DECISION

 

Carronade Capital Management, LP v Mellen Lin

Claim Number: FA2511002189673

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Carronade Capital Management, LP ("Complainant"), represented by Scott Kareff of McDermott Will & Schulte LLP, New York, USA. Respondent is Mellen Lin ("Respondent"), Great Britain.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <carronadecapitalpartners.vip>, registered with NameSilo, LLC.

 

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

 

James Bridgeman SC as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on November 19, 2025; Forum received payment on November 19, 2025.

 

On November 19, 2025, NameSilo, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <carronadecapitalpartners.vip> domain name is registered with NameSilo, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameSilo, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameSilo, LLC 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.vip.

 

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 James Bridgeman SC 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 disputed domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant claims ownership of the CARRONADE, CARRONADE CAPITAL, and CARRONADE CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LP marks which it submits it has continuously used in its business providing investment management and investment advice since 2020.

 

Complainant submits that it has acquired a significant goodwill and reputation in the marks and as of November 2025 it manages approximately $2.6 billion in assets under the CARRONADE CAPITAL mark.

 

The renown of Complainant's name and the CARRONADE CAPITAL mark is further illustrated by frequent, prominent instances of unsolicited third‑party recognition in printed and electronic media throughout U.S. financial circles, as exhibited in an annex to the Complaint.

 

Complainant firstly alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar and almost identical to its CARRONADE and CARRONADE CAPITAL marks because it wholly incorporates both the CARRONADE and CARRONADE CAPITAL marks in their entirety, merely appending the generic, non‑source‑indicative term "partners." 

 

Complainant contends that the core and dominant elements of Complainant's marks are reproduced verbatim within the disputed domain name and the mere addition of a generic descriptor does not avoid confusion. 

 

It further argued that it is well established that incorporating a mark in its entirety in a domain name at issue suffices to show identity or confusing similarity. Prior decisions of panels established under the Policy have consistently held that when a domain name captures a registered mark in its entirety, it is considered identical or confusingly similar for purposes of the Policy. See for example Pantera Advisors LLC v. Luggard Aus / Xiaomi Company, FA 1860639 (Forum Oct. 3, 2019) (stating that the domain name at issue <panteracapitals.com> is identical or confusingly similar to the complainant's PANTERA mark because it contains the mark in its entirety, along with the generic term "capital").

 

Complainant secondly alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name arguing that:

·       Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant;

·       Respondent has not been authorized, licensed, or permitted to use Complainant's trademarks in any capacity;

·       there is no evidence at the United States Patent and Trademark Office that Respondent owns or has rights in any trademark or service mark identical or similar to the disputed domain name;

·       the WHOIS records identify Mellen Lin as the registrant of the disputed domain name, and on that basis, Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), see for example State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Dale Anderson, FA 1613011 (Forum May 21, 2015), where the panel concluded that because the WHOIS record listed "Dale Anderson" as registrant, the respondent was not commonly known by the <statefarmforum.com> domain name;

·       upon information and belief, Respondent does not engage in any legitimate business or commerce under the name "Carronade Capital" and is not commonly known by such a name;

·       Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name but rather, as shown in the screen capture of the website to which it resolves, which is exhibited in an annex to the Complaint, Respondent is operating the website with the intent to defraud individuals for commercial gain by soliciting personal data and/or inducing payments under the false pretense that Respondent is Complainant;

·       both passing off and phishing are antithetical to bona fide offerings or fair use;

·       Complainant adds that panels established under the Policy have consistently held that use of a domain name at issue for illegal activity, including impersonation, cannot confer rights or legitimate interests. In this regard Complainant refers to WIPO Overview 3.0 § 2.13.1 which captures this principle, and likewise, H‑D U.S.A., LLC v. Yoshihiro Nakazawa, FA 1736477 (Forum July 21, 2017), recognizes that assertions of passing off and offering competing services evidence a lack of bona fide offering or fair use.

 

Furthermore, Complainant argues that Respondent's use of apparent false contact information in the domain registration also undermines any claim of legitimacy. In this regard Complainant refers to the address provided ("925 Nelson Street Oxford, Oxfordshire BT1 5GS GB" which yields no results; the contact e‑mail ("boyceigkx.lob@gmx.com") appears to be randomly generated; and the listed phone number ("02027913911") is not traceable, and calls to that number return an automated error.

 

Thirdly, Complainant submits that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith by deliberately targeting Complainant's CARRONADE CAPITAL mark and impersonating Complainant.

 

Complainant argues that the registrant of the disputed domain name had actual knowledge of 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, logo, Connecticut address (17 Old Kings Highway South, Suite 140) and the names and images of Complainant's key managers.

 

Furthermore, Complainant argues that upon information and belief, that Respondent has registered the disputed 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 disputed domain name to send money based on the false pretense that Respondent is Complainant. Spear phishing and other phishing schemes can evince bad faith registration and use. See Klabzuba Oil & Gas, Inc. v. LAKHPAT SINGH BHANDARI, FA 1625750 (Forum July 17, 2015) ("Respondent uses the <klabzuba-oilgas.com> domain to engage in phishing, which means Respondent registered and uses the domain name in bad faith under Policy 4(a)(iii).").

 

It is further contended that the website to which the disputed domain name resolves, reproduces Complainant's unique logo, corporate name, Connecticut address (17 Old Kings Highway South, Suite 140), and the names and images of Complainant's senior executives, as well as and references Complainant's historical SEC identifiers. Complainant argues that all of these factors are intended to create a false impression of affiliation or identity with Complainant.

 

It is argued that such conduct is evidence of Respondent's actual or constructive knowledge of Complainant's rights in the CARRONADE CAPITAL mark at the time of registration and use. Panels consistently treat impersonation as clear evidence of bad faith. In FLRish IP, LLC v. prince zvomuya, WIPO Case D2019‑0868, for example, the panel articulated that impersonation demonstrates targeted registration and use.

 

Complainant adds that Respondent has taken affirmative steps to conceal its identity by withholding accurate registrant information and by deploying privacy protections coupled with false contact data, which panels view as indicative of bad faith where other evidence supports evasive or deceptive conduct. See M/s Genpact Limited v. Contact Privacy Inc./self, WIPO Case D2012‑0307 (finding privacy shielding and lack of cooperation consistent with bad faith). Furthermore it is contended that the WIPO Overview 3.0 §3.6 notes that providing false contact information underlying a privacy or proxy service is an indication of bad faith.

 

Complainant submits that its investigation concluded that the address used by Respondent to register the disputed domain name yields no results, that the e‑mail address provided by Respondent is randomly generated, and the listed phone number does not connect to a person. Complainant argues that these inaccuracies in the registration data supports the inference that Respondent concealed identity details in bad faith.

 

It is further submitted that upon information and belief, Respondent registered the disputed domain name primarily to mislead the public through a spear‑phishing scheme designed to obtain personal information and/or induce payments under false pretenses that the site is operated by Complainant. Panels routinely find that phishing constitutes bad faith registration and use.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant is a SEC‑registered alternative investment firm founded in 2019, and owns and uses a portfolio of registered service marks including the following:

·       United States registered trademark CARRONADE, registration number 6165791, registered on the Principal Register on September 29, 2020, for services in international class 36.

·       United States registered trademark CARRONADE CAPITAL, registration number 6165799, registered on the Principal Register on September 29, 2020, for goods or services in international class 36.

·       United States registered trademark CARRONADE CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LP, registration number 6176617, registered on the Principal Register on October 13, 2020 for goods or services in international class 36;

·       International Registration (Madrid System) designating the European Union and the United Kingdom for CARRONADE, registration number 1533920, registered on April 29, 2020 for services in class 36.

 

Complainant has an established Internet presence and owns the domain name <carronade.com>, to which its official website resolves.

The disputed domain name <carronadecapitalpartners.vip> was registered on October 18, 2025, and resolves to a website that purports to impersonate Complainant.

 

There is no information available about Respondent except for that provided in the Complaint as amended, the Registrar's WhoIs, and the information provided by the Registrar in response to the request by Forum for details of the registration of the disputed domain name.

 

DISCUSSION

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."

 

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:

 

(1)       the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and

(2)       Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

(3)       the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules.  The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) ("Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint").

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Complainant has provided uncontested convincing evidence of its rights in the CARRONADE, CARRONADE CAPITAL, and CARRONADE CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LP marks established by its the ownership of the abovementioned trademark registrations and extensive use of the mark in its financial services business.

 

The disputed domain name <carronadecapitalpartners.vip> consists of both Complainant's CARRONADE, CARRONADE CAPITAL marks in their entirety in combination with the element "partners" and the generic Top Level Domain ("gTLD") extension <.vip>.

 

It is well established that it is sufficient for a complainant to establish that the domain name at issue contains the mark relied upon in its entirety, to satisfy the first element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

In the disputed domain name, Complainant's marks are the dominant element, and the additional generic element "partners" does not prevent a finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark.

 

In the circumstances of this Complaint the gTLD extension <.vip> within the disputed domain name may be ignored for the purpose of comparing Complainant's marks and the disputed domain name, because it would be considered by Internet users to be a necessary technical element for a domain name.

 

This Panel finds therefore that the disputed domain name <carronadecapitalpartners.vip> is confusingly similar to the CARRONADE and CARRONADE CAPITAL marks in which Complainant has rights.

Complainant has therefore succeeded in the first element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant has made out a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as set out in Complainant's detailed submissions above.

 

In particular, Respondent is using the disputed domain name as the address of a website on which Respondent purports to impersonate Complainant and Respondent is not using the disputed domain name to carry on any bona fide or legitimate business activity but instead is using the disputed domain name to target the goodwill and reputation of Complainant.

 

It is well established that once a complainant makes out a prima facie case that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to prove its rights or legitimate interests.

 

Respondent has failed to discharge that burden and therefore this Panel must find that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

Complainant has therefore succeeded in the second element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant has adduced uncontested evidence that since 2020 it has acquired a significant goodwill and reputation in the CARRONADE CAPITAL mark and as of November 2025 it manages approximately $2.6 billion in assets under the CARRONADE CAPITAL mark.

 

Furthermore Complainant has an established Internet presence and maintains its official website at <www.carronade.com>.

 

Complainant's CARRONADE and CARRONADE CAPITAL marks are the dominant and only distinctive elements in the disputed domain name.

 

The disputed domain name was registered on October 18, 2025, which was five years after Complainant's marks were registered in 2020, as described above.

 

On the balance of probabilities, therefore, this Panel finds that the registrant of the disputed domain name was aware of Complainant, its CARRONADE and CARRONADE CAPITAL marks and its website at <www.carronade.com>, when the disputed domain name was chosen and registered; and that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith with Complainant's mark in mind in order to take predatory advantage of Complainant's goodwill and reputation in its CARRONADE and CARRONADE CAPITAL marks.

 

Complainant has exhibited screen captures of the website to which the disputed domain name resolves. The images show that the resolving website purports to be Complainant's own website. It prominently displays Complainant's CARRONADE CAPITAL MARK, contains images and descriptors of Complainant's employees, generates a pop-up message: "Hello, welcome to CARRONADE CAPITAL. How may I help you".

 

Worryingly, Respondent's website contains a privacy policy which states:

"WHAT INFORMATION DO WE COLLECT, MAINTAIN AND COMMUNICATE CARRONADE CAPITAL PARTNERS collects and maintains your personal information so that we can provide your investment management and net worth solutions. The types and categories of information we collect and maintain include:

 

Information we receive from you to open an investments account or to provide comprehensive planning advice to you (such as home address, telephone number and detailed financial information…"

 

Such use of the disputed domain name to resolve to a website that purports to pass itself off as Complainant, including using the images and personal information of members of Complainant's staff, demonstrates an intent on the part of Respondent to use the disputed domain name to attract Internet users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement, of the website to which it resolves, which constitutes bad faith for the purposes of the Policy.

 

Also, based on the evidence adduced as described above and Respondent's failure to respond to the Complaint this Panel finds also that on the balance of probabilities Respondent is using the disputed domain name to engage in a fraudulent phishing scheme to gather personal information of unsuspecting members of the public.

 

This Panel finds therefore that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith and Complainant has succeeded in the third element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

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.vip> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

________________________________

 

James Bridgeman SC, Panelist

Dated: December 15, 2025