DECISION

 

PwC Business Trust v. Hemant Kaushik / USA TV NEWS CORP

Claim Number: FA2602002207614

 

PARTIES

Complainant is PwC Business Trust ("Complainant"), represented by Luna Samman of ArentFox Schiff LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Hemant Kaushik / USA TV NEWS CORP ("Respondent"), California, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <pwcinternational.org> (the "disputed domain name"), registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.

 

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.

 

Lynda M. Braun as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 26, 2026; Forum received payment on February 26, 2026.

 

On February 27, 2026, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <pwcinternational.org> disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, LLC 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 March 3, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 23, 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@pwcinternational.org. Also on March 3, 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 formal response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On March 24, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Lynda M. Braun 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 disputed domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant is the owner of the trademark PWC, registered, inter alia, in the USA and other jurisdictions worldwide, for accounting services with first use in commerce recorded as July 1998. Complainant's PWC trademark has been used continuously since 1998 and is used today in connection with a range of professional services, including financial and regulatory assurance services, and also tax, advisory and other consultant services to leading companies and public institutions.

 

Complainant licenses its trademark to the various member firms globally of the PricewaterhouseCoopers network of firms (the "PwC Network Firms"), including PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, the registrant of the domain name <pwc.com>, through which the PwC Network Firms provide information about their organization and services. The PwC Network Firms have hundreds of offices operating in nearly 160 countries, employing over 370,000 people.

 

Complainant is the owner of hundreds if not well over 1000 trademark registrations for the PWC and other marks in numerous countries and territories worldwide. Complainant has spent substantial amounts of time and money promoting the advisory, consulting, tax and other services associated with the PWC and other marks in connection with their ongoing business activities throughout the world.

 

Complainant's registered trademarks for PWC in the United States include but are not limited to: PWC (stylized), United States Registration No. 2,579,070, registered on June 11, 2002, with a first use anywhere and a first use in commerce of July 1, 1998, in International Class 35 (hereinafter referred to as the "PWC Mark").

 

Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the PWC Mark, with the only difference being the addition of the term "international" and the use of the generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") ".org". In addition, Complainant claims that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.

 

The disputed domain name was registered on July 22, 2024 and resolves to a website that is used as part of a scheme to impersonate Complainant and capitalize on its significant goodwill in an unlawful effort to profit from Complainant's potential customers.  Respondent's website at the disputed domain name mirrors the overall look and feel of Complainant's official website, including the same orange color scheme. Respondent also uses the PWC Mark incorporated in the disputed domain name to advertise fraudulent services which are identical to Complainant's services, and also is an attempt by Respondent to obtain personal data and financial information of Complainant's user base, which constitutes phishing.

 

Complainant's counsel sent a cease-and-desist letter to Respondent, demanding that it discontinue the use of the disputed domain name, but received no reply.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a formal Response in this proceeding.  Correspondence was received by Forum on March 5, 2026 in which Respondent stated, "We deleted the website and we will cancel this domain name".

 

FINDINGS

The Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the PWC Mark based on its trademark registrations with the USPTO and other jurisdictions worldwide. Registration with the USPTO is sufficient to establish rights in a mark pursuant to Policy paragraph 4(a)(i). In addition, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's PWC Mark, that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name 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 disputed domain name should be cancelled or transferred:

 

(1)       the disputed 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 disputed domain name; and

(3)       the disputed 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 ("WIPO Overview 3.1"), section 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 Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the PWC Mark as set forth below.

 

It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant's trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7.

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the PWC Mark based on its registration of the mark with the USPTO (e.g., United States Registration No. 2,579,070, registered on June 11, 2002, with a first use anywhere and a first use in commerce of July 1, 1998, in International Class 35). Registration of a mark with the USPTO confers upon a complainant trademark rights for purposes of the Policy paragraph 4(a)(i). See Liberty Global Logistics, LLC v. damilola emmanuel / tovary services limited, FA 1738536 (Forum Aug. 4, 2017) ("Registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently establishes the required rights in the mark for purposes of the Policy.")

 

The disputed domain name consists of the PWC Mark in its entirety followed by the term "international", followed by the gTLD ".org". Registration of a disputed domain name that adds a term or terms to the entirety of a trademark does not distinguish the disputed domain name from the mark per Policy paragraph 4(a)(i). See Microsoft Corporation v. Thong Tran Thanh, FA 1653187 (Forum Jan. 21, 2016) (determining that confusing similarity exists where a disputed domain name contains a complainant's entire mark and differs only by the addition of a descriptive term and generic Top-Level Domain); In addition, adding a gTLD, a technical requirement of a domain name, to a complainant's mark, also does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under Policy paragraph 4(a)(i). See Elenie Reese v. Eddie Morgan, FA 917029 (Forum Apr. 5, 2007) (the mere addition of a generic Top-Level Domain, such as ".com", is insufficient to differentiate a disputed domain name from a trademark).

 

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Policy paragraph 4(a)(i) has been established by Complainant.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which a respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving that a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult task of "proving a negative", requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent.

 

As such, 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 (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.1.

 

Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds that Complainant has established a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not rebutted Complainant's prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. Complainant has not authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted Respondent to use the PWC Mark, Respondent has no relationship, affiliation, connection, endorsement or association with Complainant, and Complainant does not have any type of business relationship with Respondent.

 

In particular, the Panel concludes that Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods and services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use because Respondent used the disputed domain name to configure emails associated with the disputed domain name in furtherance of a phishing scheme to defraud Complainant's potential customers, which does not qualify as a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate non-commercial or fair use. The use of the disputed domain name in this way was intended to confuse and deceive customers into believing that Complainant owned and operated the email address and to induce customers into submitting confidential and/or sensitive personal and financial information to Respondent through the website.

 

Moreover, the impersonation of Complainant does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services. See Emerson Electric Co. v. Adilcon Rocha, FA 1735949 (Forum July 11, 2017) (finding that respondent's attempt to pass off as complainant through emails does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services and, as such, respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name).

 

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Policy paragraph 4(a)(ii) has been established by Complainant.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

The Panel concludes that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith as set forth below.

 

First, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and was using the disputed domain name to perpetuate a fraudulent scheme to cause disruption of Complainant's business. Use of a disputed domain name in this manner supports a finding of bad faith.

 

Second, the Panel concludes that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in its PWC Mark when registering the disputed domain name. It strains credulity to believe that Respondent had not known of the Complainant or its PWC Mark when registering the disputed domain name, especially since the disputed domain name contains the PWC Mark in its entirety, followed by the term "international" and then followed by the gTLD "org". Prior knowledge of a complainant's trademark when registering a disputed domain name, as here, is sufficient to find bad faith under Policy paragraph 4(a)(iii). See Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014) (finding actual knowledge due to the domain name chosen and the use made of it); see also Yahoo! Inc. v. Butler, FA 744444 (Forum Aug. 17, 2006) (finding bad faith where the respondent was "well-aware" of the complainant's YAHOO! mark at the time of registration).

 

Third, Complainant claims that Respondent registered and was using the disputed domain name in bad faith as Respondent attempted to impersonate Complainant for Respondent's commercial gain. Use of a disputed domain name in connection with passing off or impersonation to commercially benefit a respondent can evince bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy paragraph 4(b)(iv). See Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum Dec. 27, 2017) (finding bad faith per Policy paragraph 4(b)(iv) where respondent registered and uses the <lbittrex.com> domain name in bad faith in order to confuse users into believing that respondent is complainant or is otherwise affiliated or associated with complainant).

 

Fourth, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name to perpetuate a phishing scheme. Use of a disputed domain name to impersonate Complainant and send emails incorporating the disputed domain name to Complainant's customers supports a finding of bad faith registration and use under Policy paragraph 4(b)(iii). In sum, the Panel concludes that the circumstances of this case, including claims that the disputed domain name had been used to perpetrate a fraudulent phishing scheme so that Respondent could acquire sensitive and confidential information from users, the failure of Respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good faith use, and the implausibility of any good faith use to which the disputed domain name was put, support an inference of bad faith.

 

Finally, Respondent did not respond to the cease-and-desist letter sent by Complainant's counsel to Respondent, another indication of bad faith. Previous UDRP panels have held that failure to respond to a cease-and-desist letter may be considered a factor in finding bad faith registration and use of a disputed domain name. See Seiko Epson Corporation v. Ashish Sen, FA 1702054 (Forum Dec. 12, 2016) (finding that failing to respond to a cease-and-desist demand letter constitutes bad faith). T

 

Thus, the Panel concludes that based on the totality of the circumstances outlined above, Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.

 

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Policy paragraph 4(a)(iii) has been established by Complainant.

 

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 <pwcinternational.org> disputed domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Lynda M. Braun, Panelist

Dated: April 7, 2026