NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM

DECISION

GQG Partners LLC v. San Blus / XM Global Limited

Claim Number: FA2602002207943

PARTIES

Complainant is GQG Partners LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Grace H Stanton of Perkins Coie LLP, Washington, USA. Respondent is San Blus / XM Global Limited ("Respondent"), Belize.

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES

The domain names at issue are <gqg2016.com> and <gqgpartners2016.com>, registered with Gname.com Pte. Ltd.

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.

The Honorable Neil Anthony Brown KC as Panelist.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 27, 2026; Forum received payment on March 2, 2026.

On March 2, 2026, Gname.com Pte. Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <gqg2016.com> and <gqgpartners2016.com> domain names are registered with Gname.com Pte. Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Gname.com Pte. Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Gname.com Pte. Ltd. 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 5, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 25, 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@gqg2016.com, postmaster@gqgpartners2016.com. Also on March 5, 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 26, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed The Honorable Neil Anthony Brown KC 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant made the following contentions.

1. The Complainant is a United States boutique investment management company that manages global and emerging market equity portfolios and the provision of related goods and services and it has been so engaged since 2016.

2. The Complainant provides its goods and services under the trademarks for GQG and GQG PARTNERS.

3. The Complainant acquired its registered trademark rights by virtue of the following registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") namely :

(a) the GQG mark (Reg. No. 5512178) registered by the Complainant on July 10, 2018;

(b) the GQG PARTNERS trademark (Reg. No. 5512177) registered by the Complainant on July 10, 2018; and

(c) other trademarks for GQG and GQG PARTNERS registered in Japan; (collectively "the GQG trademark" and "the GQG PARTNERS trademark").

4. The GQG trademark and the GQG PARTNERS trademark have attracted substantial goodwill and are uniquely associated with the Complainant's goods and services and with the Complainant as their owner.

5. The Respondent registered the <gqg2016.com> and <gqgpartners2016.com> domain names on December 4, 2025 and December 7, 2025 respectively ("the disputed domain names").

6. The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the GQG trademark and the GQG PARTNERS trademarks.

7. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names as:

(a) the Respondent is not a licensee, authorized retailer or distributor of the Complainant and has no permission or authority to use the Complainant's GQG trademark or GQG PARTNERS trademarks;

(b) the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names;

(d) the Respondent has not used the disputed domain names for a legitimate noncommercial or fair purpose; and

(e) there is no other ground on which it could conceivably be contended that the Respondent has a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain names.

8. The Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith as:

(a) the Respondent has used the disputed domain names to support websites that feature the GQG trademark to impersonate the Complainant, perpetrate a fraud and/or otherwise leverage the Complainant's trademarks for a competing website;

(b) the Respondent had actual knowledge of the Complainant and its aforesaid trademark when it, the Respondent, registered the disputed domain names;

(d) there was and is no plausible circumstance under which the Respondent could have legitimately registered or used the disputed domain names.

9. Accordingly, the disputed domain names should be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

FINDINGS

2. The Complainant provides its goods and services under the trademarks for GQG and GQG PARTNERS.

3. The Complainant acquired its registered trademark rights by virtue of the following registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") namely :

(a) the GQG trademark (Reg. No. 5512178) registered by the Complainant on July 10, 2018;

(b) the GQG PARTNERS trademark (Reg. No. 5512177) registered by the Complainant on July 10, 2018; and

(c) other trademarks for GQG and GQG PARTNERS registered in Japan; (collectively "the GQG trademark" and "the GQG PARTNERS trademark").

4. The Respondent registered the <gqg2016.com> and <gqgpartners2016.com> domain names on December 4, 2025 and December 7, 2025 respectively ("the disputed domain names").

5. The Respondent has used the disputed domain names to support websites that feature the GQG and GQG PARTNERS trademarks to impersonate the Complainant, perpetrate a fraud and/or otherwise leverage the Complainant's trademarks for competing websites.

6. By reason of the matters aforesaid, and as established by the evidence, the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant's aforesaid trademark, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names and the disputed domain names have been registered and used in bad faith.

7. Accordingly, the disputed domain names should be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.

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 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 first question that arises is whether the Complainant has rights in a trademark or service mark on which it may rely . The evidence is that the Complainant provides its goods and services under the the GQG trademark and the GQG PARTNERS trademark. The Complainant acquired its registered trademark rights by virtue of the following registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") namely :

(a) the GQG mark (Reg. No. 5512178) registered by the Complainant on July 10, 2018; and

(b) the GQG PARTNERS trademark (Reg. No. 5512177) registered by the Complainant on July 10, 2018; and

(c) other trademarks for GQG and GQG PARTNERS registered in Japan; (collectively "the GQG trademark" and "the GQG PARTNERS trademark").

The evidence also establishes that the GQG and GQG PARTNERS trademarks were registered prior to the Respondent's registration of the disputed domain names on December 4, 2025 and December 7, 2025 respectively and that they are current and registered in the name of the Complainant.

The Complainant has thus established its trademark rights pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) and hence its standing to bring this proceeding.

The next question that arises is whether the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's aforesaid trademarks. The Panel finds that the domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant's GQG and GQG PARTNERS trademarks.

The domain names include as their first and most dominant features the expression "gqg" which is an obvious copy of the GQG trademark and the second of the domain names includes the expression "gqgpartners" which is an obvious copy of the Complainant's GQG PARTNERS trademark. It is well-established that where a domain name includes a trademark it is more likely than not that the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark and that is so in the present case. Both domain names also include the year 2016 which is the year in which the Complainant was founded which is therefore an obvious invocation of the Complainant and its business.

It is also well-established that a Top level Domain such as ".com" in the present case cannot influence the interpretation of the domain names as all domain names must have one such extension.

Thus, applying these well-accepted principles, the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant's GQG and GQG PARTNERS trademarks.

The Complainant has thus made out the first of the three elements that it must establish as provided in Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

Rights or Legitimate Interests

It is now well established that the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) and that, if the prima facie case is made out, the burden then shifts to the Respondent to show that it does have such rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)).

The Panel finds on the evidence that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case that arises from the following considerations. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names on all of the grounds relied on by the Complainant, namely:

(a) the Respondent is not a licensee, authorized retailer or distributor of the Complainant and has no permission or authority to use the Complainant's GQG trademark or the GQG PARTNERS trademark; thus, it could not be said that the domain names were registered and used with any sort of consent from the Complainant;

(b) the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names; there is no evidence that the Respondent is known by the domain names commonly or otherwise and there is no evidence that it is known by any name other than its own;

(c) the Respondent has not used the disputed domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) because the Respondent has used the domain names to support websites that feature the GQG trademark to impersonate the Complainant, perpetrate a fraud and/or otherwise leverage the Complainant's trademarks for a competing website; it is also notable that the websites are in the Japanese language, but have been translated in English; moreover, the Complainant owns Japanese trademarks; in that regard the websites to which the domain names resolve use the expressions GQG and GQG Investment Strategy Department as part of their presentation and get up which are clearly an attempt to invoke the Complainant and to trade on its standing and goodwill; the resolving websites also promote "our company GQG", under the heading GQG assert that "(t)his site introduces GQG's views on the Japanese market" and describe an investment scheme of a highly dubious nature; moreover, the whole scheme of the websites is clearly designed to induce internet users to contact and deal with the Respondent and no doubt provide it with personal information as part of a phishing expedition; this can only have been done because of the standing of the Complainant and its reputation in its trademarks, to perpetrate some sort of fraud or nefarious practice or to impersonate the Complainant; there is no way in which it could be said that such conduct could give rise to a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain names and it is more mala fide than bona fide; all of this indicates an intention by the Respondent to copy, impersonate; and trade off the Complainant;

(d) the Respondent has not used the disputed domain names for a legitimate noncommercial or fair purpose; there is nothing legitimate about the way the Respondent has used the domain names and the Complainant's trademarks, it is clearly commercial and it is not fair, either to the Complainant or internet users in general; and

(e) there is no other ground on which it could conceivably be contended that the Respondent has a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain names.

The Complainant has thus made out a persuasive case on the evidence for all of the grounds it relies on to show that the Respondent does not have a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain names.

All of these matters make out the prima facie case against the Respondent. The Respondent is in default and has not advanced any evidence or submissions to show that it could rebut the Complainant's contentions.

The Complainant has therefore made out the second of the three elements it must establish under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

It is clear that to establish bad faith for the purposes of the Policy, the Complainant must show that the disputed domain names were registered and used in bad faith. It is also clear that the criteria set out in Policy ¶ 4(b) are not exclusive but that domain name proceedings may also rely on conduct that is bad faith within the generally accepted meaning of that expression.

In view of the evidence discussed above, particularly Exhibit E to the Complaint, which is equally as applicable to bad faith as it is to rights and legitimate interests and which it is not necessary to repeat here, it is clear that the Complainant has made out all of the grounds relied on. The Respondent has clearly been motivated by bad faith in the registration of the domain names because it was copying the Complainant's trademark and it has continued in that conduct after its registration, showing bad faith use; the registration was, as was its use, clearly an attempt by the Respondent to use the domain names, incorporating and invoking the Complainant's trademark, to give the false impression that it was the Complainant or was authorized by it to use the domain names to support websites that feature the GQG and GQG trademarks to impersonate the Complainant, perpetrate a fraud and/or otherwise leverage the Complainant's trademarks for competing websites; to that end the Respondent has plagiarised the Complainant's name and trademark. It is therefore clear from the evidence that, as the Complainant has submitted:

(b) the Respondent had actual knowledge of the Complainant and its aforesaid trademark when it, the Respondent, registered the disputed domain names;

(d) there was and is no plausible circumstance under which the Respondent could have legitimately registered or used the disputed domain names.

In general, the impersonation of the Complainant and the aforesaid use of the Complainant's trademarks show that the Respondent's registration and use of the domain names were in bad faith.

The Complainant has thus made out the third of the three elements that it must establish under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

The Complainant has presented a detailed and persuasive case consisting of evidence that has established all of the constituent elements that must be proved under the Policy.

The Complainant has also cited numerous prior UDRP decisions which support all of its contentions.

The Complainant has therefore established all the elements that it must show under the Policy and it is entitled to the relief it seeks, namely transfer of the disputed domain names.

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 <gqg2016.com> and <gqgpartners2016.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

The Honorable Neil Anthony Brown KC,

Panelist

Dated: March 30, 2026