DECISION

 

Bridgewater Associates, LP v. Domain Admin / Whoisprotection.cc

Claim Number: FA2512002192011

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Bridgewater Associates, LP ("Complainant"), represented by Eric J. Shimanoff of Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C., New York, USA. Respondent is Domain Admin / Whoisprotection.cc ("Respondent"), Malaysia.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <mybwater.com>, registered with Dominet (HK) Limited.

 

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.

 

Richard Hill as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on December 1, 2025; Forum received payment on December 1, 2025.

 

On December 1, 2025, Dominet (HK) Limited confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <mybwater.com> domain name is registered with Dominet (HK) Limited and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Dominet (HK) Limited has verified that Respondent is bound by the Dominet (HK) Limited 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 December 2, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 22, 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@mybwater.com. Also on December 2, 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 23, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Richard Hill 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 states that, founded by now-billionaire Ray Dalio in 1975, it is a renowned investment management firm that manages billions in global investments for a wide variety of clients world-wide. Complainant is today the world's largest hedge fund. Complainant owns the domain name <bwater.com>. For two decades, the <bwater.com> domain name has resolved to Complainant's principal website, which currently can be found at <bridgewater.com>. For approximately fifteen years, the website was located at <bwater.com>. Complainant also uses the domain <bwater.com> for email. Complainant has rights in the marks BRIDGEWATER and BWATER through their registration in, respectively, the United States in 2000, and Luxembourg in 2015. The marks are well known.

 

Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its BWATER mark as it incorporates the mark in its entirety and merely adds the generic/descriptive term "my" together with the ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD").

 

According to Complainant, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and Respondent has not been licensed, authorized, or otherwise permitted by Complainant to use its mark. Respondent's use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the disputed domain name has reportedly been used to impersonate Complainant and its services in a clear effort to mislead consumers to believe that the disputed domain name is associated with Complainant and its services. Complainant's clients and/or employees have reported to Complainant that they were contacted by an unknown person, presumably Respondent, claiming to be Complainant's technical support, who directed them to visit the website located at disputed domain allegedly to update their Single Sign On (SSO) credentials, ostensibly to phish for login credentials to Complainant's site. The disputed domain name currently resolves to a site with a frozen screen that fails to load, with a page title of "Checking the security of your connection".

 

Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent uses the disputed domain name to pass off as Complainant. Respondent had actual or constructive knowledge of Complainant's mark at the time of registration.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant owns the mark BWATER and uses it to market investment and financial services. The mark is well known.

 

Complainant's rights in its mark date back to at least 2015.

 

The disputed domain name was registered in 2025.

 

Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.

 

The disputed domain name is not being used.

 

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

The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's BWATER mark in its entirety, merely adding the generic/descriptive term "my" and the ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLDs"). Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), adding a gTLD and/or generic terms and/or relevant or meaningless letters is generally insufficient in differentiating a disputed domain name from the mark it incorporates. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognisable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element."); see also Vanguard Group Inc. v. Proven Fin. Solutions, FA 572937 (Forum Nov. 18, 2005) (holding that the addition of both the word "advisors" and the gTLD ".com" did not sufficiently alter the disputed domain name to negate a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its mark. Under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), the Panel may look to the WHOIS information to determine whether Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Fred Wallace, FA 1626022 (Forum July 27, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <chevron-europe.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), as the WHOIS information named "Fred Wallace" as registrant of the disputed domain name). The WHOIS information on record lists "Domain Admin / Whoisprotection.cc" as the registrant name. Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name.

 

Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name was used to impersonate it. However, it provides no evidence to support that allegation. Unsupported allegations are insufficient to establish rights under the Policy. See Richard Izzo Toughman Enterprises v. TJ Tryon, FA 1728347 (Forum May 30, 2017) ("While this Panel is willing to give Complainant some leeway because Complainant is pro se, that does not allow Complainant to ignore its burden of proof. A complainant fails to make a prima facie case when it fails to provide any evidence whatsoever of a respondent's use of a disputed domain name."). Thus the Panel finds that Complainant has failed to satisfy its burden of proof for this allegation and will not further discuss it.

 

Complainant provides evidence showing that the disputed domain name is not being used. Failure to make an active use of a domain name demonstrates that Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial fair use. See Bloomberg L.P. v. SC Media Servs. & Info. SRL, FA 296583 (Forum Sept. 2, 2004) ("Respondent is wholly appropriating Complainant's mark and is not using the <bloomberg.ro> domain name in connection with an active website. The Panel finds that the [failure to make an active use] of a domain name that is identical to Complainant's mark is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)."). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not using the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). And the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant's contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant's mark. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent's failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain name.

 

Indeed, as already noted, the disputed domain name is not being used. According to paragraph 3.3 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0): "From the inception of the UDRP, panelists have found that the non-use of a domain name (including a blank or "coming soon" page) would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. While panelists will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case, factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include: (i) the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant's mark, (ii) the failure of the respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use, (iii) the respondent's concealing its identity or use of false contact details (noted to be in breach of its registration agreement), and (iv) the implausibility of any good faith use to which the domain name may be put."

 

In the present case, Complainant's trademark is well known. It is difficult to envisage any use of the disputed domain name that would not violate the Policy, see Morgan Stanley v. TONY / shentony, FA 1637186 (Forum Oct. 10, 2015) ("Respondent registered the disputed domain name [MORGANSTANLEY.ONLINE] in bad faith because . . . it is difficult to envisage any use of the disputed domain name that would not violate the Policy"); see also Singapore Airlines Ltd. v. European Travel Network, D2000-0641 (WIPO Aug. 29, 2000) (where selection of disputed domain name is so obviously connected to complainant's well-known trademark, use by someone with no connection with complainant suggests opportunistic bad faith); see also Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc., Sheraton Int'l IP, LLC, Westin Hotel Mgmt., L.P. v. Jingjing Tang, D2014-1040 (WIPO Aug. 19, 2014) ("The Panel finds that the [WESTIN] Marks are not such that could legitimately be adopted by traders other than for the purpose of creating an impression of an association with Complainant. Thus, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain names were registered in bad faith.").

 

There has been no response to the Complaint and the WHOIS information is false, see below. That is, Respondent it attempted to conceal its identity. Given these circumstances, the Panel finds that, in this particular case, a finding of bad faith use can be inferred even though the disputed domain name is not being actively used. See Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, D2000-0003 (WIPO Feb. 18, 2000).

 

The WHOIS information is:

Organization (English): Whoisprotection.cc
Contact Person (English): Domain Admin
Province (English): Wilayah Persekutuan
City (English): Kuala Lumpur
Address (English): Kuala Lumpur
Country: MY
Postal Code: 57000

 

According to paragraph 4.8 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0"), a Panel may conduct limited factual research regarding disputed domain names:

 

Noting in particular the general powers of a panel articulated inter alia in paragraphs 10 and 12 of the UDRP Rules, it has been accepted that a panel may undertake limited factual research into matters of public record if it would consider such information useful to assessing the case merits and reaching a decision.

 

This may include visiting the website linked to the disputed domain name in order to obtain more information about the respondent or its use of the domain name, consulting historical resources such as the Internet Archive (www.archive.org) in order to obtain an indication of how a domain name may have been used in the relevant past, reviewing dictionaries or encyclopedias (e.g., Wikipedia), or accessing trademark registration databases.

 

From publicly available databases, the Panel has found that "Wilayah Persekutuan" simply means "Federal Territory". The WHOIS does not specify a street address. Thus the Panel finds that that WHOIS information is false. This can indicate bad faith registration and use. See Enterprise Holdings, Inc. v. John Doe, FA 1339545 (Forum Sept. 29, 2010) ("The Panel also takes into account that the entity that Responded to the Complaint would not be the registrant of the disputed domain names for the instant proceedings. Therefore, that circumstance is also taken by the Panel as indication of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) by providing false or misleading WHOIS information to the registrar."); see also Video Direct Distribs. Inc. v. Video Direct, Inc., FA 94724 (Forum June 5, 2000) (finding that the respondent acted in bad faith by providing incorrect information to the registrar regarding the owner of the registered name). Accordingly, the Panel finds bad faith registration and use on this ground also.

 

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 <mybwater.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Richard Hill, Panelist

Dated: December 23, 2025