under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). 

 

Complainant further argues that Respondent's <juntomoney.com> domain name is confusingly similar to its JUNTO Marks as Respondent copies the term JUNTO and only adds the generic term "money" as well as the ".com" TLD. Panels have routinely held that the addition of a TLD or generic term typically does not distinguish a disputed domain name from a complainant's trademark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Starbucks Corporation d/b/a Starbucks Coffee Company v. Waseem A Ali / Micron Web Services, FA 1785616 (Forum June 8, 2018) (finding the <starbucksreal.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to the STARBUCKS mark, as "the addition of the generic term 'real' to Complainant's mark does not distinguish the Domain Name from Complainant's trade mark pursuant to the Policy."). Also see Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association v. Shi Lei aka Shilei, FA 1784643 (Forum June 18, 2018) ("A TLD (whether a gTLD, sTLD or ccTLD) is disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax requires TLDs."). Therefore, as the term JUNTO in the JUNTO Marks is clearly recognizable and the added generic term "money" and the ".com" TLD do not serve a distinguishing function, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's Marks.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Should it succeed in this effort, the burden then shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) ("Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain names and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests.").

 

Complainant first contends that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name. It is widely accepted that WHOIS information can be used to help determine whether a respondent is commonly known by a disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Timothy Mays aka Linda Haley aka Edith Barberdi, FA 1617061 (Forum June 9, 2015) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <amazondevice.org>, <amazondevices.org>, and <buyamazondevices.com> domain names under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), as the pertinent WHOIS information identified "Timothy Mays", "Linda Haley", and "Edith Barberdi" as the respective registrants). Here, the WHOIS information for the disputed domain name, as verified to Forum by the concerned Registrar, identifies Registrant as "Craig Seaton Guy". As Respondent has filed no substantive Response in this case, there is no evidence to suggest that it is known otherwise. Further, lack of authorization to use a complainant's mark may indicate that the respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) ("lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use complainant's mark may support a finding that respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)"). Here, Complainant states that "Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and has not received any permission to use Complainant's trademarks, as a licensee or otherwise." Thus, the Panel finds no ground upon which to conclude that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

Next, Complaint asserts that Respondent does not use its domain name in the bona fide sale of goods or services as the services advertised on its website are unauthorized and part of a phishing scheme. Passing oneself off as a complainant and diverting users to a respondent's webpage, is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor is it a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Ripple Labs Inc. v. NGYEN NGOC PHUONG THAO, FA 1741737 (Forum Aug. 21, 2017) ("Respondent uses the [disputed] domain name to divert Internet users to Respondent's website… confusing them into believing that some sort of affiliation exists between it and Complainant… [which] is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)."). Furthermore, engaging in a phishing scheme does not provide any basis for finding rights or legitimate interests. DaVita Inc. v. Cynthia Rochelo, FA 1738034 (Forum July 20, 2017) ("Passing off in furtherance of a phishing scheme is not considered a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use."). Here, Complainant provides screenshots of the <juntomoney.com> website which prominently bears the term JUNTO CAPITAL in a graphic logo at the top followed by the phrase "Empowering Growth Through Strategic Investment". The pages displays messages mentioning "Junto Capital" and describing its investment strategy, and a Contact form through which users are invited to submit their name, email address, telephone, location, and a message. The site encourages users to complete this form stating "You didn't come this far to stop, once we receive your message we will send you the necessary forms to partner with us". Complainant also notes that "[t]here is no contact information provided on the website affiliated with the Domain Name and the website fails to disclose the identity of the Respondent or its relationship with Complainant. Furthermore, the website contains no privacy policy or terms and conditions." From this evidence, the Panel finds that Respondent's obviously commercial website is impersonating Complainant and seeking to deceptively convey to users that the site originates with or is provided under the auspices of Complainant. Thus, Complainant has made out a prima facie case that Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and that it is also not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). As noted above, this shifts the burden of proof to Respondent but its email to Forum does nothing to rebut Complainant's case.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant argues that Respondent had actual and constructive knowledge of Complainant's JUNTO Marks at the time it registered the <juntomoney.com> domain name. Arguments of bad faith based on constructive notice are typically disfavored in UDRP case precedent. See Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014) ("The Panel notes that although the UDRP does not recognize 'constructive notice' as sufficient grounds for finding Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith, the Panel here finds actual knowledge through the name used for the domain and the use made of it."). However, actual knowledge of a complainant's mark does adequately create a foundation upon which to support a finding of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See iFinex Inc. v. xu shuaiwei, FA 1760249 (Forum Jan. 1, 2018) ("Respondent's prior knowledge is evident from the notoriety of Complainant's BITFINEX trademark as well as from Respondent's use of its trademark laden domain name to direct internet traffic to a website which is a direct competitor of Complainant."). Complainant submits screenshots from its own website as well as examples of unsolicited news coverage from such media outlets Bloomberg, Yahoo! Finance, and Quiver Quantitative to claim that its Marks are well-known. It also contends that, given Respondent's use of the <juntomoney.com> domain name to host a fraudulent website seeks personal information from users, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the JUNTO Marks when it registered the disputed domain name. The Panel agrees with Complainant and finds it highly likely that Respondent did have actual knowledge of and specifically targeted Complainant's Marks at that time.

 

Complainant goes on to claim that the Respondent registered and uses the <juntomoney.com> domain name to pass itself off as Complainant with the goal of harvesting personal information from users and phishing for monetary transfers. Using a confusingly similar domain name to pass oneself off as a complainant in furtherance of such a phishing scheme demonstrates bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation v. Ian, FA 1772894 (Forum Mar. 26, 2018) (where respondent's website is "designed to fraudulently obtain the login credentials of Complainant's employees" the panel found that it is "obviously intended to create confusion with Complainant, likely as part of a fraudulent phishing scheme, [and] is indicative of bad faith under these provisions of the Policy."); see also United States Postal Service v. kyle javier, FA 1787265 (Forum June 12, 2018) ("Use of a domain name to phish for Internet users' personal information is evidence of bad faith."). Here, Complainant provides screenshots of the <juntomoney.com> site. It is apparent that Respondent's site seeks to confuse users into believing that the site originates or is affiliated with Complainant and to provide personal contact information that appears likely to be used for phishing activity. Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(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 <juntomoney.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Steven M. Levy, Panelist

Dated: November 28, 2025