DECISION

 

Vladimir Tenev v. libin

Claim Number: FA2601002200904

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Vladimir Tenev ("Complainant"), represented by David K. Caplan of Kilpatrick, Townsend & Stockton LLP, California, USA. Respondent is libin ("Respondent"), USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <vladtenev.com>, registered with Dynadot Inc.

 

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.

 

Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 21, 2026; Forum received payment on January 21, 2026.

 

On January 21, 2026, Dynadot Inc confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <vladtenev.com> domain name is registered with Dynadot Inc and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Dynadot Inc has verified that Respondent is bound by the Dynadot Inc 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 23, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 12, 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@vladtenev.com. Also on January 23, 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 13, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Nicholas J.T. Smith 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 an American entrepreneur. Complainant claims common law rights in the VLAD TENEV mark based on Complainant's work in various businesses and in Complainant's current business. In particular Complainant has used the VLAD TENEV mark in his role as founder of Chronos Research, Robinhood, an extraordinarily successful investment platform, and as executive chairman of the artificial intelligence startup Harmonic. Complainant also regularly gives speaking engagements under the VLAD TENEV name and has received external recognition for his role as a young entrepreneur.

 

Respondent has no legitimate interests in the <vladtenev.com> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name and Complainant has not authorized or licensed Respondent any rights in the VLAD TENEV mark. Additionally, Respondent does not use the Domain Name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the Domain Name resolves a page offering itself for sale for a sum significantly greater than any likely out-of-pocket costs.

 

Respondent registered and uses the <vladtenev.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent registered the Domain Name in order to disrupt Complainant's business, attract users to any resolving website, and to sell the Domain Name for a sum greater than its out-of-pocket costs. Finally, Respondent registered the Domain Name with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the VLAD TENEV mark given Complainant's fame and significant reputation in its mark.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant does not provide sufficient evidence of trademark rights for the VLAD TENEV mark for the purposes of satisfying Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). 

 

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 does not hold any trademark registrations for the VLAD TENEV mark rather it relies on establishing common law rights in the mark. Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) does not require a complainant to own a registered trademark if it can demonstrate established common law rights in the mark. See Microsoft Corporation v. Story Remix / Inofficial, FA 1734934 (Forum July 10, 2017) (finding that "The Policy does not require a complainant to own a registered trademark prior to a respondent's registration if it can demonstrate established common law rights in the mark.").

 

Establishing common law rights in a mark requires a showing of secondary meaning of the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).  See Marquette Golf Club v. Al Perkins, 1738263 (Forum July, 27, 2017) (finding that Complainant had established its common law rights in the MARQUETTE GOLF CLUB mark with evidence of secondary meaning, including "longstanding use; evidence of holding an identical domain name; media recognition; and promotional material/advertising."). Lack of evidence to support secondary meaning may result in failure to establish common law rights in a mark.  See CW & Associates Consulting and Recruiting Inc. v. Lynda Pitchford / ITSR, FA 1619758 (Forum June 29, 2015) (finding Complainant failed to establish common law rights, stating, "Complainant has failed to provide evidence of any sales figures or advertising expenditures or any indication of the extent of use aside from what may be implied from the business name registration and placement of the name(s) on social media. There is no evidence to show that the public is aware of the claimed marks at all, much less a public association of the claimed ETS marks with the Complainant.").

 

Complainant argues that, because Complainant has served in public facing roles for his very successful businesses and because he regularly makes public speeches and engages in public commentary the VLAD TENEV mark is closely associated with the services provided by Complainant and serves as a source identifier. The WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition at 1.5, in response to the question "Can a complainant show UDRP-relevant rights in a personal name?" states that:

 

1.5.2 The UDRP does not explicitly provide standing for personal names which are not registered or otherwise protected as trademarks. In situations however where a personal name is being used as a trademark-like identifier in trade or commerce, the complainant may be able to establish unregistered or common law rights in that name for purposes of standing to file a UDRP case where the name in question is used in commerce as a distinctive identifier of the complainant's goods or services.

 

Merely having a famous name (such as a businessperson or cultural leader who has not demonstrated use of their personal name in a trademark/source-identifying sense) or making broad unsupported assertions regarding the use of such name in trade or commerce, would not likely demonstrate unregistered or common law rights for purposes of standing to file a UDRP complaint.

 

In the present case the Panel is unsatisfied on the evidence before it that the Complainant has achieved secondary meaning in the VLAD TENEV mark. The Panel accepts that the Complainant has had a successful business career but this is explicitly connected to his success as founder of various businesses including Robinhood, and the opportunities this provided to provide public commentary. Indeed, this case appears to precisely fall into the examples of a case involving a businessperson who has a famous name (and by reason of that engages in speaking/public commentary opportunities) but cannot demonstrate use of their name in a trademark/source-identifying sense.

 

In support of his claim to common law trademark rights in the name VLAD TENEV, Complainant cites several previous decisions under the Policy regarding the issue of common law rights in personal names, however his selective citing focuses on celebrity figures in the entertainment world such as PETE WENTZ, and DIRK NOWITZKI, who directly offer their services under their names.  The rights claimed by Complainant appear to be more analogous to those described in a previous dispute under the Policy brought by Margaret C. Whitman a/k/a Meg Whitman.  Whitman v. Domains For Sale, D2008-1534 (WIPO Dec. 1, 2008).  In that case, the Complainant "claim[ed] common law service mark rights in her personal name MEG WHITMAN 'as evidenced by her fame and achievement, the international recognition and wide publicizing of her fame and achievement, and that Complainant's fame and achievement are inextricably connected to eBay's commercial success'."  Further, "[t]he Complainant has made numerous speeches, presentations and public appearances to promote eBay, and she has been featured on television and in numerous publications ..."  However, in denying the Complainant's request to transfer the disputed domain names, the Panel wrote that "fame alone is not sufficient to establish common law trademark or service mark rights in a personal name" and that "the Panel is unable to conclude that the Complainant has provided services under the name 'Meg Whitman' as a source-indicator to a segment of the relevant buying public based on her performance as President and CEO of eBay." See also Josh Schachter v. Sue Pearl Wang, FA 1403527 (Forum Oct. 26, 2011) (rejecting claim of rights in JOSHUA SCHACHTER on basis that it was known and understood merely as personal name of technology industry pioneer rather than as source identifier); See also R. E. "Ted" Turner & Ted Turner Film Properties, LLC v. Mazen Fahmi, D2002-0251 (WIPO July 2, 2002) (rejecting claim of common law rights in TED TURNER, despite substantial evidence of Complainant's fame and widespread commercial use of TURNER).

 

The Panel is not satisfied that there is evidence that "VLAD TENEV" is or has ever been used as a unique trade identifier for specific goods or services, that is, functions as a trademark.  Guided by the statements from the WIPO Overview, the evidence before the Panel does not show common law trademark rights in the name VLAD TENEV and so Panel finds that Complainant has not established Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

 

As the Panel has concluded that Complainant has not satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) because it has not established rights in the VLAD TENEV mark, the Panel declines to analyze the other two elements of the Policy.  See Netsertive, Inc. v. Ryan Howard / Howard Technologies, Ltd., FA 1721637 (Forum Apr. 17, 2017) (finding that because the complainant must prove all three elements under the Policy, the complainant's failure to prove one of the elements makes further inquiry into the remaining element unnecessary); see also Wasatch Shutter Design v. Duane Howell / The Blindman, FA 1731056 (Forum June 23, 2017) (deciding not to inquire into the respondent's rights or legitimate interests or its registration and use in bad faith where the complainant could not satisfy the requirements of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).

 

DECISION

Having not established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <vladtenev.com> domain name REMAIN WITH Respondent.

 

 

 

Nicholas J.T. Smith, Panelist

Dated: February 13, 2026