DECISION

 

Dow Jones & Company, Inc. v. Fawcett Domains / Fawcett Publications LLC

Claim Number: FA2606002224543

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Dow Jones & Company, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by AJ Schumacher of Kelly IP, LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Fawcett Domains / Fawcett Publications LLC ("Respondent"), California, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <wsjstaff.com>, registered with Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu.

 

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 June 1, 2026; Forum received payment on June 1, 2026.

 

On June 2, 2026, Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <wsjstaff.com> domain name is registered with Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu has verified that Respondent is bound by the Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu 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 June 8, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 29, 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@wsjstaff.com. Also on June 8, 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 June 30, 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, since its founding in 1882, it, via itself, its predecessors in interest, and/or its corporate parents, including News Corporation, subsidiaries, and related entities, has become a world-renowned global provider of news and business information, which distributes its content and data through a wide array of media channels, including newspapers, newswires, websites, apps for mobile devices, newsletters, magazines, proprietary databases, live journalism, video, and podcasts. One of Complainant's premier properties are its newspapers published under the names and marks THE WALL STREET JOURNAL and WSJ. Complainant first published its newspaper in 1889, which has long been one of the best-known and most widely acclaimed newspapers in the world. Complainant owns the famous and federally registered marks THE WALL STREET JOURNAL and WSJ and various other marks featuring the same. Winner of at least 39 Pulitzer Prizes, Complainant's newspaper under the WSJ marks is an industry leader that delivers breaking worldwide news coverage and fair-minded analysis. The newspaper is one of the largest daily newspapers in the U.S., measured by paid circulation, for both the weekday and weekend editions. The newspaper has millions of subscribers. In the last three months of fiscal year 2025, the newspaper had a monthly average of over 4,500,000 subscribers globally, including over 4,125,000 digital subscribers. The WSJ services include coverage of national and international news and analysis, commentary, and opinions on a wide range of topics, including business developments and trends, economics, financial markets, investing, science and technology, lifestyle, culture, and sports. Complainant offers extensive news and information products and services online under the WSJ mark, and has done so for more than 20 years. Complainant's digital products include an online edition of the newspaper located at the website accessible via the domain names <wsj.com> and <thewallstreetjournal.com>, which Complainant registered in 1994 and 1998, respectively. The WSJ online news services are highly popular, receiving 129,000,000 average monthly visits in fiscal year 2025. The online offerings under the WSJ mark are available across continents and in many languages, and originate from thousands of journalists in numerous countries worldwide. Complainant asserts rights in the mark WSJ through its registration in the United States in 2009.

 

Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its WSJ mark as it incorporates the mark in its entirety, merely adding the generic/descriptive term "staff", together with the ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD"). Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.

 

According to Complainant, 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 by Complainant to use its WSJ mark. Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the disputed domain name is redirected to Complainant's legitimate website; and Respondent uses the disputed domain name in email address to impersonate Complainant. Respondent sent emails to various individuals offering to feature them or their businesses as part of purported articles that were to be published under the WSJ marks, in exchange for a $10,000 participation fee to cover editorial coordination, development, production, etc.. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.

 

Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent uses the disputed domain name in furtherance of a fraudulent email phishing scheme. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights to the WSJ mark prior to registering the disputed domain name. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant owns the mark WSJ and uses it provide news and business information.

 

Complainant's rights in mark date back to 2009.

 

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 redirected to Complainant's legitimate website and it is used in furtherance of a fraudulent email phishing scheme.

 

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 3.1 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 WSJ mark in their entirety, while merely adding the generic/descriptive term "staff", together with the ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD"). Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), adding a gTLD and/or generic terms is generally insufficient in differentiating a disputed domain name from the mark it incorporates. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognisable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element."); see also Vanguard Group Inc. v. Proven Fin. Solutions, FA 572937 (Forum Nov. 18, 2005) (holding that the addition of both the word "advisors" and the gTLD ".com" did not sufficiently alter the disputed domain name to negate a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's marks 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. See Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Fred Wallace, FA 1626022 (Forum July 27, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <chevron-europe.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), as the WHOIS information named "Fred Wallace" as registrant of the disputed domain name). Here, the WHOIS information regarding the disputed domain name lists "Fawcett Domains / Fawcett Publications LLC" as registrant of record. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

The disputed domain name is redirected to Complainant's legitimate website. Using a confusingly similar domain name to redirect to a complainant's own website may not be a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Medline, Inc. v. Domain Active Pty. Ltd., FA 139718 (Forum Feb. 6, 2003) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where the respondent merely redirected the <wwwmedline.com> domain name to the complainant's own website at <medline.com>). Thus the Panel finds Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).

 

Further, Respondent uses the disputed domain name 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).

 

For all the above reasons, 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 redirected to Complainant's legitimate website. This constitutes bad faith use under the Policy. See Bittrex, Inc. v. M D, FA 1878566 (Forum Feb. 14, 2020) ("Redirecting traffic to a complainant's website may constitute bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)."); see also D Verizon Trademark Servs. LLC v. Boyiko, FA 1382148 (Forum May 12, 2011) ("The Panel finds that Respondent's registration and use of the confusingly similar disputed domain name, even where it resolves to Complainant's own site, is still registration and use in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)."). Consequently, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith in the sense of the Policy.

 

Further, also 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 Jul. 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.

 

Finally, Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant's mark: the disputed domain name is redirected to Complainant's legitimate website. 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).

 

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 <wsjstaff.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Richard Hill, Panelist

Dated: June 30, 2026