DECISION

 

Pershing Investments LLC v. Thorsten Haupt

Claim Number: FA2601002201569

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Pershing Investments LLC ("Complainant"), United States, represented by Johanna Schmitt of Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, United States. Respondent is Thorsten Haupt ("Respondent"), Germany.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <netx360.live>, registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com.

 

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 January 23, 2026; Forum received payment on January 23, 2026.

 

On January 30, 2026, PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com confirmed by email to Forum that the <netx360.live> domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com 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 30, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 19, 2026 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@netx360.live. Also on January 30, 2026, 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 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 20, 2026, 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 name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant is a subsidiary of The Bank of New York Mellon that promotes and provides a variety of investment and financial products. Complainant has used NETX360 since at least 2009 in connection with a platform for executing trades, settling transactions, and managing custody assets. Complainant owns numerous relevant United States and international trademark registrations, including a United States registration for NETX360 in standard character form that issued in 2011. Complainant also asserts common law rights arising from continuous use and promotion of the mark.

 

The disputed domain name <netx360.live> was registered in January 2026. The name is registered to Respondent, although Respondent's identity is redacted from the public domain name registration record. The domain name does not resolve to a website. Complainant argues that Respondent should be deemed to have constructive knowledge of Complainant's trademark rights, and expresses a concern that Respondent will use the domain name in connection with fraudulent activities. Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name, has no relationship with Complainant, and is not authorized to use Complainant's mark.

 

Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <netx360.live> is identical or confusingly similar to its NETX360 mark; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is 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 Select UDRP Questions, § 4.3 (version 3.1, 2026), available at https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview; 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 name <netx360.live> corresponds to Complainant's registered NETX360 trademark, adding the ".live" top-level domain. The addition of a top-level domain is normally disregarded for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. See, e.g., Pershing Investments LLC v. Marco Wright, FA 2201566 (Forum Feb. 19, 2026) (finding <netx-360.com> confusingly similar to NETX360); TWILIO INC. v. Domain Privacy / Domain Name Privacy Inc, FA 2181888 (Forum Nov. 4, 2025) (finding <twilio.live> identical to TWILIO). The Panel considers the disputed domain name to be identical 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 name, 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 name incorporates Complainant's registered mark without authorization. Respondent does not appear to have made any active use of the domain name, nor to have engaged in preparations for such use, suggesting that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. See, e.g., New York Life Insurance Co. v. Mark Lombardi, FA 2187153 (Forum Dec. 4, 2025) (finding lack of rights or interests in similar circumstances); SidePrize, LLC d/b/a PrizePicks v. Copamar Partners / Copamar Partners, S.L., FA 2141536 (Forum Mar. 19, 2025) (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 name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered the disputed 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 used what appears to the Panel to be at least partially fictitious registration information to register a domain name that corresponds to Complainant's registered mark. Respondent does not appear to have made any active use of the domain name, nor to have engaged in preparations for such use, and has failed to come forward with any explanation for the selection of the name or its intended use.

 

The Panel notes that Complainant's reliance on constructive notice as a basis for finding bad faith is misplaced. Under the Policy, constructive notice is insufficient; bad faith requires at least an inference that the Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant or its mark when registering the domain name. See UDRP Perspectives on Recent Jurisprudence, supra, § 3.4; e.g., Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc. & American Sports Licensing, LLC v. 杰 陈, FA 2185625 (Forum Nov. 21, 2025); The Bank of New York Mellon & Pershing Investments LLC v. Persh Benny, FA 2177171 (Forum Oct. 15, 2025); The Bank of New York Mellon v. Brony Peter, FA 2165002 (Forum Aug. 5, 2025); SidePrize, LLC d/b/a PrizePicks v. Copamar Partners / Copamar Partners, S.L., supra; Charter Communications Holding Co., LLC v. Nanci Nette, FA 1820262 (Forum Feb. 7, 2019); SPS Commerce, Inc. v. Registration Private / Domains By Proxy, LLC & Singapore Post Ltd., FA 1724583 (Forum May 24, 2017); Advanced Drivers Education Products & Training, Inc v. MDNH, Inc. (Marchex), FA 567039 (Forum Nov. 10, 2005); The Way International, Inc. v. Diamond Peters, D2003-0264 (WIPO May 29, 2003). 

 

Under the circumstances presented here, the Panel considers it reasonable to infer that Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant's mark, intending to use the domain name in a manner calculated to create and exploit confusion with the mark, and that Respondent is maintaining the domain name for that purpose. See, e.g., New York Life Insurance Co. v. Mark Lombardi, supra (finding bad faith registration and use in similar circumstances); The Bank of New York Mellon v. JULIAN AREY, FA 2173189 (Forum Sept. 16, 2025) (same). Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

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 <netx360.live> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

David E. Sorkin, Panelist

Dated: February 20, 2026