DECISION

 

Brown Brothers Harriman & Co. v. Simon Jones

Claim Number: FA2602002205350

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Brown Brothers Harriman & Co. ("Complainant"), represented by Allen J. Baden of Baden Law Firm PC, Texas, USA. Respondent is Simon Jones ("Respondent"), United Kingdom.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <uk-bbh.com>, registered with Ultahost, 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.

 

Richard Hill as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 13, 2026; Forum received payment on February 13, 2026.

 

On February 17, 2026, Ultahost, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <uk-bbh.com> domain name is registered with Ultahost, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Ultahost, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Ultahost, 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 17, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 9, 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@uk-bbh.com. Also on February 17, 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 10, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Richard Hill 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 states that, founded in 1818, it is a New York limited partnership commonly referred to as, and operating under, the BBH trade name and trademark since at least 1958. Complainant is a privately held financial services firm serving clients globally in three primary business areas: investor services, investment and wealth management, and private banking. Complainant employs over 5500 professionals in eighteen offices in North America, Europe, the United Kingdom, and Asia. Complainant owns the domain name <bbh.com>, which it registered on July 30, 1995, and which resolves as Complainant's website. Complainant's customers include financial institutions, mutual funds, pension funds, sovereign wealth funds, not-for-profit entities, trusts, family offices, and high net worth individuals worldwide to whom Complainant offers wealth management services. Complainant's customers, competitors, and the financial markets are familiar with Complainant's BBH trade name and trademark. Complainant asserts rights in the mark BBH through its registration in the United Kingdom in 1992. The mark is registered elsewhere around the world and it is famous.

 

According to Complainant, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the BBH mark as it incorporates the mark in its entirety, while merely adding the geographic term "UK", a hyphen, and the ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD"). Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.

 

Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent's use of the mark. Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use through the disputed domain name. Instead, the disputed domain name does not resolve to a website; however, Respondent is using it as part of email addresses in emails that transmit solicitations, purportedly on behalf of Complainant, to Complainant's customers seeking confidential information, including usernames, passwords, and banking information, leading those visitors to falsely assume Respondent is affiliated with (or is) Complainant. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.

 

Further, says Complainant, Respondent is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The disputed domain name is used in furtherance of a fraudulent email phishing scheme. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark. The WHOIS information is false. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant owns the mark BBH and uses it to provide investor services, investment and wealth management, and private banking.

 

Complainant's rights in mark date back to at least 1992.

 

The disputed domain name was registered in 2026.

 

Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.

 

The disputed domain name is used to attempt to impersonate Complainant in furtherance of a fraudulent email phishing scheme. The WHOIS information is false.

 

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

The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's BBH mark in its entirety, merely adding the geographic term "UK", a hyphen, and the generic top-level domain ("gTLD") ".com." Panels have found such alterations to a mark to be insufficient in overcoming a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Avaya Inc. v. Evelyn Dayda / Avaya Unlimited Sources LLC, FA 1611255 (Forum May 4, 2015) (finding that as "the 'usa' portion of the disputed domain name is a generic geographic term, the internet user will assume that the domain name deals with the activities of Complainant in the USA and that it will lead to a website dealing with that subject. The domain name is therefore confusingly similar to the AVAYA mark and the Panel so finds."); see also Sports Auth. Mich. Inc. v. Batu 5, FA 176541 (Forum Sept. 23, 2003) ("The addition of a hyphen to Complainant's mark does not create a distinct characteristic capable of overcoming a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) confusingly similar analysis."); see also Jerry Damson, Inc. v. Tex. Int'l Prop. Assocs., FA 916991 (Forum Apr. 10, 2007) ("The mere addition of a generic top-level domain ("gTLD") ".com" does not serve to adequately distinguish the Domain Name from the mark."). Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), the Panel make look at the WHOIS information to determine whether Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. Here, the WHOIS information regarding the disputed domain name lists "Simon Jones" as registrant of record. Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

The disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website; however, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to attempt to impersonate Complainant in furtherance of a fraudulent email phishing scheme. Panels have found such use by a respondent consists of neither a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Morgan Stanley v. Zhange Sheng Xu / Zhang Sheng Xu, FA 1600534 (Forum Feb. 26, 2015) ("The Panel agrees that the respondent's apparent phishing attempt provides further indication that the respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)."); see also Blackstone TM L.L.C. v. Mita Irelant Ltd., FA 1314998 (Forum Apr. 30, 2010) ("The Panel finds that Respondent's attempt to "phish" for users' personal information is neither a bona fide offering of goods and services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)."). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent's use of the disputed domain name constitutes neither a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii). And the Panel finds that respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant's contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant's mark. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent's failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain name.

 

Indeed, as already noted, the disputed domain name is used in furtherance of a fraudulent email phishing scheme. This behavior is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Yahoo! Inc. v. Kalra, FA 1650447 (Forum Dec. 31, 2015); see also Qatalyst Partners LP v. Devimore, FA 1393436 (Forum July 13, 2011) (finding that using the disputed domain name as an e-mail address to pass itself off as the complainant in a phishing scheme is evidence of bad faith registration and use.); see also National Oilwell Varco, L.P. v. Craig Wood/NOV, FA 1575951 (Forum Sept. 22, 2014) (finding bad faith where respondent fraudulently attempted to induce wire transfers by sending e-mails purporting to be from complainant's President and CEO); see also Capital One Financial Corporation and Capital One Bank v. Austin Howel, FA 289304 (Forum Aug. 11, 2004) (finding bad faith where respondent used complainant's mark to fraudulently induce transfer of credit and personal identification information). Consequently, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith in the sense of the Policy.

 

Further, Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant's mark: the phishing emails attempt to impersonate Complainant. While constructive notice is insufficient to demonstrate bad faith, actual knowledge of a complainant's rights in a mark prior to registration may be evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Custom Modular Direct LLC v. Custom Modular Homes Inc., FA 1140580 (Forum Apr. 8, 2008) ("There is no place for constructive notice under the Policy."); see also 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 Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name). The Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the mark prior to Respondent's registration of the disputed domain name and that this constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

Finally, Complainant presents evidence showing that the WHOIS information is false. This can indicate bad faith registration and use. See Enterprise Holdings, Inc. v. John Doe, FA 1339545 (Forum Sept. 29, 2010) ("The Panel also takes into account that the entity that Responded to the Complaint would not be the registrant of the disputed domain names for the instant proceedings. Therefore, that circumstance is also taken by the Panel as indication of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) by providing false or misleading WHOIS information to the registrar."); see also Video Direct Distribs. Inc. v. Video Direct, Inc., FA 94724 (Forum June 5, 2000) (finding that the respondent acted in bad faith by providing incorrect information to the registrar regarding the owner of the registered name). Accordingly, the Panel finds bad faith registration and use on this ground also.

 

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 <uk-bbh.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Richard Hill, Panelist

Dated: March 10, 2026