DECISION

 

Financial Information Network, Inc. v. Domain Admin / Minml Minml, LLC

Claim Number: FA2511002188754

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Financial Information Network, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by James A. Italia of Italia IP, Inc., California, USA. Respondent is Domain Admin / Minml Minml, LLC ("Respondent"), represented by Sushila Chanana of Farella Braun + Martel LLP, California, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <fin.com>, registered with SafeNames Ltd.

 

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.

 

Gerald M. Levine, Carol M. Stoner and Eugene I. Low as Panelists and Eugene I. Low as Chair.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on November 13, 2025; Forum received payment on November 13, 2025.

 

On November 17, 2025, SafeNames Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <fin.com> domain name is registered with SafeNames Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. SafeNames Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the SafeNames Ltd. 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 25, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 8, 2026 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@fin.com. Also on November 25, 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 January 8, 2026.

 

On January 16, 2026, pursuant to Respondent's request to have the dispute decided by a three-member Panel, Forum appointed Gerald M. Levine, Carol Stoner and Eugene I. Low as Panelists and Eugene I. Low as Chair.

 

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.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: IDENTITY OF THE PROPER RESPONDENT

Respondent contends that Complainant has named the wrong Respondent. Respondent contends that, with support of affidavit evidence and WHOIS record, that Minml, LLC assigned its rights to the disputed domain name to Expa-Fin, LLC ("Expa-Fin") and accordingly Expa-Fin has become the registrant of the disputed domain name since October 29, 2025 (before the Complainant was served on November 25, 2025).

 

On the other hand, the Panel notes that when Complainant first filed the Complaint on November 13, 2025, the Respondent named was "REDACTED FOR PRIVACY". Following a Deficiency Letter issued by Forum attaching the Registrar's email verification, Complainant then amended the Complaint to name the Respondent as "Domain Admin / Minml Minml, LLC".

 

Facing this apparent discrepancy in the identity of Respondent, the Panel requested Forum to seek re-verification from the Registrar on the registrant's identity as of the date of filing of the Complaint. Forum sought re-verification and the Registrar confirmed to Forum that the registrant's identity was as follows:

 

Contact Name: Domain Admin

Registrant Name: Minml

Company Name: Minml, LLC

 

However, the Registrar also informed Forum that it noticed that the ownership of the disputed domain name was changed on December 10, 2025, and that it was conducting an investigation on this change of ownership.

 

On this preliminary issue, the Panel finds as follows:

 

1. As per Rule 1(d) of Forum's Supplemental Rules to the Policy, the "Holder of a Domain Name Registration" (i.e. Respondent), means the single person or entity listed in the registration information, as verified by the Registrar, at the time of commencement.

2. As per the Registrar's initial and subsequent verification emails, the registrant at the time of commencement should be "Minml".

 

3. While the Complainant has named the Respondent as "Domain Admin/Minml Minml, LLC", this was likely due to some formatting issues in the Registrar's initial verification email. Based on the Registrar's correspondence, it is clear to the Panel that the Complainant has named the correct Respondent as per the Registrar's verification email.

 

4. Accordingly, the Panel will proceed with deciding on this matter on the basis that the Respondent has been correctly named, and will refer to it as "Minml" in this decision. The Panel considers that Respondent is not prejudiced because the current Response was filed on the basis that the Respondent is "Minml" (despite Respondent's contention that Minml is not the correct Respondent).

 

5. As to the alleged transfer of the disputed domain name to Expa-Fin, there appears to be a discrepancy as to when this happened. The Panel notes that according to Paragraph 8(a) of the Policy, the disputed domain name should not have been transferred to a new holder after the commencement of these proceedings. However, this matter is beyond the power and jurisdiction of this Panel. The Panel will let Forum follow up with the Registrar on its investigation.  

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

The parties' respective contentions are summarized below. For the avoidance of doubt, all citations of cases, decisions and rules quoted in this section "PARTIES' CONTENTIONS" were provided by the parties in their respective submissions.

 

A. Complainant

Complainant's contentions are summarized as follows:

 

Complainant relies on the following trademarks registered with USPTO:

 

FIN in stylized block format	FIN in stylized block format	FIN in stylized letters containing a design of light rays.
Registration no. 4714710	Registration no. 5970440	Registration no. 5999814
CLASS 36: Financial and investment services, namely, management and brokerage in the fields of stocks, bonds, options, commodities, futures and other securities, and the investment of funds of others; Financial counseling services, namely, helping others build a better working relationship with their money; Financial information; Financial information and advisory services; Financial information provided by electronic means; Financial information services provided on-line from a computer database or a global computer network, namely, providing information in the field of financial classification of companies and securities; Financial investment brokerage services; Financial investment services, namely, administering the issuance, underwriting and distribution of securities; Financial planning; Financial planning and investment advisory services; Financial planning consultation; Financial services, namely, wealth management services	CLASS 9: Downloadable computer software for storing and managing electronic data for use in the field of financial management; Database management software for use by financial advisors   CLASS 42: Software as a service (SAAS) services featuring software for database management in the field of finance	CLASS 36: Financial information; Financial information provided by electronic means; Financial research and information services; Providing financial information   CLASS 42: Software as a service (SAAS) services featuring software for database management in the field of finance

 

First element:

Complainant asserts that the <fin.com> domain name is identical to the literal element of Complainant's registered marks (FIN). With respect to United States trademark law and as per the Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (TMEP), marks are compared in their entireties for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression. Stone Lion Capital Partners, LP v. Lion Capital LLP, 746 F.3d 1317, 1321, 110 USPQ2d 1157, 1160 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772, 396 F. 3d 1369, 1371, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1691 (Fed. Cir. 2005)); (TMEP) §1207.01(b)-(b)(v). Moreover, as determined by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB), "Similarity in any one of these elements may be sufficient to find the marks confusingly similar." In re Davia, 110 USPQ2d 1810, 1812 (TTAB 2014) (citing In re 1st USA Realty Prof'ls, Inc. , 84 USPQ2d 1581, 1586 (TTAB 2007)); In re White Swan Ltd., 8 USPQ2d 1534, 1535 (TTAB 1988)); TMEP §1207.01(b). Here, the domain name is identical to the literal element of Complainant's registered mark in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression. Additionally, the services of the parties need not be identical or even competitive to find a likelihood of confusion. See On-line Careline Inc. v. Am. Online Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 1086, 56 USPQ2d 1471, 1475 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Recot, Inc. v. Becton, 214 F.3d 1322, 1329, 54 USPQ2d 1894, 1898 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ("[E]ven if the services in question are different from, and thus not related to, one another in kind, the same services can be related in the mind of the consuming public as to the origin of the services."); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).

 

The respective services need only be "related in some manner and/or if the circumstances surrounding their marketing [be] such that they could give rise to the mistaken belief that [the services] emanate from the same source." Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1369, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1722 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting 7-Eleven Inc. v. Wechsler, 83 USPQ2d 1715, 1724 (TTAB 2007)); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i). Moreover, as soon as Complainant began investigating the domain name, it appears that Respondent populated the <fin.com> domain with a splash page advertising financial goods and services that are identical and competitive to Complainant's services. Further, said splash page was populated by numerous fake links and unclickable components. Prior to Complainant's investigation, Respondent did not have any indicia or matter present on the <fin.com> domain name. Here, the identical nature of the domain name to Complainant's mark in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression, gives rise to the mistaken belief that the services emanate from the same source, in this case, the Complainant. Consumers are thus likely to believe the registered mark and domain name identify the same source of services.

 

Second element:

Complainant asserts that Respondent should be considered as having no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the <fin.com> domain name. To all knowledge of Complainant, Respondent has not used and does not use the domain name in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services. It is Complainant's belief that the sole and intended purpose of owning the domain name is to sell it to Complainant or its competitors. Moreover, there is no evidence that Respondent as an individual, business, or other organization, has been commonly known by the domain name. Reviewing the website associated with the <fin.com> domain name reveals no identifying information about Respondent. In fact, Respondent has opted to maintain its anonymity through the Registrar's privacy service. Moreover, trademark law would likely bar Respondent from associating itself with the <fin.com> domain name. Additionally, Respondent can make no claim of making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the <fin.com> domain name.

 

Third element:

Complainant respectfully asserts that the domain name should be considered as having been registered and being used in bad faith. Given Complainant's registered trademarks with USPTO, it is obvious that Respondent has acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to either the Complainant or a to a competitor of Complainant. While Complainant is unaware that Respondent registered the domain name specifically to prevent Complainant from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name and has no knowledge of Respondent's pattern of conduct given Complainant is presently barred from knowing Respondent's identity, Respondent was certainly on constructive notice that the domain name was a registered mark. Thus, Respondent knew, or should have known, that registering the domain name would prevent the owner of the trademark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name. Moreover, by registering a domain name that is identical to the literal element of Respondent's registered trademark it can be assumed that Respondent registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor. Lastly, as seen in the exhibit which shows timestamped printout of a single page website associated with the literal element of Complainant's mark, it is clear that by using the domain name, Respondent is intentionally attempting to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its web site. When Internet Users visit the <fin.com> domain name, expecting to find a website associated with Complainant, they are tricked into visiting Respondent's website, only to find a commercial offer for its domain name. This confusion is actively diluting and tarnishing the years of good will associated with the registered mark.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent's contentions are summarized as follows:

 

Respondent identity:

The registered owner of the disputed domain name is Expa-Fin, LLC ("Expa-Fin"), not Minml, LLC. Expa-Fin has been the registered owner since at least October 29, 2025, which is before the Complaint was filed on November 25, 2025. Since the correct Respondent here is Expa-Fin, the Complaint should be amended to identify Expa-Fin as the Respondent.

As a preliminary matter, the Complaint should be dismissed, or alternatively stayed pending amendment, because the Complainant has named the wrong Respondent. The correct Respondent is Expa-Fin. On or around October 27, 2025 – before the Complaint was served on November 25, 2025 – Minml assigned its rights to the Domain Name to Expa-Fin. Because the Complaint currently identifies Minml as the Respondent, that entity name is used herein. Expa-Fin and Minml reserve all rights, including the right to have the Complaint amended to identify the correct Respondent. Because Minml does not own the Domain Name, it lacks standing to defend this proceeding. For this reason alone, the Complaint must be dismissed, or at minimum stayed pending amendment to name the proper Respondent.

 

First element:

The first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. For the reasons explained below, Complainant does not have standing to file this Complaint and the Panel may dispose this case without reaching the remaining two elements.

All three of the Complainant's registered marks are stylized marks, not standard word marks. One mark contains a design of light rays. The other two marks consist of "FIN" in stylized block format.

"[W]here design elements comprise the dominant portion of the relevant mark such that they effectively overtake the textual elements in prominence . . . (i.e., the scope of protection afforded to the mark is effectively limited to its stylized elements), panels may find that the complainant's trademark registration is insufficient by itself to support standing under the UDRP." See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0"), Section 1.10. This is exactly the case here. Complainant lacks standing because the design elements of its three marks comprise the dominant portion of the asserted marks such that they effectively overtake the textual elements in prominence.

Indeed, the prosecution histories of all three asserted marks support this conclusion. With respect to the 4714710 Mark, Complainant admits to the Trademark Office that "a majority of [Complainant's] clients refer to the [Complainant] only by the very stylized mark it presently seeks to register.") (emphasis added); with respect to the 5970440 Mark, Complainant relies on the "very stylized mark" (the 4714710 Mark); whereas the 5999814 Mark "consists of the stylized letters 'FIN' containing a design of light rays."). These admissions by Complainant confirm that the trademark registrations at issue are for "very stylized" marks, and not for the term "FIN" itself.

Further, the registration of a stylized design mark does not, by itself, confer trademark rights in the generic or descriptive word element standing alone. See Aqua Engineering & Equipment, Inc. v. Domain Administrator / Portmedia Holdings Ltd, FA 1785667 (Forum June 25, 2018) ("Complainant's design mark appears to this Panel to be so generalized in nature that a comparison with the Disputed Domain Name compels the conclusion that Complainant's mark is neither identical, nor is it confusingly similar to the Disputed Domain Name."). Likewise, a design-plus-word registration does not grant exclusive rights in the word apart from its graphic presentation. See Weil Lifestyle, LLC v. Vertical Axis, Inc., FA0702000926455 (Forum May 9, 2007) (complainant's U.S. registered mark "applies only to a design plus word mark and not to a word mark alone.").

Here, as admitted by Complainant in the prosecution histories of all three asserted marks, any distinctiveness of the asserted marks resides in their stylized graphic presentation, not in the word "FIN" itself. The Domain Name contains only the generic word "fin," which is an abbreviation for "financial" and "finance." With respect to the 4714710 Mark, the Trademark Office expressly recognized that "'FIN' is defined by Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, … as 'the abbreviation for finance; financial,'" and further noted that "FIN" is "highly descriptive wording, and simply long years of usage is insufficient evidence to show the wording has acquired distinctiveness.".

A domain name cannot reproduce font, layout, or other design elements, and the Domain Name does not attempt to imitate Complainant's logo or trade dress. Treating Complainant's stylized design registration as conferring exclusive rights in the word "FIN" alone improperly expands the scope of its trademark beyond its registered form. "Ownership of . . . a [stylized] mark as a means of identifying the source of particular goods and services does not entitle the owner of the mark to prevent use of those words by others in commerce accurately and descriptively in accordance with their primary meaning in the English language." Porto Chico Stores, Inc. v. Zambon, D2000-1270 (WIPO Nov. 15, 2000). Accordingly, the Panel should find that Complainant's stylized trademark registrations alone are insufficient to support standing under the UDRP. Upon so finding, it necessarily follows that the Domain Name is not identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's marks because Complainant solely relies on its registered marks to assert that the first element is satisfied.

 

Second element:

Complainant has failed to "make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name," as Complainant "must" do to prevail. StayinFront, Inc. v. Narendra Ghimire / Deep Vision Architects, FA 2177628 (Forum Nov. 8, 2025). This is primarily because the Complaint "lack[s] . . . any evidence as to the nature and size of Complainant's business, or any evidence as to its reputation or fame when assessed against the fact that [FIN] is a dictionary word of obvious application to the field of [finance]." To the contrary, the evidence shows that Complainant's purported website has been nothing more than a holding page for years – i.e., Complainant has not established that it was a practicing entity when Respondent acquired the Domain Name or that it is even a practicing entity today. Further, the Complainant's LinkedIn page shows that it does not have any activities or connected employees.

On the other hand, the record demonstrates that Respondent has rights and a legitimate interest in the Domain Name because Respondent (1) made a good-faith purchase of a common, descriptive domain name in June of 2023, (2) had no knowledge of the Complainant or its alleged marks at the time of acquiring the Domain Name, and (3) had no intent to exploit anyone's trademark rights.

 

(i) Acquiring and Selling a Common Abbreviation Domain Name in Connection with its Descriptive Meaning Establishes Rights and a Legitimate Interest.

The acquisition and sale of generic and descriptive term domain names, such as <fin.com>, ipso facto establishes a respondent's rights and legitimate interests under the Policy, so long as the domain was not purchased with the intent to target a complainant's trademark. Panels have consistently held that "the purchasing and sale of generic or descriptive domain names is a bona fide offering under the Policy so long as infringing or cybersquatting intent is not evident." StayinFront, FA 2177628; see also Abnormal Security Corp. v. Narendra Ghimire, FA 2099733 (Forum Jul. 26, 2024) (claim denied against <abnormal.ai> where the respondent "bought [the domain] at auction as part of its business of buying and selling of domain names comprised of generic terms."). Here, Respondent is an investment company that invests in domain names, maintains a portfolio of hundreds of generic and descriptive domain names, bought the Domain Name, and transferred rights to the Domain Name. See Incorp Services, Inc. v. RareNames, WebReg, FA 0559911 (Forum Nov. 10, 2005) ("The panel finds that the Respondent is in the business of selling domain names consisting of generic or descriptive terms and that such is a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy. As such, Respondent has demonstrated rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name."); see also X6D Limited v. Telepathy, Inc., Case No. D2010-1519 (WIPO Nov. 16, 2010) ("Due to the commercial value of descriptive or generic domain names it has become a business model to register and sell such domain names to the highest potential bidder. Such a practice . . . has been found to constitute . . . a bona fide offering of goods or services.").

Indeed, "all things being equal, anyone has such a right to use such an ordinary dictionary word in a domain name." Abnormal Security Corp., supra FA 2099733. Further, the Panel in Abnormal Security Corp. found that the respondent there had rights and legitimate interests in the domain name because Complainant failed to "show by evidence that [any] of its marks [are] famous or prominent, despite their use and recognition." This led the Panel to conclude "[t]hus, there is no evidence to rebut the presumption that the Respondent is entitled to use this dictionary and generic word in its domain name." Here, Complainant does not even bother to demonstrate that its marks are "famous or prominent." Further: (1) "Fin" is a common abbreviation for "finance" or "financial" in the English language with a descriptive meaning and is not associated with a single entity; and (2) Complainant has not presented any "compelling evidence" of "infringing or cybersquatting intent" by Respondent. Conclusory allegations are insufficient.

 

(ii) "FIN" Is a Generic and Descriptive Term Widely Used in Other Trademarks.

Moreover, there are 303 registered or pending "FIN" trademarks world-wide, spanning across 62 jurisdictions among over 91 different applicants. In the US only, excluding the Complainant's three marks, there are 26 registered or pending trademarks where "fin" is the sole textual component, owned by 24 different applicants. Notably, multiple third-parties registered trademark using the term "fin" as an abbreviation for "finance" or "financial." For example, Fidelity Information Services, LLC owns a stylized "fin" trademark covering "computer software for the development of software in the financial industry", TipLink Corp. applied for a stylized "fin" trademark covering "downloadable software for managing peer-to-peer transfers of cryptocurrency and digital cryptocurrency assets using blockchain technology using payment links", the Bank Finservice of Russian Federation owns a stylized "fin" trademark covering "banking… financing… financial analysis …", and Finmatics GmbH of Austria owns a stylized "fin" trademark covering accounting and finance software. Forum panels have long-recognized that third-party trademark registrations incorporating the same term weighs strongly against a finding that the term functions as a distinctive source identifier. See e.g., StayinFront, FA2509002177628 (finding a term generic where at least 15 U.S. and 76 non-U.S. registered or pending trademarks existed with the term as the sole textual component). The evidence here is even more compelling: over 300 registrations across 62 jurisdictions by more than 90 different applicants. This underscores that "FIN" is, at minimum, a highly descriptive and widely used term, not one uniquely associated with the Complainant.

Further, Complainant failed to present any evidence that Respondent intended to target Complainant or its competitors when it acquired and/or transferred rights to the Domain Name. Mere conclusory allegations are insufficient.

 

(iii) "FIN" Is a Generic and Descriptive Term Widely Used in Other Domain Names.

The generic nature of the abbreviation "fin" is further reinforced by widespread third-party use of "fin" in domain names for bona fide commercial purposes across the financial and technology sectors, including but not limited to fin.capital, finn-app.com, fin.link, etc.

Such widespread use confirms that "fin" functions as a generic and highly descriptive abbreviation, not as an indicator of a single commercial source. Moreover, third parties have registered domain names incorporating "fin"—including, for example, fin.page and fin.link—even after the Complainant registered the trademarks at issue in 2015 and 2020. However, to Respondent's knowledge, Complainant has not pursued any action against the owners of these domains. This pattern of third-party use and selective enforcement further demonstrates that the term "fin" lacks distinctiveness and that Internet users would not reasonably associate every domain name containing "fin" with the Complainant. Indeed, Complainant offers no evidence to support this assertion.

 

(iv) Respondent Did Not Intend To Target Complainant's Trademark.

Here, Minml purchased the domain name on June 29, 2023, without any intent to target or take advantage of the Complainant's trademark rights. As a matter of fact, when Minml acquired the Domain Name in 2023, Minml was not even aware of Complainant or its trademarks. Minml purchased the domain name solely because it consists of a common, descriptive term with inherent economic value and became available when its prior owner elected to sell it. Minml reasonably and lawfully believed that acquiring a descriptive domain name could yield value in the secondary market. As explained above, such business practices reflect a legitimate domain investment, not cybersquatting or an attempt to exploit another's trademark rights.

 

(v) Respondent's Domain Investment and Leasing Model is a Bona Fide Offering of Goods and Services.

Minml's investment in the Domain Name is directly tied to a bona fide offering of financial services made through the domain by its lessee, Fin, Inc., a legitimate financial technology company. Expa-Fin leased the Domain Name to Fin, Inc. on October 29, 2025. Moreover, Minml is in the domain investment business and own hundreds of domain names consisting of commonly used generic terms or descriptive terms. Selling a generic domain name for use consistent with its ordinary meaning is a legitimate business practice and establishes rights and legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

Here, the undisputed record shows legitimate conduct at every step. The Domain Name was created in September of 1999. Minml acquired the Domain Name in June of 2023 and later transferred the Domain Name to Expa-Fin in October of 2025. Expa-Fin subsequently leased the domain name to Fin, Inc., a financial services company that is now the active operator of the website <fin.com>. The fact that the Domain Name is in active commercial use by the lessee, further supports Respondent's rights and legitimate interest. The Domain Name operated by Expa-Fin's lessee is a website that is currently used to promote a financial technology platform described as "[t]he Infrastructure for Global Money Movement" that is "[b]uilt on stablecoin.". This financial technology platform delivers "real-time flexibility, transparency, and control to global enterprises" which "powers fast, borderless payments for global companies." Indeed, the website to advertise and provide bona fide financial services, including "Cross-Border Payments" and virtual "[w]allets." In sum, Respondent selling a generic finance domain name for use in connection with financial services is precisely the type of legitimate activity contemplated by Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

(vi) Abandonment - Complainant Has Failed to Demonstrate Continuous Trademark Use of its Marks.

Respondent could not have targeted Complainant, as Complaint is not, and has not recently been, an entity with any meaningful operations. The Complaint does not allege, let alone provide evidence of, any meaningful commercial activity by the Complainant. It contains no information showing that Complainant sells goods or services to consumers in any market, in any volume, or at any time. The Complaint is entirely silent as to the size or scope of Complainant's business, the nature of its offerings, where any such offerings are made available, or whether any customers exist at all. Aside from identifying three U.S. trademark registrations, the Complaint offers no evidence of actual commercial use of the asserted marks or of any business operations conducted under the marks. The absence of any discussion of real-world sales, customers, or marketplace presence significantly undermines Complainant's claim to enforceable trademark rights and weighs against a finding that Respondent targeted Complainant's marks. Historical captures from the Wayback Machine show that the Complainant has not maintained consistent, ongoing use sufficient to maintain trademark goodwill. At present, Complainant's website appears abandoned, displaying only a stylized "FIN" design without any meaningful commercial activity. Complainant's lack of sustained use undermines any claim that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in <fin.com> or that Respondent targeted Complainant.   

 

Third element:

Complainant fails to and cannot show any evidence proving Respondent's bad faith in either registering or using the Domain Name. Moreover, the record shows a good-faith purchase of a common, descriptive domain name, no knowledge of Complainant or its alleged mark at the time of acquisition, and no intent to exploit anyone's trademark rights.

 

i) UDPR Policy ¶ 4(b)(i) - Complainant Failed to Prove Bad Faith.

The Complaint offers no evidence that the disputed domain name <fin.com> was registered, acquired, or used in bad faith under UDPR Policy ¶ 4(b)(i). Panels have determined that bad faith cannot be established absent specific evidence that the respondent registered the domain name to target or profit from the complainant's trademark. See Ultrafem, Inc. v. Warren R. Royal, FA 0097682 (Forum Aug. 2, 2001) (holding that the registration and attempted sale of a generic domain name, without intent to capitalize on the complainant's trademark, does not constitute bad faith).

The exhibits cited by Complainant do not bridge this evidentiary gap. Complainant boldly makes the conclusory assertion that it is "obvious" Respondent acquired the domain name for the purpose of selling or transferring it to Complainant or a competitor. This assertion is not grounded in reality; no reasonable person would find this "obvious" – especially because Complainant also admits that "Complainant is unaware that Respondent registered the domain name specifically to prevent Complainant from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name."  Complainant offers no explanation and no evidence to support its "obvious" claim—nor could it, as none exists. The current use of the Domain directly contradicts Complainant's theory: <fin.com> is actively used by a financial services company, and there is no evidence that the domain has ever been offered for sale to Complainant or that this was ever the intention. Respondent invests and trades in domains and did not even know about Complainant before the Complaint was filed, let alone know who Complainant's competitors were.

"Dealing in domain names in the secondary market is a legitimate trading activity." Young Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Xiaopeng Zhou, D2024-1699 (WIPO July 11, 2024) ("find[ing] the third element of the Policy has not been established"); see also Etam, plc v. Alberta Hot Rods, D2000-1654 (WIPO Jan. 31, 2001) ("Respondent's offer to sell the domain name does not constitute bad faith, in light of the fact that it has a legitimate interest in the domain name."). The record affirmatively supports a finding of good-faith acquisition and use and forecloses any claim of bad faith under the Policy.

 

ii) UDPR Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii) - Respondent Had No Specific Knowledge of Complainant or Its Alleged Mark.

Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii) requires proof that Respondent has "registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that [Respondent has] engaged in a pattern of such conduct." (emphasis added). The Policy thus imposes two independent requirements: (1) a specific intent to block the trademark owner, and (2) evidence of a pattern of similar conduct.

The Complainant misstates this standard by asserting instead that "Respondent knew, or should have known, that registering the domain name would prevent the owner of the trademark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name." That formulation impermissibly replaces the Policy's express intent requirement ("in order to") with a negligence-style "knew or should have known" standard, and it entirely disregards the additional requirement that the Respondent must have "engaged in a pattern of such conduct." 

Complainant offers no evidence—nor could it—showing that Respondent registered the domain name with the intent to block Complainant, or that Respondent has engaged in any pattern of similar conduct. Because Complainant fails to satisfy either prong required under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii), its allegations of bad faith under that provision necessarily fail.

Complainant's allegation of bad faith also fails because there is no evidence—nor any plausible basis—to conclude that Respondent had knowledge of Complainant when the Domain Name was acquired. Indeed, Complainant concedes that it is "unaware that Respondent registered the domain name specifically to prevent Complainant from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name." That concession is unsurprising, because claiming otherwise is chronologically impossible.

The domain name <fin.com> was first created on September 16, 1999. That date predates Complainant's trademark registration dates of 2015 and 2020. Additionally, Respondent has not engaged in a pattern of registering domain names to prevent trademark owners from reflecting their marks in corresponding domain names. Respondent is a domain name investor and owns hundreds of domain names consisting of commonly used generic terms or descriptive terms. Respondent did not acquire the disputed domain name with any intent to cybersquat or take unfair advantage of anyone's trademark rights. Panels routinely treat limited ownership of descriptive or dictionary domain names as evidence of legitimacy—not cybersquatting. See StayinFront, FA 2177628 (observing that ownership of other descriptive or dictionary domain names supports a finding of legitimate conduct rather than a pattern of bad faith registration).

Nor is there any basis to infer knowledge or targeting at the time Minml acquired the Domain Name on June 29, 2023 At that time, Complainant's website appeared dysfunctional and effectively abandoned, displaying only a stylized "FIN" logo without any substantive content. Nothing about the defunct-appearing website would have alerted a reasonable purchaser to an active business or an enforceable trademark presence. Under these circumstances, Minml could not have had knowledge of Complainant—much less an intent to target it. Nor did Minml have such knowledge.

Further, "[w]hatever the merits of Complainant's arguments that Respondent is using the Domain Name in bad faith, those arguments are irrelevant, as a complainant must prove both bad faith registration and bad faith use in order to prevail." Platterz v. Andrew Melcher, FA 1729887 (Forum Jun. 19, 2017) (emphasis added) (finding no bad faith). Complainant has failed to satisfy both prongs.  

 

iii) UDPR Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) – Respondent engaged in a Lawful Domain Investment, and did Not Act to Disrupt Complainant's Business.

Even if Complainant had trademark rights over the term "fin", the Complaint nevertheless fails because Complainant cannot establish bad faith under UDPR ¶ 4(b)(iii). To prevail under the Policy, a complainant must prove that the respondent registered the disputed domain name with knowledge of and intent to target the complainant's mark. Respondent's acquisition and use of <fin.com> are wholly consistent with lawful domain investment in a common, descriptive abbreviation, and the domain's lease to a financial services company here reflects a natural use of the term "fin" in its ordinary, descriptive sense.

Further, where, as here, a complainant fails to demonstrate sustained trademark use or any evidence of targeting, panels reject allegations of bad faith. Indeed, Wayback Machine evidence shows that any use of the trademark by Complainant was limited and discontinued. During a window between late 2022 and mid-2023, right before Minml invested in <fin.com>, the Complainant's websites appear abandoned. A respondent cannot plausibly be said to have registered a domain name to disrupt a business that on its face was not meaningfully or continuously operating.

Once again, all Complainant offers are conclusory allegations, which are insufficient to prove a violation under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Tristar Products, Inc. v. Domain Administrator / Telebrands, Corp., FA 1597388 (Forum Feb. 16, 2015) ("Complainant makes conclusory allegations of bad faith but has adduced no specific evidence that warrants a holding that Respondent proceeded in bad faith at the time it registered the disputed domain name. Mere assertions of bad faith, even when made on multiple grounds, do not prove bad faith."); see also Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc. v. Samjo CellTech.Ltd, FA 0406512 (Forum Mar. 9, 2005) (finding that the complainant failed to establish that the respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith because mere assertions of bad faith are insufficient for a complainant to establish Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)). In sum, Complainant has failed to meet its burden of proof to establish that Respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith.

 

iv) UDPR Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) – Complainant Fails to Prove that Respondent Intentionally Attempted to Attract Complainant's Internet Users.

Complainant again advances unfounded and conclusory allegations, asserting that a mere screenshot of the Domain Name purportedly demonstrates that "Respondent is intentionally attempting to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its web site." That assertion is unsupported by the record and misapplies Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).

As discussed above, Complainant offers no evidence that Respondent even knew of Complainant at the time it acquired the Domain Name (or that Respondent even know of Complainant before the Complaint was filed). Indeed, the record demonstrates that at the time Respondent acquired the Domain Name in 2023, Respondent was not aware of Complainant or any trademark rights it claims in the term "FIN." Further, as discussed above, Complainant does not allege—much less demonstrate—that it operates an active business or provides goods or services under the asserted marks. The record demonstrates the opposite. The Complaint is notably silent as to any actual commercial operations, customers, or marketplace presence associated with the mark(s). Nor does Complainant allege to be commonly known by the mark in any meaningful sense. Accordingly, Complainant has failed to prove Respondent "intentionally" attempted to attract Internet Users through confusion.

Moreover, "fin" is a widely used abbreviation for "finance," and the record reflects extensive third-party use of the term by multiple, unrelated entities in the financial services sector. Complainant is therefore not uniquely associated with the term "fin," let alone with the disputed domain name. In such circumstances, use of a generic or descriptive term in its ordinary sense cannot give rise to bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).

 

REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKING ("RDNH")

Respondent requests that the Administrative Panel find reverse domain name hijacking ("RDNH") against Complainant, pursuant to Rule 15(e). Here, the Complaint was filed in bad faith to harass Respondent or to otherwise deprive Respondent from using the Domain Name. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0, Section 4.16. For example, "basing a complaint on only the barest of allegations without any supporting evidence," warrants a finding of RDNH.

Even a cursory investigation would reveal that Complainant could not establish any of the three required elements (finding RDNH appropriate where "complainant knew it could not succeed as to any of the required three elements."). See e.g., Clean Slate Credit Solutions v. Jake Rustenhoven, FA 1924095 (Forum Jan. 8, 2021) ("Counsel should have known that she could not prove either the 4(a)(ii) or (iii) elements of Complainant's case, yet proceeded to institute this dispute nonetheless."); see also Quincy Hall / Advice Only v. Steven Fox / Advice Only, FA 2186579 (Forum December 15, 2025) (finding RDNH because, inter alia, "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.").

The disputed domain name is a generic three-letter abbreviation commonly used for "finance" or "financial," which further supports a finding of RDNH. See e.g., Empire Industrial Park LLC v. License DIamond / IT Services, FA 2160517 (Forum July 15, 2025) (finding RDNH because, inter alia, "the Complainant does not address the fact that the disputed domain name consists of terms that, taken together, are to some extent generic or descriptive."). Further, Complainant does not allege that Respondent ever solicited Complainant, or ever used the Domain Name to reference or trade on Complainant's mark. At the time Respondent acquired the domain, Complainant's own online presence was intermittent and non-functional, undermining any conceivable theory that Respondent registered the Domain Name to exploit or disrupt Complainant's business. Also, Complaint failed to provide this information (about its own website) to the Panel, which further supports a finding of RDNH. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0, Section 4.16 (finding RDNH appropriate where the complainant "attempt[s] to mislead the panel."). Further, Complainant is represented by experienced counsel and should be held to a higher standard. Rather than confront its fatal deficiencies, Complainant relied on conclusory allegations and a fundamentally erroneous application of the Policy—attempting to convert lawful ownership of a generic domain name into "bad faith" simply because the domain is valuable. Complainant's bad faith is further underscored by its selective enforcement. Despite widespread third-party use of "fin" in domain names and trademarks, Complainant chose to single out <fin.com>—a long-registered, inherently valuable generic domain—while tolerating numerous similar uses. This selective targeting confirms that the Complaint was not brought to address cybersquatting, but to improperly leverage the UDRP as a means of acquiring a desirable domain name it could not obtain through legitimate means.

There is no legitimate basis for this proceeding, and Complainant knew or should have known that before filing its Complaint. Given the lack of evidence, and conclusory allegations, it is clear that Complainant used this proceeding "as a means of exerting pressure unfairly on Respondent with a view to acquiring the Disputed Domain Name for itself." See Aqua Engineering & Equipment, Inc. v. Domain Administrator / Portmedia Holdings Ltd, FA 1785667 (Forum June 25, 2018) (finding RDNH). A finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking is therefore not only appropriate, but necessary to deter misuse of the Policy and to protect the integrity of this ADR system.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has failed to establish the first element. If the Panel were to decide on the second and third elements, Complainant would also have failed to establish those elements. The Complaint is accordingly dismissed.

The Panel finds RDNH against Complainant.

 

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

Complainant has failed to establish this element.

 

Complainant relies on its three US trademark registrations for stylized FIN marks. Complainant has not asserted common law rights in relation to these stylized FIN trademarks or the plain word FIN, nor has it referred to or adduced evidence in relation to its use of these trademarks.

 

While these three US trademark registrations do not carry a disclaimer on the text FIN as such, the Panel notes that all three trademarks are described as consisting of the stylized letters FIN on their respective registration certificates. The Panel also notes from the prosecution files as adduced by Respondent that Complainant seemed to have acknowledged that the FIN term was (highly) descriptive and that Complainant only sought to register the trademark in a very stylized form. Further, based on the Panel's review of the USPTO online records for these three trademarks, the Panel notes that no "Standard Character Claim" has been made.

 

All these factors, plus the inherent descriptive meaning of the FIN term in relation to the goods and services in question (i.e. financial related goods and services), lead the Panel to conclude that it is not appropriate to make a text-to-text comparison between Complainant's registered trademarks and the disputed domain name. Complainant's registered trademark rights are confined to the specific stylized designs of its FIN trademarks but do not confer exclusive rights to the descriptive/generic FIN term. Complainant has not asserted or adduced proof that it has acquired any common law rights to the descriptive/generic FIN term.

 

The Panel shares the observations of the panels in Porto Chico Stores, Inc. v. Otavio Zambon (WIPO Case No. D2000-1270, <lovelygirls.com>)("the registrations themselves are limited in relation to the goods and services specified but they are also limited to the particular stylized form registered.") and in Meat and Livestock Commission v. David Pearce aka OTC / The Recipe for BSE (WIPO Case No. D2003-0645, <britishmeat.com>et al.)("(t)he Panel considers that the Complainant's rights exist only in the whole combinations which constitute its marks. The Panel is not satisfied by the evidence that the term BRITISH MEAT has itself become distinctive of the Complainant."

 

While the above reasons are sufficient to discuss the first element, the Panel makes the following additional observations:

 

(i) While the contents of Respondent's website(s) are not strictly relevant for the Panel's determination under the first element, the Panel notes that it is not Complainant's case that Respondent has used a mark similar to Complainant's stylized FIN trademarks on Respondent's websites. Indeed, based on the parties' evidence, the Panel cannot see the use of any similar stylized FIN trademarks on Respondent's website(s); and

 

(ii) Complainant has cited exclusively US court and TTAB cases to support its contentions under the first element. Generally speaking, cases at the court level and the trade mark registry level are not relevant to the UDRP proceedings, and may even be unhelpful or prejudicial to Complainant's case as they may be perceived as introducing the notion of trademark infringement into UDRP proceedings.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Given the Panel's decision under the first element, it is not necessary for the Panel to embark on a detailed analysis of the second and third elements. However, for the sake of completeness and to address some of the parties' arguments, the Panel will also briefly address the other two elements.

 

The Panel would also have found in favor of Respondent under the second element. Complainant has failed to establish a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. Complainant merely points to Respondent's website(s) which allegedly had "no activity" or was "populated by numerous fake links and unclickable components". However, there is no evidence or explanation from Complainant as to how the links were "fake" or that the components were "unclickable". The Panel notes that, even if a website is blank, or contains mainly/exclusively of third party links (or "unclickable" components), this does not necessarily mean Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests to the disputed domain name under the second element. Indeed, the burden is higher on Complainant to establish a prima facie case that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in relation to a descriptive term such as FIN. For example, see Abnormal Security Corporation v. Narendra Ghimire, FA 2099733, (Forum July 29, 2024), in which the panel opined that "(t)he word "abnormal" is an ordinary dictionary word in the English language and therefore, in the absence of compelling evidence of bad intention or other reason to doubt the propriety of the Respondent's conduct, it has the right to use it and hence a legitimate interest in it. Indeed, all things being equal, anyone has such a right to use such an ordinary dictionary word in a domain name". Here, Complainant has only made bare assertions, which is clearly insufficient.

 

On the other hand, Respondent's evidence on the history of domain name purchase and use has shown that Respondent has acquired and used the domain name as part of its domain name investment business, and without bad faith. Investing in domain names without bad faith constitutes a legitimate interest (see Section 2.6, UDRP Perspectives: "(s)peculating in and trading in domain names when done without intent to profit from other's trademarks can in and of itself, constitute a "legitimate interest" under the Policy – even without actually using the domain name in connection with its dictionary meaning". This, in the absence of any contrary evidence by Complainant, would have demonstrated that Respondent has the requisite rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

The Panel's findings of Respondent's rights and legitimate interests under the second element would naturally mean that there was/is no bad faith under the third element. Here, Complainant again relies on its bare assertions of bad faith, notwithstanding its own admission that "Complainant is unaware that Respondent registered the domain name specifically to prevent Complainant from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name and has no knowledge of Respondent's pattern of conduct". In the Panel's view, there is simply no evidence that Respondent was/is targeting Complainant or its trademarks, whether now or at the time that Respondent registered or acquired the disputed domain name. See Section 3.3 "Targeting" of UDRP Perspectives: "(t)he key to demonstrating bad faith registration is "targeting"". Accordingly, Complainant would also have failed to establish the third element.

 

REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKING

This Panel makes a finding of RDNH against Complainant. Complainant, especially since it is legally represented, should have been aware that this Complaint could not have reasonably succeeded. Complainant largely relies on bare assertions without supporting evidence. In particular, Complainant should have been well aware of the descriptive nature of the "FIN" term and that the evidential threshold is higher for all three elements, yet Complainant has produced scant evidence.

 

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 <fin.com> domain name REMAIN WITH Respondent.

 

 

 

Gerald M. Levine, Carol M. Stoner, Eugene I. Low

Panelists

Dated: January 28, 2026