DECISION

 

Warburg Pincus & Co. v. allen bb

Claim Number: FA2511002190866

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Warburg Pincus & Co. ("Complainant"), United States, represented by Eric J. Shimanoff of Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C., United States. Respondent is allen bb ("Respondent"), Cambodia.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES 

The domain names at issue are <warburgpincus.top>, <warburgpincus.ltd> and <warburgspincus.com>, registered with Gname.com Pte. Ltd.

 

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.

 

David E. Sorkin as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on November 24, 2025; Forum received payment on November 24, 2025.

 

On November 25, 2025, Gname.com Pte. Ltd. confirmed by email to Forum that the <warburgpincus.top>, <warburgpincus.ltd> and <warburgspincus.com> domain names are registered with Gname.com Pte. Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Gname.com Pte. Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Gname.com Pte. 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 December 15, 2025 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registrations as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@warburgpincus.top, postmaster@warburgpincus.ltd, and postmaster@warburgspincus.com. Also on November 25, 2025, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email 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 registrations as technical, administrative, and billing contacts.

 

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

 

On December 16, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed David E. Sorkin 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant and its related and affiliated entities, licensees, and predecessors in interest have used the WARBURG PINCUS name and mark for decades to identify themselves as the source of private investment services, management of private equity funds, and other financial services. Complainant was founded in 1966; its funds have invested more than $120 billion in over 1,000 companies in more than 40 countries. Complainant is headquartered in New York and has offices in Beijing, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Singapore, and other locations around the world. Complainant owns longstanding trademark registrations for WARBURG PINCUS in the United States and other jurisdictions.

 

The disputed domain names <warburgpincus.top>, <warburgpincus.ltd> and <warburgspincus.com> were registered in October 2025. The names are registered to Respondent, although Respondent's identity is redacted from the public domain name registration records. The domain names are being used for nearly identical websites that display Complainant's name, mark, and logo, and offer or purport to offer financial services similar or identical to those provided by Complainant. The websites copy substantial portions of Complainant's website without authorization, with the text translated into Japanese. Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names, has no relationship with Complainant, and is not authorized to use Complainant's mark.

 

Complainant contends on the above grounds that each of the disputed domain names <warburgpincus.top>, <warburgpincus.ltd> and <warburgspincus.com> is identical or confusingly similar to its WARBURG PINCUS mark; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names; and that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The Panel finds that each of the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; and that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith.

 

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 Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, § 4.3 (3d ed. 2017), available at http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/; UDRP Perspectives on Recent Jurisprudence, §§ 0.2, 0.8 (updated June 2, 2025), available at https://udrpperspectives.org/; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (dismissing complaint where complainant failed to "produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations").

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The disputed domain names <warburgpincus.top> and <warburgpincus.ltd> incorporate Complainant's registered WARBURG PINCUS trademark, omitting the space and adding the ".top" or ".ltd" top-level domain. The disputed domain name <warburgspincus.com> also incorporates the WARBURG PINCUS mark, omitting the space, inserting a letter "S," and adding the ".com" top-level domain. The omission of a space and the addition of a top-level domain are normally disregarded for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, and the insertion of a letter does not substantially diminish the similarity between the <warburgspincus.com> domain name and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., Warburg Pincus & Co. v. Qi Lin Zhang, FA 2183521 (Forum Nov. 11, 2025) (finding <warburgpincuss.com> confusingly similar to WARBURG PINCUS); Warburg Pincus & Co. v. Global Ltd., FA 2134257 (Forum Feb. 5, 2025) (finding <warburgpincus.vip> identical to WARBURG PINCUS); Warburg Pincus & Co. v. sinopac, FA2063792 (Forum Oct. 19, 2023) (finding <warburgpincus.xyz> identical to WARBURG PINCUS); Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Meghan Russo / Lockheed Martin, FA 1891540 (Forum May 12, 2020) (finding <lockheedsmartins.com> confusingly similar to LOCKHEED MARTIN); Ally Financial Inc. v. Zhao Hong, D2018-1880 (WIPO Nov. 16, 2018) (finding <allybank.ltd> and <allybank.top> identical to ALLY BANK). The Panel considers the disputed domain names <warburgpincus.top> and <warburgpincus.ltd> to be identical, and the disputed domain name <warburgspincus.com> to be confusingly similar, to a mark in which Complainant has rights.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Under the Policy, the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, and then the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc. v. Entertainment Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).

 

The disputed domain names incorporate Complainant's registered mark without authorization, and they are being used for websites that impersonate Complainant to promote competing services and likely for other fraudulent purposes. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., Warburg Pincus & Co. v. Qi Lin Zhang, supra (finding lack of rights or interests in similar circumstances); Warburg Pincus & Co. v. Global Ltd., supra (same).

 

Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of such rights or interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered a domain name "primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor." Under paragraph 4(b)(iv), bad faith may be shown by evidence that "by using the domain name, [Respondent] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent's] web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [Respondent's] web site or location or of a product or service on [Respondent's] web site or location."

 

Respondent registered three domain names incorporating Complainant's name and registered mark without authorization, and is using them for websites that impersonate Complainant to promote competing services and likely for other fraudulent purposes. Such circumstances are indicative of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See, e.g., Warburg Pincus & Co. v. Qi Lin Zhang, supra (finding bad faith registration and use in similar circumstances); Warburg Pincus & Co. v. Global Ltd., supra (same). The Panel so finds.

 

DECISION

Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <warburgpincus.top>, <warburgpincus.ltd> and <warburgspincus.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

David E. Sorkin, Panelist

Dated: December 16, 2025