DECISION

 

The Boston Consulting Group, Inc. v. Henry Sheykin

Claim Number: FA2606002224872

 

PARTIES

Complainant is The Boston Consulting Group, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Michael A. Geller of DLA Piper LLP (US), Illinois, USA. Respondent is Henry Sheykin ("Respondent"), Ukraine.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <matrixbcg.com>, registered with DreamHost, 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.

 

Nathalie Dreyfus as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 2, 2026; Forum received payment on June 2, 2026.

 

On June 2, 2026, DreamHost, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <matrixbcg.com> domain name is registered with DreamHost, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. DreamHost, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the DreamHost, 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 June 5, 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@matrixbcg.com. Also on June 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.

 

A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on June 22, 2026.

 

On June 24, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Nathalie Dreyfus 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A.       Complainant

The Complainant's contentions can be resumed as follows:

The Complainant, The Boston Consulting Group, Inc. ("BCG"), is a worldwide business management consulting firm with more than 80 offices in more than 40 countries, owning numerous trademark registrations for the BCG trademarks dating as far back as 1972, and claiming common law rights in the trademark BCG MATRIX arising from its decades-long use and promotion of the "BCG Growth Share Matrix" business strategy framework. The Complainant seeks the transfer of the Domain Name.

 

The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademarks, wholly incorporating the BCG trademark and being virtually identical to the BCG MATRIX trademark. According to the Complainant, the addition of the term "matrix" does not distinguish the Domain Name but instead increases the likelihood of confusion, given the close association between that term and the Complainant's well-known business framework.

 

The Respondent has no legitimate interest in the Domain Name, as the Complainant has never authorized or licensed the Respondent to use the BCG trademarks. The Complainant contends that the Respondent uses the Domain Name in connection with a commercial website offering downloadable business strategy materials for sale, which amounts to trading on the Complainant's goodwill rather than a bona fide offering of goods or services.

 

The Complainant asserts that the Respondent registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith. According to the Complainant, the Respondent deliberately combined the BCG trademark with the term "matrix" to capitalize on the public association between the Complainant, the BCG trademarks, and the BCG Matrix framework, and to attract Internet users to a commercial website offering paid "BCG Matrix" materials without authorization. The Complainant further submits that the Respondent's knowledge of its rights is confirmed by the fame of the BCG marks and by the content of the website, and that bad faith is reinforced by the Respondent's failure to respond to its April 15, 2026 cease-and-desist communication.

 

B.       Respondent

The Respondent's contentions can be resumed as follows:

 

The Respondent, Henry Sheykin, argues that the Complaint should be denied because the Complainant fails to meet all three elements required to have the Domain Name transferred. The Respondent does not dispute that the Complainant owns registered rights in the acronym BCG.

 

First, the Respondent does not dispute that Complainant's registered BCG trademarks are sufficient to establish standing under the Policy. Respondent also acknowledges that the Domain Name contains the term "bcg". However, the Respondent contends that the Complainant has not established separate common law rights in the composite phrase BCG MATRIX. According to the Respondent, the Complainant's own evidence shows the term functioning as the name of a widely-taught business-analysis framework rather than as a source identifier, and the Complainant submitted no evidence of acquired distinctiveness such as sales figures, advertising expenditures, or consumer surveys. 

 

Second, the Respondent claims legitimate rights in the Domain Name pursuant to Policy 4(c)(i), having registered it on March 21, 2025 and used it, well before any notice of the dispute, in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Respondent states that the associated website sold his own completed, company-specific analytical reports applying six established business-analysis frameworks (SWOT, PESTEL, Porter's Five Forces, business-model canvas, marketing mix, and the BCG growth-share matrix) to more than 6,900 publicly traded companies, with the BCG matrix category representing only one-sixth of the catalog. According to the Respondent, the term "matrix" is used descriptively to identify the analytical methodology applied in each report, not to suggest the Complainant's sponsorship or affiliation. He further submits that he did not offer BCG consulting services, reproduce Complainant's official materials, seek BCG credentials, or offer the Domain Name for sale. In support, Respondent relies on Internet Archive captures, Shopify sales records predating the dispute, and Google Search Console data.

 

Third, the Respondent denies any bad faith. The Respondent maintains that none of the circumstances listed in Policy 4(b)(i)–(iii) are present, that he never offered the Domain Name for sale, and that the Complainant's April 15, 2026 demand email was never delivered, such that no adverse inference can be drawn from any alleged failure to respond. Respondent acknowledges knowing that Complainant developed the BCG growth-share matrix, but argues that this knowledge only reflects the origin of the framework's name and does not prove any intent to impersonate Complainant or suggest affiliation. The Respondent further contends that the Complainant's cited precedents are factually distinguishable, involving exact-match domains, defaulting respondents, or diversion through implied affiliation, none of which is present here.

 

FINDINGS

The Domain Name was registered on March 21, 2025 by Henry Sheykin.

 

The Complainant, The Boston Consulting Group, Inc., has established trademark rights in several jurisdictions around the world, including but not limited to the United States, Ukraine, and Thailand, as evidenced by the trademark registration certificates attached as Annex B to the Complaint.

 

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.

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the BCG trademark based on the registration certificates submitted, showing U.S. federal trademark registrations dating back to 1972.

 

The Panel further finds that the Domain Name <matrixbcg.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant's BCG trademark. Indeed, the Domain Name reproduces in its entirety Complainant's prior trademark rights "BCG" with the mere addition of the term "matrix." The addition of this term does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the Policy. Indeed, it is well established that the addition of generic or descriptive terms to a trademark does not avoid a finding of confusing similarity. See, e.g., IMDb.com, Inc. v. IMDb / API, FA 2073735 (Forum Dec. 29, 2023).

 

While Respondent disputes that Complainant holds separate common law rights in the composite phrase BCG MATRIX, the Panel need not resolve that question, as Complainant's registered rights in the BCG trademark alone are sufficient to satisfy this element, the Domain Name reproducing that trademark in its entirety.

 

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has established the first element of the Policy.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy lists three circumstances in particular, without limitation, that demonstrate rights or legitimate interest of a domain name registrant to a domain name, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy:

 

(i) before any notice of the dispute, the Respondent's use of, or demonstrable preparations to use the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services;  or

(ii) the Respondent, as an individual, business, or other organization, has been commonly known by the domain name, even if no trademark or service mark rights have been acquired;  or

(iii) the Respondent is making a legitimate non‑commercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.

 

Respondent registered a combination of Complainant's trademark and the term "matrix", a term closely associated with Complainant's proprietary business framework, and used the Domain Name to sell business-analysis reports, including reports expressly branded and marketed as BCG Matrix analyses. While Respondent's website was functional and generating sales before Complainant's notice, Respondent has not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that this business was conducted in good faith.

 

Indeed, by his own admission, Respondent selected the Domain Name specifically because Internet users associate the term "matrix" with Complainant's framework, and displayed no disclaimer of non-affiliation on the very product pages where a purchasing decision was made. In these circumstances, Respondent's use of the Domain Name cannot fairly be characterized as bona fide. Although Respondent points to a disclaimer displayed on certain blog pages of his website, the Panel finds that the structure of the Domain Name itself, combined with the absence of any such disclaimer on the commercial product pages, conveys an affiliation, endorsement, or association with Complainant. Any impression of affiliation created at the point of purchase is not cured by a disclaimer placed elsewhere on the site.

 

Additionally, the Panel finds that Respondent does not own any right in the BCG trademarks, and that Complainant has never authorized or permitted Respondent to use the BCG trademarks or to register any domain name incorporating the BCG trademarks.

 

Additionally, there is no evidence that suggests Respondent is commonly known by the Domain Name pursuant to Policy 4(c)(ii). Respondent is known to this Panel as Henry Sheykin.

 

In light of the above, the Panel finds that Respondent's use of the Domain Name does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services under paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under paragraph 4(c)(iii).

 

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out four illustrative circumstances, which, though not exclusive, shall be evidence of the registration and use of the domain name in bad faith for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, including:

 

(iv) by using the domain name, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent's website or location or of a product or service on its website or location.

 

The Domain Name was registered on March 21, 2025, well after the registration of Complainant's trademarks, the earliest of which dates back to 1972.

 

Before Complainant initiated proceedings, the Domain Name pointed to a website that used Complainant's BCG trademark prominently and offered, among other analytical products, reports expressly branded and sold as "BCG Matrix" analyses, demonstrating that Respondent was aware of Complainant's rights in the BCG trademarks when he registered the Domain Name. Respondent's own submissions confirm that he selected the Domain Name specifically because Internet users search for combinations such as "Apple BCG Matrix" or "Tesla BCG Matrix," demonstrating deliberate intent to capture traffic generated by the public's association between the BCG Matrix, the BCG trademark and Complainant.

 

Respondent's use of the Domain Name to solicit business and obtain payment for reports marketed under Complainant's BCG Matrix framework constitutes evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy 4(b)(iv), because Respondent thereby seeks to attract users to his website for commercial gain. More precisely, by registering and using a domain name that is confusingly similar to Complainant's trademark, Respondent intentionally seeks to attract Internet users to his website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of that website. See G.D. Searle & Co. v. James Mahony, FA 112559 (Forum June 12, 2002).

 

The Panel notes that Respondent relies on a disclaimer displayed on certain blog pages of the website. However, the presence of such a disclaimer tends to show that Respondent was aware that Internet users could perceive a connection or affiliation with Complainant.

 

The Panel further notes that no equivalent disclaimer appears on the commercial product pages, where users are invited to purchase Respondent's products. If Respondent was aware of a potential risk of confusion, the absence of any clear disclaimer at the point of sale supports the inference that Respondent sought to benefit from, rather than avoid, the association created by the Domain Name with Complainant's BCG trademark and the BCG matrix framework.

 

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent's selective use of a disclaimer does not dispel the likelihood of confusion, but rather supports a finding of bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.

 

All the circumstances set out above satisfy the Panel that Respondent was fully aware of Complainant's BCG trademarks when he registered the <matrixbcg.com> Domain Name and that Respondent registered the Domain Name in bad faith. This demonstrates registration and use in bad faith to attract users for commercial gain under Policy 4(b)(iv).

 

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 <matrixbcg.com> domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Nathalie Dreyfus, Panelist

Dated: July 8, 2026