DECISION

 

Pershing Investments LLC v. Tadeusz Męciński / Europejska Korporacja Inwestycyjna Sp. z o.o.

Claim Number: FA2601002202832

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Pershing Investments LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Johanna Schmitt of Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, New York, USA. Respondent is Tadeusz Męciński / Europejska Korporacja Inwestycyjna Sp. z o.o. ("Respondent"), Poland.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <next-invest.org>, registered with OVH sas.

 

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.

 

Debrett G. Lyons as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

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

 

On February 2, 2026, OVH sas confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <next-invest.org> domain name is registered with OVH sas and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. OVH sas has verified that Respondent is bound by the OVH sas 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 4, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Polish and English Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 24, 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@next-invest.org. Also on February 4, 2026, the Polish and English 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 formal response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default in Polish and English.

 

On February 25, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Debrett G. Lyons 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 a formal response from Respondent.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant asserts registered and common law trademark rights in NETXINVESTOR which it uses in connection with the provision of financial services.  Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark.

 

Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because it is not known by the same name; has not been authorized to use the trademark; and has not used the domain name to date for any bona fide purpose.

 

Complainant alleges that Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith having targeted Complainant.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a formal Response but on February 12, 2026, wrote to Forum in Polish, stating that "[w]e waive legal proceedings. We are giving up the domain. Please turn it off."

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: CONSENT TO TRANSFER

The procedural question arises as to whether Respondent's message to Forum should be treated as a consent to transfer request. If so, a further question is whether the Panel should then directly transfer the domain name to Complainant without need to apply the Policy.

 

Transfer would be consistent with the request of the Complaint, but Complainant has not expressly foregone application of the Policy and UDRP decisions have long recognised so-called "consent to transfer" as one way in which respondents have tried to avoid the impact of the Policy and an adverse published decision. So, too, Respondent's message to Forum is not explicitly a request to transfer the name.

 

Those factors might ordinarily lead a panel away from an order for direct transfer. That said, the Panel observes that the disputed domain name was only registered on January 18, 2026, and has not been put to any apparent use. There is no Response, but equally the Complaint does not disclose a case of manifest bad faith. Further, Complainant's assertion that is difficult to imagine any legitimate future active use of the domain name is overstated since the domain name is composed of two common words which do not carry the same connotation as the trademark ("next investment " vs "net x investor") and may, in any event, be given to fair use. Furthermore, the Panel would not on the evidence be inclined to apply any of sub-paragraphs 4(b)(i)-(iv) of the Policy and the submission of "passive holding" in bad faith would depend on better proof of the common law rights asserted by Complainant.

 

In these circumstances, the Panel treats Respondent's request as a so-called "consent to transfer" and finds that direct transfer is to be preferred over application of the Policy.

 

DECISION

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <next-invest.org> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Debrett G. Lyons, Panelist

Dated: February 26, 2026