DECISION

 

Dow Jones Trademark Holdings LLC v. pascal edwina

Claim Number: FA2606002227684

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Dow Jones Trademark Holdings LLC ("Complainant"), represented by AJ Schumacher of Kelly IP, LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is pascal edwina ("Respondent"), Illinois, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <dowjtrades.com>, registered with NameCheap, Inc.

 

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.

 

Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

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

 

On June 17, 2026, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <dowjtrades.com> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, Inc. 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 23, 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@dowjtrades.com. Also on June 23, 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 Paul M. DeCicco 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 contends in part as follows:

 

Since its founding in 1882, Dow Jones, via itself, its predecessors in interest, and/or its related corporate entities, including its ultimate corporate parent company News Corporation, has long been a world renowned global provider of news and business information that distributes its content and data through a wide array of media channels, including newspapers, newswires, websites, mobile apps, newsletters, magazines, proprietary databases, live journalism, video, podcasts and more. Dow Jones' products include Dow Jones Risk & Compliance, Dow Jones Newswires, The Wall Street Journal, Barron's, and MarketWatch, among others.

 

In addition to its common law rights, Complainant owns numerous registrations for its DOW JONES marks in the U.S. and various other countries around the world. Complainant's trademark rights in the DOW JONES marks long predate Respondent's registration and use of the at-issue domain name.

 

THE DOMAIN IS CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR TO THE DOW JONES MARKS. Complainant's registrations for its DOW JONES marks establish Complainant's rights to the marks, as the registration of a mark with a legitimate governmental authority is sufficient under the Policy to allow a rebuttable presumption of rights in the mark. The at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to the DOW JONES marks, including because the domain name prominently starts with and features an obvious abbreviation of Complainant's DOW JONES mark, namely, "Dow J," in combination with the generic or descriptive term "trades" and the domain extension ".com." These alterations and additions are inadequate to distinguish the at-issue domain name from the DOW JONES marks. A domain name containing a complainant's mark in an abbreviated form is confusingly similar to the mark at issue. In addition, it is well-settled that adding generic, descriptive, or other terms related to a complainants' businesses, such as the term "trades" in this case, is not sufficient to distinguish at-issue domains from complainants' marks. Additionally, domain extensions, such as ".com," are irrelevant to the confusing similarity analysis. Lastly, website content trading off Complainant's reputation may support a finding of confusing similarity. In this case, the at-issue domain name is used specifically to impersonate and trade off of Complainant and its DOW JONES marks and brand, including displaying Complainant's marks without authorization which further justifies finding the domain name confusingly similar to Complainant's DOW JONES marks.

 

RESPONDENT HAS NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS IN THE DOMAIN. The WHOIS registration record for the at-issue domain name was initially privacy protected but the disclosed registration information received from the registrar lists the registrant as Pascal Edwina. This WHOIS and registration information, and the lack of information and evidence in the record to the contrary, is evidence that Respondent is not commonly known as the at-issue domain name or any variation thereof. In addition, Complainant has not authorized Respondent, or any associated person or entity, to use or register the DOW JONES marks in any manner, nor is Respondent, or any other associated person or entity, a current or former licensee of Complainant and its DOW JONES marks. Complainant also has no knowledge that Respondent, or any other person or entity associated therewith, are, or have ever been, commonly known by the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by at-issue domain name or derivations thereof under the same or similar circumstances. Further, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name under UDRP ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or 4(c)(iii). Respondent uses the domain name in a calculated and blatant attempt to impersonate Complainant and its DOW JONES marks and brand, including purporting to offer a crypto trading and mining platform under the name and mark DOW JONES & COMPANY and utilizing the at-issue domain name to send emails to individuals soliciting financial payments (e.g., the "gas fee"). In doing all of this, Respondent uses Complainant's intellectual property, including the DOW JONES marks, without authorization. Respondent also cannot show a bona fide, non-commercial, or fair use of the at-issue domain name. Respondent's use of the confusingly similar at-issue domain name and Complainant's other intellectual property to impersonate Complainant when purporting to provide an infringing and illegitimate crypto trading and mining platform constitutes various forms of intellectual property infringement and does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii) such that Respondent has any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. What's more, any use of the at-issue domain name, the associated email address incorporating the domain name (i.e., support@dowjtrades), and the website as part of a fraudulent scheme to collect financial payments from consumers who are duped into engaging with Respondent under the mistaken belief that they are actually engaging with Complainant cannot and does not amount to a bona fide use or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the at-issue domain name. To the extent that Respondent does not reply in this case, the Panel may presume that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the at-issue domain name.

 

RESPONDENT'S BAD FAITH REGISTRATION AND USE OF THE DOMAIN UNDER UDRP ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and 4(b)(iv). First, the evidence shows that Respondent "intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users" to the domain name "by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of" the Domain and/or Respondent's activities. The at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to the DOW JONES marks, including because the domain name prominently starts with and features an obvious abbreviation of Complainant's DOW JONES mark, namely, "Dow J" in combination with the generic or descriptive term "trades" and the domain extension ".com." In addition, Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to impersonate Complainant, including offering a purported crypto trading and mining platform under the name and mark DOW JONES & COMPANY and incorporating the domain name into an email address as part of that impersonation scheme. Respondent's use of the confusingly similar domain name in this manner to pass itself off as Complainant is likely to cause confusion in the marketplace, infringes Complainant's intellectual property, disrupts Complainant's business, and unquestionably indicates Respondent's bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii), (iv). Second, Respondent's use of the domain name as part of a nefarious and fraudulent scheme, including to obtain under false pretenses financial payments (e.g., the "gas fee") from consumers, constitutes bad faith under the Policy. Lastly, the evidence and totality of circumstances surrounding the at-issue domain name undoubtedly establish that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant and its DOW JONES marks prior to registering and using the at-issue domain name. As an initial matter, Complainant has continuously and exclusively used the DOW JONES marks for many decades, and the DOW JONES marks have long been famous. In view of this alone, it is inconceivable that Respondent did not have actual knowledge of Complainant and its rights in the DOW JONES marks before registering and using the at-issue domain name.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has rights in the DOW JONES trademark.

 

Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and had not been authorized to use Complainant's trademark in any capacity.

 

Complainant acquired such rights prior to Respondent registration of <dowjtrades.com>.

 

Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to address a website appearing as if sponsored by Complainant and purportedly offering a crypto trading and mining platform and further uses the domain name to host email used to impersonate Complainant, in furtherance of fraud.

 

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 at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.

 

Complainant shows that it has multiple USPTO trademark registrations for its DOW .JONES mark and claims to have registered said mark with other nations worldwide. Any of Complainant's trademark registrations is sufficient to demonstrate Complainant's rights in a mark under the Policy. See BGK Trademark Holdings, LLC & Beyoncé Giselle Knowles-Carter v. Chanphut / Beyonce Shop, FA 1626334 (Forum Aug. 3, 2015) (asserting that Complainant's registration with the USPTO (or any other governmental authority) adequately proves its rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).

 

The at-issue domain name consists of a recognizable abbreviation of Complainant's DOW JONES less its domain name impermissible space, followed by the suggestive term "trades" followed by the ".com" top-level. The differences between the <dowjtrades.com> domain name and Complainant's trademark are insufficient to distinguish the domain name from Complainant's trademark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent's <dowjtrades.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's DOW JONES mark. See Sainato's Restaurant and Catering Limited v. chen xue ming, FA 1781748 (Forum June 4, 2018) (finding the <sainatos.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the SAINATO'S RESTAURANT mark as it "appends the gTLD ".com" to an abbreviated version of the mark."); see also, Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognizable 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, Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Domain Administrator / Registry Services, LLC, FA2 2038314 (Forum July 26, 2023) ("The addition of a gTLD fails to sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).").

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

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. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond, absent evidence of Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances Complainant's prima facie showing acts conclusively.

 

Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant's trademark in any capacity and as discussed below there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. See Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC v. Taha Shaikh / Tskdesigners, FA 1814475 (Forum Nov. 25, 2018) (finding no rights or legitimate interests in <spectrumfeature.com> because complainant never gave respondent permission to use the mark in any manner and "Panels may use these assertions as evidence that no rights or legitimate interests exist in a disputed domain name.").

 

The WHOIS information for <dowjtrades.com> leads to a finding that "pascal edwina" is the domain name's registrant and there is nothing in the record that tends to prove that Respondent is otherwise known by the <dowjtrades.com> domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).

 

Respondent uses the <dowjtrades.com> domain name to address a website appearing like it is sponsored by Complainant where Respondent offers a crypto currency trading and mining platform. Respondent's use of the domain name in this manner indicates neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Ripple Labs Inc. v. NGYEN NGOC PHUONG THAO, FA 1741737 (Forum Aug. 21, 2017) ("Respondent uses the [disputed] domain name to divert Internet users to Respondent's website… confusing them into believing that some sort of affiliation exists between it and Complainant… [which] is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).").

 

Respondent's also uses <dowjtrades.com> to host email pretending to come from Complainant. Respondent's sham email is designed to deceive recipients regarding the email's source so that may later direct recipients to use bitcoin funds to pay for a "gas fee" in order to access / withdraw funds available in their accounts on Respondent's <dowjtrades.com> website, or for a variety of nefarious schemes aimed at defrauding third parties. Such use of <dowjtrades.com> indicates neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Microsoft Corporation v. Terrence Green / Whois Agent / Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc., FA 1661030 (Forum Apr. 4, 2016) (finding the respondent's use of the disputed domain names to send fraudulent emails purportedly from agents of complainant to be neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)).

 

Given the forgoing, Respondent lacks rights and lacks legitimate interests in respect of the <dowjtrades.com>.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

As discussed below without being exhaustive, Respondent registered and used the at-issue domain name in bad faith.

 

Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to address a website that appears as if it may be sponsored or endorsed by Complainant and there purportedly offers crypto currency trading services under the mark DOW JONES & COMPANY. Respondent's website further lists Complainant's CEO as its CEO and presents other indicia designed to falsely indicate Complainant's association with Respondent's DOW JONES & COMPANY crypto related platform. Respondent's use of <dowjtrades.com> to pass itself off as Complainant is disruptive to Complainant's business and is intended to attract internet users looking for Complainant to Respondent's website so that Respondent might wrongfully capitalize on the confusion Respondent created between its <dowjtrades.com> domain name and Complainant's DOW JONES trademark. Respondent's use of <dowjtrades.com> demonstrates Respondent's bad faith registration or use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Domain ID Shield Service / Domain ID Shield Service CO., Limited, FA 1841700 (Forum June 21, 2019) (finding that respondent was using "chevronplacement.com" in bad faith in order to "disrupt the business of Complainant by causing internet users to think an affiliation exists between Respondent's domain names and Complainant");see also, Xylem Inc. and Xylem IP Holdings LLC v. YinSi BaoHu YiKaiQi, FA 1612750 (Forum May 13, 2015) ("The Panel agrees that Respondent's use of the website to display products similar to Complainant's, imputes intent to attract Internet users for commercial gain, and finds bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).")

 

Respondent's at-issue domain name is also used to host email @dowjtrades.com. Respondent may send email from <dowjtrades.com> to trick its recipient into believing that the email is originating from Complainant. Respondent's use of <dowjtrades.com> to pass itself off as Complainant or an agent thereof may be used to defraud third-parties in a number of ways and without more demonstrates Respondent's bad faith registration and use of <dowjtrades.com> under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Funding Circle Limited v. tim mcelwain / timmcelweain, FA 2003934 (Forum Aug. 4, 2022) ("Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to facilitate [a] phishing scheme designed to swindle funds from Complainant's customers. Such use of the confusingly similar domain name indicates Respondent's bad faith under the Policy."); see also, Abbvie, Inc. v. James Bulow, FA 1701075 (Forum Nov. 30, 2016) ("Respondent uses the <abbuie.com> domain name to impersonate Complainant's CEO. Such use is undeniably disruptive to Complainant's business and demonstrates bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii), and/or Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)"); see also Microsoft Corporation v. Terrence Green / Whois Agent / Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc., FA 1661030 (Forum Apr. 4, 2016) (finding the Respondent's use of the disputed domain names to send fraudulent emails supported a finding of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)).

 

Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the DOW JONES mark when Respondent registered <dowjtrades.com> as a domain name. Respondent's actual knowledge is evident given the mark's notoriety and given Respondent's use of the domain name to pass itself off as Complainant regarding its crypto currency related <dowjtrades.com> domain name and website. Respondent's registration and use of <dowjtrades.com> with knowledge of Complainant's rights in DOW JONES further shows Respondent's bad faith registration and use of <dowjtrades.com> pursuant to the Policy. See Lemon Inc. v. Sumer Singh, FA 2110519 (Forum Sept. 5, 2024 ("registration of a disputed domain name with actual knowledge of another's trademark rights is sufficient to establish bad faith, and can be shown by the notoriety of the mark and the use the Respondent makes of the disputed domain name"); see also, Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name);

 

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

 

 

 

Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist

Dated: July 14, 2026