DECISION

 

Pershing Investments LLC v. Jonas Jeppesen / Munch Film A/S

Claim Number: FA2601002202829

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Pershing Investments LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Johanna Schmitt of Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, New York, USA. Respondent is Jonas Jeppesen / Munch Film A/S ("Respondent"), Denmark.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <xnet360.com>, registered with Hello Internet Corp.

 

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.

 

Adam Taylor as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 30, 2026; Forum received payment on January 30, 2026.

 

On February 5, 2026, Hello Internet Corp confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <xnet360.com> domain name is registered with Hello Internet Corp and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Hello Internet Corp has verified that Respondent is bound by the Hello Internet Corp 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 February 9, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 2, 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@xnet360.com. Also on February 9, 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 March 3, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Adam Taylor 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 contends that it has rights in the NETX360 mark based upon registration of its mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") and upon common law rights arising from long-standing continuous business use. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark.

 

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; on the contrary, Respondent is using the disputed domain name to impersonate Complainant in order to trick Complainant's clients and customers into sharing their confidential account information with Respondent. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Respondent has not made legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. Complainant has never authorized Respondent to use Complainant's mark.

 

Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent's actual knowledge of Complainant's mark is evidenced by Respondent's bad faith use of the disputed domain name to mislead Complainant's clients and customers into believing that it is Complainant's legitimate login page.  Respondent is deemed to have constructive knowledge of Complainant's mark. Moreover, Respondent has engaged in a pattern of registering and using domain names that infringe Complainant's rights. The totality of the facts are indicative of registration and use in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant is a subsidiary of The Bank of New York Mellon, a global financial services and investments company.

 

Since at least 2009, Complainant has operated an investment platform under the mark NETX360.

 

Complainant owns various registered trademarks for NETX360, including Reg. No. 3,971,044, registered with the USPTO on May 31, 2011.

 

Complainant operates a website at www.netx360.com.

 

The disputed domain name was registered on January 27, 2026.

 

Respondent has used the disputed domain name to resolve to a website that replicates Complainant's website including by use of Complainant's logo, login tool and site operator notice.

 

Respondent has been found to have registered and used the domain name <360netx.com> in bad faith in Pershing Investments LLC v. Jonas Jeppesen / Munch Film A/S, FA2201570 (Forum Feb. 24, 2026).

 

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 3.1 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

Since Complainant has provided evidence of registration of the NETX360 mark with the USPTO, the Panel finds that Complainant has rights in that mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's NETX360 mark as it simply inverts the elements "net" and "x". Merely inverting the elements of a Complainant's mark does not prevent confusing similarity for the purposes of the Policy; see Hourglass Angel, LLC v. Pham Dinh Nhut, FA 1556334 (Forum June 12, 2014) ("…the Panel concludes that Respondent's domain name  is confusingly similar to Complainant's HOURGLASS ANGEL mark because it transposes the words in the mark, adds a gTLD, and eliminates the space between the words.").

 

Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's NETX360 mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii); then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) ("Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests").

 

Complainant contends that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name since Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Braun Corp. v. Loney, FA 699652 (Forum July 7, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain names where the WHOIS information, as well as all other information in the record, gave no indication that the respondent was commonly known by the domain names, and the complainant had not authorized the respondent to register a domain name containing its registered mark).

 

The WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as "Jonas Jeppesen / Munch Film A/S" and there is no other information on the record indicating that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name.

 

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

Complainant argues that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or for legitimate noncommercial or fair use.

 

As explained below, the Panel considers that Respondent has used the disputed domain name to impersonate Complainant for fraudulent purposes. Such use of the disputed domain name is plainly neither bona fide nor legitimate or fair.

 

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or for legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

The Panel considers that Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to its website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's trademark under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).

 

In particular, Respondent has used the disputed domain name to impersonate Complainant by replicating its website login page, no doubt with a view to eliciting confidential information from Complainant's customers or for other fraudulent purposes.

 

The Panel also notes that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of illicit targeting of Complainant. In particular, Respondent has been found to have a registered and used a domain name reflecting another version of Complainant's mark, namely <360netx.com>, in bad faith. See Pershing Investments LLC v. Jonas Jeppesen / Munch Film A/S, FA2201570 (Forum Feb. 24, 2026).

 

Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent has registered, and is using, the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

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 <xnet360.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Adam Taylor, Panelist

Dated: March 4, 2026