DECISION

 

Brown Brothers Harriman & Co. v. simon jones

Claim Number: FA2606002227692

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Brown Brothers Harriman & Co. ("Complainant"), represented by Allen J. Baden of Baden Law Firm PC, Texas, USA. Respondent is simon jones ("Respondent"), Seychelles.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <bbh-fixedincome.com>, registered with NICENIC INTERNATIONAL GROUP CO., LIMITED.

 

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.

 

Petter Rindforth 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, NICENIC INTERNATIONAL GROUP CO., LIMITED confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <bbh-fixedincome.com> domain name is registered with NICENIC INTERNATIONAL GROUP CO., LIMITED and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NICENIC INTERNATIONAL GROUP CO., LIMITED has verified that Respondent is bound by the NICENIC INTERNATIONAL GROUP CO., LIMITED 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 24, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 14, 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@bbh-fixedincome.com. Also on June 24, 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 15, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Petter Rindforth 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

The Complainant, founded in 1818 has been operating under the BBH trade name and trademark since at least 1958. Complainant is a privately held financial services firm serving clients globally in three primary business areas: investor services, investment and wealth management, and private banking. Complainant employs over 5,500 professionals in eighteen offices in North America, Europe, the United Kingdom, and Asia. Complainant owns the domain name <BBH.com>, registered July 30, 1995, which resolves to Complainant's principal website. Complainant is widely known as BBH, and multiple UDRP panels have confirmed that the BBH mark is famous.

 

The disputed domain name was registered on April 13, 2026. It does not resolve to any website. Instead, Respondent configured it exclusively as a mail server for use in a targeted phishing scheme directed at Complainant and its clients.

 

The Respondent is a serial cybersquatter and fraudster with a documented history of registering domain names incorporating the trademarks of financial institutions for use in phishing and impersonation schemes. UDRP panels have ordered domain transfers against this same Respondent on four prior occasions, including twice in actions concerning Complainant.

 

Complainant holds a U.S. trademark registration for the BBH trademark (USPTO Reg. No. 3,594,879, registered March 24, 2009), as well as numerous additional registrations in the United States and abroad. The disputed domain name incorporates the BBH trademark in its entirety, differing only by the addition of a hyphen, the generic financial descriptor "fixed income," and the .com gTLD.

 

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Complainant has never licensed, authorized, or permitted Respondent to use the BBH trademark.

 

The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Respondent is active in serial cybersquatting.

 

Respondent had actual knowledge at registration: The BBH trademark has been famous worldwide for decades, and Respondent had already lost two UDRP proceedings to Complainant involving the BBH trademark before registering the disputed domain name.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The Complainant generally claims registered trademark rights in BBH, such as the national U.S. trademark registration

 

No. 3,594,867 BBH (word), registered on March 24, 2009 for services in Intl. Class 36.

 

The disputed domain name <bbh-fixedincome.com> was registered on April 13, 2026 in the name of the Respondent.

 

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 Complainant asserts rights in the BBH trademark based on registration with the USPTO and in a number of other countries around the world. Registration of a trademark with the USPTO sufficiently confers a complainant's rights in a trademark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See DIRECTV, LLC v. The Pearline Group, FA 1818749 (Forum Dec. 30, 2018) ("Complainant's ownership of a USPTO registration for DIRECTV demonstrate its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).").

 

The Panel notes that the Complainant does not provide any copies of registration certificates or database extracts. However, the Respondent has not challenged the information provided by Complainant, and at least the U.S. national trademark No. 3,594,867 BBH (word) is founded as officially registered at USPTO since March 24, 2009.

 

Based on the above, the Panel, in this case, accept the general information from the Complainant, and find that Complainant has established rights in the BBH trademark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Complainant argues Respondent's disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's BBH trademark. The addition of a gTLD and a generic term fails to sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a trademark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See The Toronto-Dominion Bank v. George Whitehead, FA 1784412 (Forum June 11, 2018) ("[S]light differences between domain names and registered marks, such as the addition of words that describe the goods or services in connection with the mark and gTLDs, do not distinguish the domain name from the mark incorporated therein per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)."); see also Brown Brothers Harriman & Co. v. Evgeniya Shipilova, FA 2042583 (Forum May, 24, 2023) (addition of generic term to BBH mark insufficient to avoid confusing similarity).

 

Here, the disputed domain name contains the BBH trademark in its entirety while adding a hyphen and the descriptive word/s "fixedincome" – related to Complainant's services.

 

Therefore, the Panel finds the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's trademark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Once the Complainant makes a prima facie case in support of its allegations in respect of the second element of the Policy, the burden shifts to the Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). 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 contends that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <bbh-fixedincome.com> domain name. Specifically, Complainant argues that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and Respondent is not a licensee or authorized to use Complainant's BBH trademark. Where a response is absent, the WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA 1574905 (Forum Sept. 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark). Additionally, lack of authorization to use a complainant's trademark 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 [the] complainant's mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)"). The WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as "simon jones" and there is no other evidence to suggest that Respondent was authorized to use the BBH trademark. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

Complainant argues that Respondent fails to use the <bbh-fixedincome.com> domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use as Respondent uses the disputed domain name in furtherance of a fraudulent email phishing scheme. A respondent's use of a disputed domain name in furtherance of a fraudulent email phishing scheme is clearly not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Thomas Webber / Chev Ronoil Recreational Sport Limited, FA 1661076 (Forum Mar. 15, 2016) (finding that the respondent had failed to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services or any legitimate noncommercial or fair use, stating, "Respondent is using an email address to pass themselves off as an affiliate of Complainant. Complainant presents evidence showing that the email address that Respondent has created is used to solicit information and money on false pretenses. The disputed domain name is being used to cause the recipients of these emails to mistakenly believe Respondent has a connection with Complainant and is one of the Complainant's affiliates."); see also Allianz of Am. Corp. v. Bond, FA 690796 (Forum June 12, 2006) (holding that the respondent's use of the <allianzcorp.biz> domain name to fraudulently acquire the personal and financial information of Internet users seeking Complainant's financial services was not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)). Complainant has provided evidence in support of the argument that Respondent has actively used the disputed domain name by sending false e-mails that seems to come from a real person working at the Complainant.

 

The Panel therefore finds that Respondent fails to make a bona fide offering of goods or services per Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant argues that Respondent registered and uses the <bbh-fixedincome.com> domain name in bad faith as Respondent uses the disputed domain name to pass off as Complainant and fraudulently send emails to Complainant's clients in furtherance of a phishing scheme.

 

A respondent's use of emails to pass off as a complainant in furtherance of a phishing scheme is evidence of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). See 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 Qatalyst Partners LP v. Devimore, FA 1393436 (Forum July 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). As noted above, the Complainant has provided evidence of Respondent's actions, and the Panel find that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv).

 

Next, Complainant argues that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the trademark when the disputed domain name <bbh-fixedincome.com> was registered. Actual knowledge is sufficient and may be proven through a totality of circumstances per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See 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 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 argues that Respondent's actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the BBH trademark is demonstrated by a) its passing off as Complainant in a fraudulent email phishing scheme, and b) the fact that Respondent, at the time of register the disputed domain name, already had been involved in other UDRP disputes related to Complainant and the BBH trademark. The Panel fully agrees, and finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to 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 <bbh-fixedincome.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Petter Rindforth, Panelist

Dated: July 26, 2026