DECISION

 

Wedge Capital Management L.L.P. v. Herley Son

Claim Number: FA2607002232079

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Wedge Capital Management L.L.P. ("Complainant"), represented by Joshua M. Dalton of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Massachusetts, USA. Respondent is Herley Son ("Respondent"), California, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <wedgecapitals.com>, registered with HOSTINGER operations, UAB.

 

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.

 

Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on July 10, 2026; Forum received payment on July 10, 2026.

 

On July 12, 2026, HOSTINGER operations, UAB confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <wedgecapitals.com> domain name is registered with HOSTINGER operations, UAB and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name.  HOSTINGER operations, UAB has verified that Respondent is bound by the HOSTINGER operations, UAB 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 July 20, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 10, 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@wedgecapitals.com. Also on July 20, 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 August 11, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin 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

1.       Respondent's <wedgecapitals.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's WEDGE CAPITAL and WEDGE CAPITAL MANAGEMENT marks.

 

2.       Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <wedgecapitals.com> domain name.

 

3.       Respondent registered and uses the <wedgecapitals.com> domain name in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent did not file a Response.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant offers investment services and holds a registration for its WEDGE CAPITAL MANAGEMENT mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (Reg. No. 4,982,078, registered on June 21, 2016). Complainant conducts business at <wedgecaptial.com>.

 

Respondent registered the <wedgecapitals.com> domain name on November 23, 2025, and uses it to send fraudulent emails.

 

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 Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the WEDGE CAPITAL MANAGEMENT mark through registration with the USPTO. See Liberty Global Logistics, LLC v. damilola emmanuel / tovary services limited, FA 1738536 (Forum Aug. 4, 2017) (stating, "Registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently establishes the required rights in the mark for purposes of the Policy.").

 

Respondent's <wedgecapitals.com> domain name uses the dominant portion of Complainant's WEDGE CAPITAL MANAGEMENT mark and simply adds an "s" and a gTLD. These changes do not sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Tailgate Clothing Company, Corp. v. Hua, FA 2032152 (Forum Mar. 21, 2023) (finding <toddsnyderss.store> confusingly similar to complainant's TODD SNYDER mark despite adding an "s" and ".store".) The Panel therefore finds that Respondent's <wedgecapitals.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's WEDGE CAPITAL MANAGEMENT mark.

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Once Complainant makes a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden shifts to Respondent to show 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 contends that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <wedgecapitals.com> domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name and Complainant has not authorized or licensed to Respondent any rights in the WEDGE CAPITAL or WEDGE CAPITAL MANAGEMENT marks. The WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as "Herley Son". Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and thus has no rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). 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)").

 

Complainant argues that Respondent fails to use the <wedgecapitals.com> domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use as the domain name does not resolve to any active content, and instead resolves to a warning message. The Panel therefore finds that Respondent has no rights under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Teachers Ins. and Annuity Ass'n of Am. V. Wreaks Commc'ns Group (WIPO June 15, 2006) ("passive holding does not constitute 'legitimate non-commercial or fair use'").  

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant argues that Respondent's failure to make an active use of the <wedgecapitals.com> domain name constitutes bad faith. The Panel agrees and finds bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Kohl's Illinois, Inc. v. c/o kohlsdepartmentstore.com; c/o khols.com, FA 1442950 (Forum June 7, 2012) ("Respondent's failure to make an active use of the disputed domain names demonstrates bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)).

 

Complainant contends that Respondent registered and uses the <wedgecapitals.com> domain name in bad faith to send fraudulent emails. Registering a disputed domain name to pass off as a complainant in emails disrupts Complainant's business for Respondent's gain and evinces bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and Policy ¶ 4(b)(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)."). The Panel finds bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).

 

Complainant also argues that Respondent registered the <wedgecapitals.com>  domain name with knowledge of Complainant's rights in the mark. The Panel notes that Respondent poses as Complainant in emails. The Panel therefore finds that Respondent registered the disputed domain name with knowledge of Complainant's rights in the WEDGE CAPITAL MANAGEMENT mark, demonstrating further bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Chevron Intellectual Property, LLC v. Jack Brooks, FA 1635967 (Forum Oct. 6, 2015) (finding that respondent's use of <chevron-corps.com> to impersonate an executive of complainant in emails is bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).); 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 "actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name").

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied 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 <wedgecapitals.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist

Dated: August 12, 2026