DECISION

 

Veritas Manager Holdings, L.P. v HAIFEI MING/ John Smith

Claim Number: FA2601002199627

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Veritas Manager Holdings, L.P. ("Complainant"), represented by Scott Kareff of McDermott Will & Schulte LLP, New York, USA. Respondent is HAIFEI MING/ John Smith ("Respondent"), India.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES 

The domain names at issue are <veritascapitaladvisorygmbh.com>, <veritascapitaladvisory.com> and <veritascapital.investments>, 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.

 

James Bridgeman SC as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 14, 2026; Forum received payment on January 14, 2026.

 

On January 14, 2026, Gname.com Pte. Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <veritascapitaladvisorygmbh.com>, <veritascapitaladvisory.com> and <veritascapital.investments> 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 January 19, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 9, 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@veritascapitaladvisorygmbh.com, postmaster@veritascapitaladvisory.com, and postmaster@veritascapital.investments.

 

Also on January 19, 2026, 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 February 10. 2026, 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE RESPONDENTS

The disputed domain name <veritascapital.investments> was registered under the name HAIFEI MING in November 1, 2025. This resolves to a website that is identical or similar to that to the website which the disputed domain name <veritascapitaladvisorygmbh.com> resolves.

 

The disputed domain names <veritascapitaladvisorygmbh.com> and <veritascapitaladvisory.com> were registered under the name John Smith on January 6, 2026.

 

The disputed domain name <veritascapitaladvisory.com> is passively held and does not resolve to any active website.

 

Complainant has requested that the complaints against both named registrants be consolidated.

 

Given that the disputed domain name purported to be held by HAFEI MING resolves to a similar or identical website to the disputed domain name <veritascapitaladvisorygmbh.com> purported to be registered by John Smith, this Panel finds that on the balance of probabilities each of the three disputed domain names are under common control and it is appropriate and fair that the Complaints in respect of the three disputed domain names should progress. In this decision the registrants are together referred to as "Respondent", except where the context otherwise requires.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant claims rights in the VERITAS CAPITAL mark established by its ownership of the portfolio of service mark registrations described below and continuous and extensive basis since at least as early as 1992 to identify itself, its investment and financial services, and its investment business throughout the United States and internationally.

 

Complainant adds that through its continuous and extensive use of the VERITAS CAPITAL mark, and the reputation it has earned in financial communities in the United States and internationally, both Complainant and the VERITAS CAPITAL mark have become well‑known and highly regarded by customers and other participants in U.S. and international financial and investment communities.

 

Complainant firstly alleges that each of the disputed domain names is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's VERITAS CAPITAL trademark because each incorporates the mark in its entirety, without alteration to the wording or structure of the mark itself, and that the additional terms contained in the domain names do not prevent a finding of confusing similarity.

 

Complainant argues that the incorporation of a trademark in its entirety into a domain name is widely recognized by panelists appointed under the Policy is sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a registered mark. Complainant cites CWI, Inc. v. Domain Administrator c/o Dynadot WIPO Case D2015-1734, and The Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc. v. Green Angel, WIPO Case D2001-1010 each of which affirms that incorporating a trademark wholly into a domain name is typically adequate to meet the threshold for confusing similarity.

Complainant asserts that this principle applies fully to the disputed domain names because each one includes VERITAS CAPITAL in its entirety as the leading and dominant element.

 

Complainant further maintains that the additional words "advisory," "gmbh," and "investments" are generic or non‑source‑indicative terms that do not distinguish the disputed domain names from Complainant's trademark. Complainant contends that these words merely follow the full VERITAS CAPITAL mark and are insufficient to negate confusing similarity or to alter the overall impression created by each domain name.

 

In addition, Complainant argues that generic Top‑Level Domains ("gTLDs") such as <.com> and <.investments> do not affect the comparison between a disputed domain name and a trademark, as their inclusion is technically required for domain name registration. In support of this position, Complainant cites Accuity, Inc. v. Kennith Hunter, WIPO Case D2022-0397 which reiterates that a gTLD does not avoid a finding of confusing similarity between a domain name and a trademark.

 

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

·       Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and has not received any permission, license, or authorization to use the VERITAS CAPITAL trademark, and therefore any use of the disputed domain names is unauthorized;

·       Respondent owns no trademark or service mark rights identical or similar to the disputed domain names, and no evidence exists at the United States Patent and Trademark Office indicating that Respondent has any such rights;

·       the WHOIS information provided by the Registrar identifies the registrant as "HAIFEI MING / John Smith," which demonstrates that Respondent is not commonly known by any of the disputed domain names, and in this regard Complainant relies on State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Dale Anderson, FA 1613011 (Forum May 21, 2025) which held that "because the WHOIS record lists 'Dale Anderson' as the registrant of the disputed domain name, the respondent was not commonly known by the <statefarmforum.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)";

·       Respondent does not engage in legitimate business or commerce under the name "Veritas Capital" and is not commonly known by that name, and in this regard, Complainant cites Pfizer Inc., and Pfizer Enterprises SARL v. Domain Purchase, FA 328187 (Forum Nov 3, 2004) (no rights or legitimate interest in domain name DETROL.ORG because respondent had not offered any evidence and there was no proof suggesting that it was commonly known by the <detrol.org> domain name);

·       the disputed domain name <veritascapitaladvisory.com> does not resolve to an active website, which Complainant asserts cannot constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services, as noted in QlikTech International AB v. 林 藏 (Lin Zang), WIPO Case D2024-2111: (prior UDRP panels have found that the 'passive holding of a disputed domain name is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use);

·       Respondent is not making any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain names, and there is no plausible good faith use to which the domain names could be put;

·       Respondent provided incoherent, false, or fabricated WHOIS details, including fictional or geographically inconsistent addresses, unverifiable phone numbers, and email addresses appearing to be fabricated or associated with other fraudulent activity, and legitimate businesses do not conceal their identity in this manner.

 

Thirdly Complainant alleges that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith, arguing:-

 

Complainant argues that the registrant of the disputed domain names had actual or constructive knowledge of Complainant's long‑standing and well‑known VERITAS CAPITAL mark, as each of the disputed domain names incorporates the VERITAS CAPITAL mark in its entirety. Complainant argues that it stretches credulity that Respondent did not know – or did not exercise wilful blindness – of Complainant's well‑known VERITAS CAPITAL mark.

 

Complainant adds that upon information and belief, registration of the disputed domain names is part of a larger scam described in an annex to the Complaint, which Complainant asserts further demonstrates Respondent's bad‑faith intent at the time of registration.

 

Complainant repeats that Respondent used false, incoherent, or fabricated WHOIS information for all three domain names, including fictional or geographically inconsistent addresses, unverifiable telephone numbers, and email addresses appearing to be fake or associated with other scams and that such false registration information is indicative of bad‑faith registration and cites Valero Energy Corporation and Valero Marketing and Supply Company v. Registration Private, Domains By Proxy LLC / Rene Rozados, WIPO Case D2020-0021,where the panel reasoned that one would expect a legitimate business to provide information that allows it to be contacted.

 

Respondent's concealment of identity is further cited as evidence of bad‑faith registration, as use of a proxy service is indicative of registration in bad faith.

 

Referring to the screen captures exhibited in an annexes to the Complaint, Complainant argues that the website associated with the disputed domain names contains fraudulent information, for example:

(i)                      Respondent's website contains social media buttons in the footer for Facebook and X that each link to BlackRock's (a prominent investment management firm) Facebook and X pages;

(ii)                      the website contains information about a person named Samuel Robert Page, who is presented as the founder of Respondent's financial services business when in fact, a Google image reverse image search of Samuel Robert Page's photo provided on the website returns no other results;

(iii)                      while the website states that "our U.S. affiliate is registered with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)", there is no evidence online that "Veritas Capital Advisory" is located at the Colorado address provided in the entity's fraudulent form ADV SEC filing.

 

Respondent has taken active steps to conceal its identity, providing false WHOIS information, which Complainant asserts is recognized as evidence of bad‑faith use under the WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.6.

 

Complainant alleges that the circumstances show that the disputed domain names are used in connection with phishing or spear‑phishing schemes designed to obtain private personal information or induce victims to send money under false pretenses. 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)."

 

Complainant asserts that Respondent's conduct constitutes an attempt to obtain commercial benefit through use of confusingly similar domain names by trading on Complainant's goodwill. Complainant references PopSockets LLC v. san mao, FA 1740903 (Forum Aug. 27, 2017) (using a disputed domain name that disrupts a complainant's business and trades upon the goodwill of a complainant for commercial gain can evince bad faith under Policy 4(b) (iii) and (iv)).

 

In conclusion, Complainant submits that the identical website content displayed on the website to which each of the disputed domain names resolve establishes that all three domain names are used as part of a coordinated fraudulent scheme, reinforcing that the use is in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant a provider of financial services under the VERITAS CAPITAL mark for which it holds a portfolio of registered trademarks including the following:

·       United States registered service mark VERITAS CAPITAL, registration number 2,537,965 registered on the Principal Register on February 12, 2002 for services in international class 36;

·       United States registered service mark VERITAS CAPITAL, registration number 3,717,809 registered on the Principal Register on December 1, 2009 for services in international class 36;

·       Hong Kong registered service mark VERITAS CAPITAL registration number 301589491, registered on April 16, 2010 for services in class 36.

 

The disputed domain name <veritascapital.investments> was registered under the name HAIFEI MING in November 1, 2025. This resolves to a website that is identical or similar to that to the website which the disputed domain name <veritascapitaladvisorygmbh.com> resolves.

 

The disputed domain names <veritascapitaladvisorygmbh.com> and <veritascapitaladvisory.com> were registered under the name John Smith on January 6, 2026.

 

The disputed domain name <veritascapitaladvisory.com> is passively held and does not resolve to any active website.

 

The only information available to the Panel about Respondent is 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 names.

 

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 convincing evidence that it has rights in the VERITAS CAPITAL mark, established by its ownership of the registration described below and use of the marks in its global financial services business as described below.

 

Two of the disputed domain names <veritascapitaladvisorygmbh.com> and <veritascapitaladvisory.com>, are composed of Complainant's VERITAS CAPITAL mark together with descriptive elements "advisory", "gmbh" and "advisory" and the generic Top Level Domain ("gTLD") extension <.com>.

 

The other disputed domain name <veritascapital.investments> is composed only of Complainant's mark and the gTLD <.investments>.

 

It is well established that a complainant may usually succeed in the first part of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) where the domain name at issue contains a mark in which the complainant has rights, in its entirety.

 

The presence of the additional elements set out above does not sufficiently distinguish any of the disputed domain name from Complainant's mark to prevent finding of confusing similarity with Complainant's mark.

 

Neither do the gTLD extensions <.com> and <.investments> add any distinguishing character to any of the disputed domain names. In each case it would be considered by Internet users as a necessary technical requirement for a domain name.

 

This Panel finds therefore that the disputed domain names <veritascapitaladvisorygmbh.com> and <veritascapitaladvisory.com> are confusingly similar to the VERITAS CAPITAL mark in which Complainant has rights and that disputed domain name <veritascapital.investments> is identical to the VERITAS CAPITAL mark.

 

Complainant has therefore succeeded in the first element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) in respect of each of the disputed domain names.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

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

 

The uncontested evidence is that Respondent has provided false contact information when registering all of the disputed domain names. Specifically Respondent has used two registrant names.

 

Additionally Respondent has used two of the disputed domain names to establish a website which falsely purports to offer financial services; and of particular concern is that Respondent's website states that "our U.S. affiliate is registered with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)", whereas the uncontested evidence is there is no evidence online that "Veritas Capital Advisory" is located at the Colorado address provided in the entity's fraudulent form ADV SEC filing.

 

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 paragraph 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant's United States registered trademark VERITAS CAPITAL was first registered on February 12, 2002.

 

The disputed domain name <veritascapital.investments> was registered on October 31, 2025; and the disputed domain names <veritascapitaladvisorygmbh.com> and <veritascapitaladvisory.com> were registered on January 6, 2026.

 

VERITAS CAPITAL is a distinctive mark, and it is contained in its entirety in each of the three disputed domain names. It is most improbable that the registrant of any of the disputed domain names was unaware of Complainant and its VERITAS CAPITAL mark when the disputed domain name was chosen and registered.

 

Based on the evidence before the Panel, there is no plausible reason for registering any of the disputed domain names, in which the VERITAS CAPITAL mark is the initial and only distinctive element, except to create an association with Complainant.

 

The Panel finds therefore that on the balance of probabilities each of the disputed domain names was registered in bad faith with Complainant's mark in mind in order to take predatory advantage of Complainant's goodwill and reputation.

 

The uncontested evidence, which has been produced as screen captures exhibited in an annex to the Complaint, and shows that:

·       the disputed domain name <veritascapital.investments> and <veritascapitaladvisorygmbh.com> resolve to an almost identical website, which purports to offer financial services.; and

·       the disputed domain name <veritascapitaladvisory.com> is passively held and does not resolve to any active website.

 

The record shows that Respondent has used false registration data for each of the disputed domain names.

 

Furthermore the website to which the disputed domain names <veritascapital.investments> and <veritascapitaladvisorygmbh.com> resolve contain false information including: including social media icons linking to the accounts of BlackRock, a well‑known investment firm; the use of a fake identity ("Samuel Robert Page"), whose photograph yields no search results.

 

Also, what on the balance of probabilities are false statements by Respondent claiming that "our U.S. affiliate is registered with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)" gives rise to particular concern indicating that Respondent may be engaged in a phishing scam as alleged by Complainant.  

 

Complainant adds that Respondents assertion that  "Veritas Capital Advisory" is located at the Colorado address is also unsupported by any evidence.

 

Taken together these factors show that the website to which the two disputed domain names resolve was established to attract and misdirect Internet traffic intended for Complainant to falsely create an impression of a connection or association between Respondent's website and Complainant.

 

Taking into account the above circumstances, and in particular noting the association between each of the disputed domain names, the Panel finds that the passive holding of the disputed domain name <veritascapitaladvisory.com> constitutes use in bad faith for the purposes of the Policy. It is registered using false registration data, and there is no plausible reason why a person would register the three associated domain names other than to falsely infer a connection with Complainant.

 

This Panel finds therefore that each of the disputed domain names 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) in respect of each of the disputed domain names.

 

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 <veritascapitaladvisorygmbh.com>, <veritascapitaladvisory.com> and <veritascapital.investments> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

James Bridgeman SC

Panelist

Dated: February 12, 2026