DECISION

 

Carronade Capital Management, LP v Betsy Woods

Claim Number: FA2511002189502

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Carronade Capital Management, LP ("Complainant"), represented by Scott Kareff of McDermott Will & Schulte LLP, New York, USA. Respondent is Betsy Woods ("Respondent"), California, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <carronadecapitalpartners.org>, registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com.

 

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 18, 2025; Forum received payment on November 18, 2025.

 

On November 19, 2025, PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <carronadecapitalpartners.org> domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com 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 20, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 10, 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@carronadecapitalpartners.org. Also on November 20, 2025, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.

 

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

 

On December 11, 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 alternative investment firm founded in 2019, focused on non-traditional, undervalued debt instruments, combining robust fundamental business valuation with proprietary legal and capital structure analysis. Complainant is headquartered in Darien, Connecticut and is the owner of the U.S. (and international) trademark registrations for the marks CARRONADE, CARRONADE CAPITAL and CARRONADE CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LP (e.g., United States Reg. No. 6165791 dated September 29, 2020; Reg. No. 6165799 dated September 29, 2020; and Reg. No. 6,176,617 dated October 13, 2020; as well as International Reg. No. 1,533,920 dated April 29, 2020 designating the European Union and the United Kingdom). Complainant also owns the domain name <carronade.com>, at which it maintains its website.

 

The <carronadecapitalpartners.org> domain name, registered on August 31, 2025, is confusingly similar to Complainant's marks as it incorporates the words "carronade" and "capital" followed by the generic word "partners" and the ".org" 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 hosts a website that impersonates Complainant and seeks private personal information from users, likely to engage in a phishing campaign.

 

The disputed domain name was registered and is used in bad faith where Respondent had prior knowledge of Complainant's marks and based on the above-mentioned website activity.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

-       Complainant owns rights to the CARRONADE, CARRONADE CAPITAL and CARRONADE CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LP trademarks and the <carronadecapitalpartners.org> domain name is confusingly similar to the mark;

-       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 an impersonation website aimed at perpetrating fraud on users; and

-       The disputed domain name was registered and is used in bad faith where Respondent had prior knowledge of Complainant's marks and hosts a website that impersonates Complainant and appears to be engaged in fraudulent activity.

 

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 claims rights in the CARRONADE, CARRONADE CAPITAL and CARRONADE CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LP marks through multiple trademark registrations, including those at the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO"), the World Intellectual Property Organization ("WIPO"). Registration of a mark with such trademark authorities 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)."); see also Emerson Electric Co. v. Cai Jian Lin / Shen Zhen Shi colorsun Zi Dong Hua You Xian Gong Si, FA 1798802 (Forum Aug. 31, 2018) ("Registering a mark with multiple trademark agencies around the world is sufficient to establish rights in a mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)."). Complainant provides copies of its USPTO certificates and screenshots from the WIPO website evidencing its registrations and, based on this evidence, the Panel finds that Complainant has demonstrated rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Next, Complainant argues that the <carronadecapitalpartners.org> domain name is confusingly similar to its marks since it uses the most distinctive portions of the marks, adds the generic term "partners" and the ".org" TLD. When a disputed domain name wholly incorporates a complainant's mark, Panels have most often found the addition of generic or descriptive terms to be insufficient to distinguish the domain name from the mark. See Oki Data Ams., Inc. v. ASD, Inc., D2001-0903 (WIPO Nov. 6, 2001) ("[T]he fact that a domain name wholly incorporates a Complainant's registered mark is sufficient to establish identity or confusing similarity for purposes of the Policy despite the addition of other words to such marks."). Similarly, TLDs are usually irrelevant for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis. 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."). Complainant notes that the added descriptive term "partners" does not reduce confusion between the disputed domain name and Complainant's marks. As Respondent uses the most prominent part of Complainant's marks and adds a generic term and a gTLD, the Panel finds that the <carronadecapitalpartners.org> domain name is confusingly similar to the marks under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

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 name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests.").

 

Complainant argues that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) and that it has not granted Respondent any permission to use any portion of the CARRONADE, CARRONADE CAPITAL or CARRONADE CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LP marks. Panels frequently look at the available WHOIS information when considering whether a Respondent is commonly known by a disputed domain name. See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Suzen Khan / Nancy Jain / Andrew Stanzy, FA 1741129 (Forum Aug. 16, 2017) (finding that respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names when the identifying information provided by WHOIS was unrelated to the domain names or respondent's use of the same). Furthermore, lack of authorization to use a mark serves as an additional indication that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Radio Flyer Inc. v. er nong wu, FA 1919893 (Forum Dec. 16, 2020) ("Here, the WHOIS information lists 'er nong wu' as the registrant and no information suggests Complainant has authorized Respondent to use the RADIO FLYER mark in any way. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)."). In the present case, the WHOIS information for the disputed domain name reflects Respondent's name as "Betsy Woods". Further, 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." As Respondent has not filed a response or made any other submission in this case, there is nothing in the record to suggest that Respondent is known otherwise or that Respondent is authorized to use any portion of the CARRONADE, CARRONADE CAPITAL or CARRONADE CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LP marks. Therefore, the Panel finds no evidence upon which to conclude that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

Next, the submitted evidence does not indicate that Respondent uses the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or that it makes a legitimate noncommercial or fair use thereof because the disputed domain name and its resolving website attempt to impersonate Complainant and defraud users. Using a disputed domain name in the manner claimed by Complainant is not a bona fide offering of goods or services nor is it a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See President and Fellows of Harvard College v. Michael S. George / Harvard Business Council, FA 2003542 (Forum Aug. 25, 2022) ("The impersonation of a complainant in conjunction with a phishing scheme may indicate a lack of rights or legitimate interest in a disputed domain name."), citing Allianz of Am. Corp. v. Bond, FA 690796 (Forum June 12, 2006); Opportunity Financial, LLC v. James Slavin, FA 2008765 (Forum  Sept. 23, 2022) (no legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) where "Respondent uses the disputed domain name's resolving webpage to impersonate Complainant through the prominent use of Complainant's mark and logo."). In the present case, Respondent attempts to impersonate and pass itself off as Complainant at the website which resolves from the disputed domain name. Complainant submits into evidence a screenshot of the <carronadecapitalpartners.org> website and notes that it prominently displays "Complainant's identical name, logo, Darien, Connecticut address and the names and images of key managers including Complainant's managing partner and CIO … and managing director and head of marketing & strategic development…"¹ It also displays the message: "With wealth comes complexity. Carronade Capital was founded for the singular purpose of simplifying that complexity to enrich our clients' lives". Below this appears a link titled "Get Started" and the statement: "We are a boutique, independent wealth management firm working to integrate all aspects of wealth". This website was suspended after Complainant submitted an abuse report and so the domain name no longer resolves to any content. The submitted evidence leads the Panel to conclude that Complainant's assertions of phishing and fraud are well founded and Respondent has not filed a Response or made any other submission in this case to explain its activities. As Complainant has made a prima facie case which has not been rebutted, the Panel finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in compliance with Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant asserts that "Respondent registered the Domain Name with actual or constructive knowledge of its use by Complainant, as evidenced by its false and misleading use of Complainant's Carronade Capital Mark in its entirety and posing as Complainant, including, as noted above, using Complainant's identical name and logo." While the legal theory of constructive knowledge is generally disfavored in disputes under the Policy, actual knowledge can provide a solid foundation upon which to build an argument of bad faith registration under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) and can be demonstrated based on the use to which a disputed domain name is put. See Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014) ("the UDRP does not recognize 'constructive notice' as sufficient grounds for finding Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith…"). Also see iFinex Inc. v. xu shuaiwei, FA 1760249 (Forum Jan. 1, 2018) (prior knowledge found based on "Respondent's use of its trademark laden domain name to direct internet traffic to a website which is a direct competitor of Complainant").  Actual knowledge may also be inferred based on the fame of an asserted mark. See AutoZone Parts, Inc. v. Ken Belden, FA 1815011 (Forum Dec. 24, 2018) ("Complainant contends that Respondent's knowledge can be presumed in light of the substantial fame and notoriety of the AUTOZONE mark, as well as the fact that Complainant is the largest retailer in the field."). To support its assertions, Complainant points to Respondent's use of the <carronadecapitalpartners.org> domain name, as noted in the previous section. It also submits into evidence a screenshot from its own <carronade.com> website as well as copies of unsolicited press coverage by Reuters, The Wall Street Journal, and other outlets referencing the CARRONADE, CARRONADE CAPITAL or CARRONADE CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LP marks.  Based on this evidence, the Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in its mark at the time that it registered the disputed domain name.

 

Complainant further argues that Respondent registered and uses the <carronadecapitalpartners.org> domain name in bad faith because Respondent diverts business by creating confusion with Complainant's mark and deceiving consumers into divulging private personal information, likely in furtherance of a phishing scheme. Such conduct is indicative of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Big Nerd Ranch, LLC v. orgi11g, eNon,LLC, D2023-2832 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2023) (holding that the respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith where "it is used by the Respondent for a Phishing website pretending to be the Complainant's own site, and requesting users to input their usernames and passwords."). The Panel again references the screenshot provided by Complainant which shows Respondent's use of the CARRONDADE CAPITAL graphic logo, text that gives the clear impression that the site originates with Complainant, and a "Get Started" button that likely leads to further pages at which personal information is collected from users. Complainant asserts that "Respondent has registered the Domain Name primarily for the purpose of misleading members of the public as part of a spear phishing scheme to fraudulently obtain private personal information and/or to induce visitors of the website associated with the Domain Name to send money based on the false pretense that Respondent is Complainant." It is further noted that the <carronadecapitalpartners.org> website has been suspended by its hosting provider after Complainant submitted a notice of its abusive behavior. All of the evidence presented gives a clear indication of Respondent's intent that its website appear to originate with Complainant based on confusion with the CARRONADE CAPITAL or CARRONADE CAPITAL MANAGEMENT marks, in furtherance of a fraudulent scheme and for commercial gain. As such, the Panel finds sufficient ground upon which to conclude that Respondent both 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 <carronadecapitalpartners.org> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

__________________________________________________________________

 

 

 

Steven M. Levy, Panelist

Dated: December 16, 2025