DECISION

 

CSFC Management Company, LLC v. Star Platinum

Claim Number: FA2602002203872

 

PARTIES

Complainant is CSFC Management Company, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Emily Stein of Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C., New York, USA. Respondent is Star Platinum ("Respondent"), Nigeria.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <capitalspringinvestment.com>, registered with NameCheap, Inc.

 

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.

 

Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 5, 2026; Forum received payment on February 5, 2026.

 

On February 9, 2026, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <capitalspringinvestment.com> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, 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 February 10, 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@capitalspringinvestment.com. Also on February 10, 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 Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. 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

i) Founded in 2005, Complainant has used the CAPITALSPRING mark to identify itself as the source of a variety of financial services, including, without limitation, private equity and debt investment management services with expertise in foodservice, multi-location business models, and related industries. As a result of Complainant's extensive use and promotion of its CAPITALSPRING mark, the mark enjoys considerable goodwill and widespread recognition, such that it has become firmly associated with Complainant and the services it provides. Complainant owns trademark registrations for its mark CAPITALSPRING globally, inter alia, with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 3,489,764, registered August 19, 2008) and with the EUIPO (Reg. No. 008345407, registered February 10, 2010). The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the CAPITALSPRING mark, as it incorporates the mark in its entirety with the mere addition of the generic term "investment" and the ".com" gTLD.

 

ii) Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Respondent been authorized or licensed by Complainant to use the CAPITALSPRING mark. The disputed domain name is not used for any bona fide offering of goods or services or for any legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, it resolves to a website that impersonates Complainant by prominently displaying the CAPITALSPRING mark and offering identical or closely related financial services. The site appears to be offering fraudulent investment services. Such use, designed to induce consumers to believe the site is affiliated with Complainant, does not constitute a bona fide use. Given the notoriety of Complainant's CAPITALSPRING mark, the only plausible inference is that Respondent registered the disputed domain name to intentionally trade off Complainant's goodwill, causing "initial interest confusion" that disrupts Complainant's business.

 

iii) Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith by impersonating Complainant to mislead consumers and profit from such confusion. Complainant's marks are so well-known that Respondent cannot provide a legitimate explanation for the registration other than to exploit the goodwill associated with Complainant. By causing initial interest confusion and falsely suggesting an endorsement or affiliation, Respondent's conduct constitutes evidence of bad faith registration and use. Even absent impersonation, the use of a confusingly similar domain name for services closely related to those of Complainant is not a bona fide use. Furthermore, Respondent's offering of likely fraudulent services and the constructive knowledge of Complainant's registered marks at the time of registration further demonstrate Respondent's bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

1. The disputed domain name was registered on January 2, 2026.

 

2. Complainant has established rights in the CAPITALSPRING mark globally, inter alia, through its registrations with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 3,489,764, registered August 19, 2008) and with the EUIPO (Reg. No. 008345407, registered February 10, 2010).

 

3. The disputed domain name resolves to a website that impersonates Complainant by prominently displaying the CAPITALSPRING mark and offering identical or closely related financial services.

 

4. The site appears to be offering fraudulent investment services.

 

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 asserts rights in the CAPITALSPRING mark globally, inter alia, through its registrations with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 3,489,764, registered August 19, 2008) and with the EUIPO (Reg. No. 008345407, registered February 10, 2010). Registrations of a mark with the USPTO and the EUIPO constitute valid evidence of trademark rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

Complainant has submitted evidence demonstrating the registration of the CAPITALSPRING mark. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in the CAPITALSPRING mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Complainant argues that the disputed domain name <capitalspringinvestment.com> is confusingly similar to its CAPITALSPRING mark, as it incorporates the mark in its entirety, with only the addition of the generic term "investment" and the ".com" gTLD. The Panel agrees and concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's 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 Section 2.1, WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.1 ("Where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element.").

 

Complainant argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Respondent been authorized by Complainant to use Complainant's mark, and Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant. Relevant information, such as WHOIS information, can be used as evidence to show a respondent is or is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). The Panel notes that the unmasked WHOIS data lists "Star Platinum" as the registrant, and there is no evidence in the record to suggest Respondent was authorized to use the mark. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

Complainant asserts that Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, as Respondent utilizes it to impersonate Complainant and mislead Internet users. When a respondent uses a disputed domain name to pass itself off as a complainant, the Panel may find that the respondent has failed to demonstrate a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Ripple Labs Inc. v. Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund, FA 1790949 (Forum July 9, 2018) (holding that the respondent's use of the domain name to feature the complainant's mark and related content did not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)).

 

Complainant has provided a screenshot of the website associated with the disputed domain name, demonstrating that it resolves to a website that prominently features the CAPITALSPRING mark and offers identical or closely related financial services. The site appears to be offering fraudulent investment services. The Panel notes that Respondent's website lacks specific information about the company, including, for example, the names of individuals associated with the company, contact information beyond an email address, affiliations with financial regulatory bodies, or specific details about the products offered. In addition, the links to social media pages are inactive and, under the "Testimonies" tab, there is a link to "300 reviews" on Trustpilot which does not resolve, as well as several "customer reviews" on the page itself that appear to be fictitious, given the generic nature of the customer names and the vague nature of the reviews.

 

The Panel finds that Respondent's activities related to the disputed domain name are fraudulent, create a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark, and are intended to mislead or divert Internet users for commercial advantage. Accordingly, the Panel concludes that Respondent's fraudulent activities and impersonation do not constitute use of the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has established a prima facie case arising from the foregoing considerations. All of these matters together establish the prima facie case against Respondent. As Respondent has not filed a response or otherwise sought to rebut the prima facie case, the Panel determines that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant asserts that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith by disrupting Complainant's business and attempting to attract Internet users to its competing website for commercial gain. When a respondent uses a disputed domain name to impersonate a complainant, such conduct can constitute bad faith disruption of a complainant's business under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and an attempt to attract users for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum Dec. 27, 2017) (finding bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where "Respondent registered and uses the <lbittrex.com> domain name in bad faith by directing Internet users to a website that mimics Complainant's own website to confuse users into believing that Respondent is Complainant, or is otherwise affiliated or associated with Complainant").  

 

As previously noted, Respondent's website prominently features the CAPITALSPRING mark and offers identical or closely related financial services. The site appears to be offering fraudulent investment services. The Panel notes that Respondent's website lacks any specific information about the company. The Panel finds that Respondent's activities related to the disputed domain name are fraudulent, create a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark, and are likely to mislead or disrupt Internet users, thereby generating commercial benefits through the redirection of users and falsely suggesting an affiliation with Complainant. Consequently, the Panel concludes that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and 4(b)(iv).  

 

Additionally, Complainant contends that Respondent registered the disputed domain name with constructive knowledge of Complainant's rights in light of the reputation of Complainant's marks. While constructive knowledge alone is insufficient to establish bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii), actual knowledge of Complainant's trademark rights is sufficient and may be inferred from Respondent's use of the disputed domain name to impersonate Complainant. See Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014) ("The Panel notes that although the UDRP does not recognize 'constructive notice' as sufficient grounds for finding Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith, the Panel here finds actual knowledge through the name used for the domain and the use made of it."); see also Spectrum Brands, Inc. v. Guo Li Bo, FA 1760233 (Forum Jan. 5, 2018) ("[T]he fact Respondent registered a domain name that looked identical to the SPECTRUM BRANDS mark and used that as an email address to pass itself off as Complainant shows that Respondent knew of Complainant and its trademark rights at the time of registration.").  

 

The Panel further notes that since at least as early as 2005, Complainant has used the CAPITALSPRING marks to identify itself as the source of a variety of financial services. Complainant has partnered with over 100 founder-led businesses and invested more than $3.9 billion to support entrepreneurs in accelerating growth and achieving strategic goals for their businesses. Complainant has offices across the country and over 7,000 partner operating locations globally. As a result of Complainant's extensive use and promotion of its CAPITALSPRING marks, said marks enjoy considerable goodwill and widespread recognition, such that the CAPITALSPRING marks have become associated with Complainant and the services it provides.  

 

Given the widespread recognition of Complainant's mark together with Respondent's impersonation and passing off, the Panel infers that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the mark at the time of registration. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent 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 <capitalspringinvestment.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist

Dated: March 4, 2026