DECISION

 

GTCR LLC v. Richard Wilson

Claim Number: FA2606002227468

 

PARTIES

Complainant is GTCR LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Robert White of Lexsynergy Limited, United Kingdom. Respondent is Richard Wilson ("Respondent"), Ohio, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <gtcr.llc>, registered with Porkbun 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.

 

Steven M. Levy as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 16, 2026; Forum received payment on June 16, 2026.

 

On June 16, 2026, Porkbun LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <gtcr.llc> domain name is registered with Porkbun LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Porkbun LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Porkbun 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 22, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 13, 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@gtcr.llc. Also on June 22, 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 July 14, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Steven M. Levy 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 is a Chicago, Illinois-based private equity firm, with offices in New York and West Palm Beach, focused on investing in transformative growth in companies in the Business & Consumer Services, Financial Services & Technology, Healthcare and Technology, Media & Telecommunications sectors. It uses the trademark GTCR (an acronym of the founders surnames namely: Golder, Thoma, and Cressey) which is the subject of numerous registrations around the world including United States Reg. No. 2295407 dated November 30, 1999; United States Reg. No. 6500041 dated September 28, 2021; EUIPO Reg. No. 000920959 dated October 19, 1999; and United Kingdom Reg. No. UK00900920959 dated October 18, 1999. Complainant also owns the domain name <gtcr.com>, which was registered on May 17, 1995 and is used for its global website. It also owns a number of related domain names such as <gtcr.online>, <gtcr.site>, <gtcr.website>, and <gtcr.partners>, which were registered in 2021.

 

The <gtcr.llc> domain name, registered on May 27, 2026, is confusingly similar to the GTCR mark as it incorporates the mark in its entirety and adds only the ".llc" TLD which does not reduce confusion.

 

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name where it is not commonly known by the domain name, the domain name resolves to a registrar parking page, and there are mail exchange (MX) records associated with the domain name suggesting that it may be used for fraudulent email phishing attacks.

 

The disputed domain name was registered and is used in bad faith where Respondent had prior knowledge of the GTCR mark, which enjoys considerable reputation and recognition, and based on Respondent's passive holding of the domain name and associating MX records with it.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

-       Complainant owns trademark rights to the GTCR mark and the <gtcr.llc> domain name is confusingly similar to the mark;

-       Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name where it is not commonly known by the domain name and the domain name resolves to a registrar parking page; and

-       The disputed domain name was registered and is used in bad faith based on the likelihood of Respondent's prior knowledge of Complainant's mark, its passive holding of the domain name, and the existence of an MX record.

 

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

Complainant asserts rights in its GTCR mark through its registrations with the trademark authorities of the United States, the EUIPO, and the United Kingdom.¹ Registration of a mark in this manner is sufficient to demonstrate rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See BESINS HEALTHCARE LUXEMBOURG SARL v. MR Stuart, FA 2192566 (Forum Dec. 31, 2025) ("The BESINS mark was registered to Complainant internationally in accordance with the Madrid Agreement and Protocol (Reg. No. 1,067,859) on January 24, 2011 (WIPO registration certificate submitted as Complaint Annex 3). Complainant's international registration of its mark establishes its rights in that mark for the purposes of [.us] Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)."). Here, Complainant provides screenshots from the various trademark office databases showing the details of its registrations. Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the GTCR mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Next, Complainant argues that Respondent's <gtcr.llc> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its mark because the disputed domain name incorporates the GTCR mark in its entirety and only adds the ".llc" TLD. The use of an entire trademark and the addition only of a TLD is not sufficient to distinguish a disputed domain name from an asserted mark. Rollerblade, Inc. v. Chris McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000) ("There can be no question that Respondent's domain name <ROLLERBLADE.NET> is identical to Complainant's trademark 'Rollerblade', and this Panel so finds. It is already well established that the specific top level of the domain name such as 'net' or 'com' does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar."). The Panel thus finds that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). 

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Should it succeed in this effort, the burden then shifts to Respondent to show that it does have 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)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) ("Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests.").

 

Complainant first contends that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name. It is widely accepted that WHOIS information can be used to help determine whether a respondent is commonly known by a disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Timothy Mays aka Linda Haley aka Edith Barberdi, FA 1617061 (Forum June 9, 2015) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <amazondevice.org>, <amazondevices.org>, and <buyamazondevices.com> domain names under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), as the pertinent WHOIS information identified "Timothy Mays", "Linda Haley", and "Edith Barberdi" as the respective registrants). Here, the WHOIS information for the disputed domain name, as verified to the Forum by the concerned Registrar, identifies the Registrant Name as "Richard Wilson". As Respondent has filed no Response or made any other submission in this case, there is no evidence to suggest that it is known otherwise. Further, lack of authorization to use a complainant's mark may indicate that the respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) ("lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use complainant's mark may support a finding that respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)."). Here, Complainant states that it "has no association with the Respondent and has never authorised or licensed the Respondent to use its trademarks." Thus, the Panel finds no ground upon which to conclude that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

Next, Complainant argues that Respondent does not use the <gtcr.llc> domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services, and that it does not make any legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the domain name as the domain name resolves to a registrar parking page. Failure to make an active use of a domain name in this manner generally does not qualify as either a bona fide offering, nor is it a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Cardinal Health Technologies, LLC v. David Leo / cardinalhealthlabs, FA 2225142 (Forum June 26, 2026) ("The Domain Name is inactive, resolving to a parked page maintained by the Registrar, which by itself does not show a bona fide offering of goods and services."). Complainant submits a screenshot of the website resolving from the disputed domain name which shows that it resolves to a Registrar parking page with the message "Parked on the Bun! gtcr.llc has been registered at Porkbun but the owner has not put up a site yet. Visit again soon to see what amazing website they decide to build." Thus, it asserts that Respondent inactively holds the disputed domain name. This use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of a domain name that copies Complainant's mark. As Complainant has made a prima facie showing which has not been rebutted by Respondent, upon a preponderance of the evidence the Panel finds that Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under either Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or ¶ 4(c)(iii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant argues that Respondent had knowledge of its rights in the GTCR mark at the time of registering the <gtcr.llc> domain name. A respondent's actual knowledge of a complainant's rights in an asserted mark prior to registering a disputed domain name can form a foundation upon which to base an argument for bad faith. See AutoZone Parts, Inc. v. Ken Belden, FA 1815011 (Forum Dec. 24, 2018) ("Complainant contends that Respondent's knowledge can be presumed in light of the substantial fame and notoriety of the AUTOZONE mark, as well as the fact that Complainant is the largest retailer in the field. The Panel here finds that Respondent did have actual knowledge of Complainant's mark, demonstrating bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)."); see also iFinex Inc. v. xu shuaiwei, FA 1760249 (Forum Jan. 1, 2018) ("Respondent's prior knowledge is evident from the notoriety of Complainant's BITFINEX trademark as well as from Respondent's use of its trademark laden domain name to direct internet traffic to a website which is a direct competitor of Complainant."). Complainant asserts that its GTCR mark is well-known and "has acquired a substantial reputation and goodwill". In support, it submits screenshots of its <gtcr.com> website (including an archived version from 1996) and web statistics showing 279,000 active users; copies of various news articles (e.g., from The Wall Street Journal, S&P Global, PR Newswire, Reuters, and Financier Worldwide) mentioning the mark; a number of its own press releases; and a copy of its GTCR LinkedIn page. Finally, submitted is a Google search for the term "GTCR", the results of which refer exclusively to Complainant. The Panel finds that the forementioned evidence does support the conclusion that the GTCR mark has developed a significant reputation. Of further persuasive weight is the fact that the <gtcr.llc> domain name appears designed to be mistaken for Complainant's own corporate name GTCR LLC and is very similar to its <gtcr.com> address. Based on the evidence before it, the Panel finds it more likely than not that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark at the time that it registered the disputed domain name and that it did so in bad faith.

 

Complainant further notes that the disputed domain name resolves to a registrar parking page. It cites the guidance set forth in Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, D2000-0003 (WIPO Feb. 18, 2000) that non-use of a domain name for website content will not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. Rather "panelists will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case, including: (i) the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant's mark, (ii) the failure of the respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use, (iii) the respondent's concealing its identity or use of false contact details (noted to be in breach of its registration agreement), and (iv) the implausibility of any good faith use to which the domain name may be put." Id. As noted above, the Complainant has referenced and submitted evidence of the reputation of its mark and the evidence suggests that the mark is rather unique and distinctive; the Respondent has failed to submit a response or submit any evidence of good faith use; and while the WHOIS record does not, on its face, provide information that appears to be false, the Panel finds no plausible good faith use to which the disputed domain name may be put given that it is clearly intended to give the impression that it is Complainant's own corporate name or its <gtcr.com> web address. In this case, Respondent's failure to resolve the disputed domain name to any substantive web page, along with the totality of the circumstances, supports the Complainant's assertion that the domain name is used in bad faith.

 

In addition, Complainant argues that Respondent registered and uses the <gtcr.llc> domain name in bad faith because Respondent has configured it for a mail exchange (MX) server. Prior decisions have inferred an intent to use a disputed domain name for sending nefarious emails based upon the creation of associated MX records. See, e.g., Tetra Laval Holdings & Finance S.A. v. Himali Hewage, D2020-0472 (WIPO May 1, 2020) (configuration of MX record discloses the possibility that the disputed domain name may be aimed at phishing activities); Pepsico, Inc. v. Allen Othman, 102380 (CAC Apr. 25, 2019) ("The Complainant submits, fairly, that the preparatory steps in relation to email addresses could enable the inappropriate sending or receipt of email communications purporting to emanate from, or intending to be received by, the Complainant. These preparatory steps (configuring 'MX' or mail exchange records) have [been] considered in relation to 'use' for the purposes of the Policy by other Panels…."). In the present case, an MX record has been created for the disputed domain name. While, in the abstract, the creation of such a record does not indicate any ill intent, against the backdrop of the present case where a domain name that is a nearly identical version of the Complainant's well-known mark and corporate name has been created by the Respondent, this MX record does require some further explanation which the Respondent has not provided. As such, the Panel finds that the existence of an MX record for the disputed domain name further supports the conclusion that it has been registered and used in bad faith under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.

 

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 <gtcr.llc> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Steven M. Levy, Panelist

Dated: July 16, 2026