DECISION

 

Wells Fargo & Company v. Girard Isaac / Isaac Girard / Fargo Funding

Claim Number: FA2607002235865

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Wells Fargo & Company ("Complainant"), represented by Felicia J. Boyd of Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, USA. Respondent is Girard Isaac / Isaac Girard / Fargo Funding ("Respondent"), USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES

The domain names at issue are <fargofunding.com> and <fargo-funding.com>, registered with Freshbreweddomains.Com Llc, Tucows.Com, Co. and Tucows Domains Inc.

 

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.

 

Jonathan Agmon as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on July 29, 2026; Forum received payment on July 29, 2026.

 

On July 30, 2026 and August 7, 2026, Freshbreweddomains.Com Llc, Tucows.Com, Co. and Tucows Domains Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <fargofunding.com> and <fargo-funding.com> domain names are registered with Freshbreweddomains.Com Llc, Tucows.Com, Co. and Tucows Domains Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Freshbreweddomains.Com Llc, Tucows.Com, Co. and Tucows Domains Inc. have verified that Respondent is bound by the Freshbreweddomains.Com Llc, Tucows.Com, Co. and Tucows Domains Inc. registration agreements 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 August 12, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 1, 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@fargofunding.com and postmaster@fargo-funding.com. Also on August 12, 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 August 31, 2026.

 

On September 1, 2026, pursuant to the Parties' requests to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Jonathan Agmon 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE RESPONDENTS

The Complaint names Respondent as "Girard Isaac / Isaac Girard / Fargo Funding" and proceeds against two disputed domain names, <fargofunding.com> and <fargo-funding.com>, which the registrar verifications indicate are the subject of separate registrations. The Complainant contends that a single person or entity controls both disputed domain names and that consolidation is fair and equitable. In support, the Complainant argues that <fargo-funding.com> is the URL used in the e-mail address for the registrant of <fargofunding.com>; that <fargo-funding.com> auto-forwards to the website at <fargofunding.com>; that the IP addresses for both domains originate from the same ISP location; and that public business and social-media records (including LinkedIn evidence identifying Isaac Girard as CEO of Fargo Funding) show a direct or closely related relationship among "Girard Isaac," "Isaac Girard," and "Fargo Funding." The Complainant further argues that "Isaac Girard" and "Girard Isaac" may be the same name in reversed order. The Respondent did not object to consolidation of the two disputed domain names, stating that both are controlled by him and used in connection with the same independently operated business, Fargo Funding. Accordingly, the Panel accepts the request for consolidation and proceeds in respect of the two disputed domain names, <fargofunding.com> and <fargo-funding.com>. The Panel shall also treat Respondents as a single person.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

 

Complainant argues that the disputed domain names <fargofunding.com> and <fargo-funding.com> are confusingly similar to Complainant's famous mark WELLS FARGO and the FARGO mark.

 

Complainant contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names; has no relationship with or authorization from the Complainant; is not commonly known by the domain names; and uses the domain names (or, for <fargo-funding.com>, auto-forwards) to an active website offering business line-of-credit and working-capital services that Complainant contends compete directly with its own. Complainant further contends that <fargo-funding.com> is used for e-mail and that the potential exists for Respondent to contact Complainant's customers or pass itself off as Complainant. Complainant argues that the burden shifts to Respondent to show it has been known by the domain names.

 

Complainant contends that Respondent registered the disputed domain names long after the WELLS FARGO Marks were distinctive and internationally famous, giving Respondent constructive if not actual notice. Complainant contends that selection of a domain name containing the FARGO mark in its entirety, the assertedly competing services, the auto-forwarding of <fargo-funding.com>, and the associated e-mail use evidence bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent acknowledges that Complainant asserts registered rights in FARGO and WELLS FARGO and that the disputed domain names contain the word "Fargo." Respondent states that the domain names correspond to his business name, FARGO FUNDING LLC, and that he selected "Fargo" because he was born in Fargo, North Dakota.

 

Respondent contends that, before notice of the dispute, he used and made demonstrable preparations to use the domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of Fargo Funding's services, and that he and his business have been commonly known by the Fargo Funding name. Respondent contends that Fargo Funding is an independent private business-finance brokerage that has never held itself out as, or as affiliated with, the Complainant.

 

Respondent contends that Complainant has not shown that each domain name was registered and used in bad faith. He states that he selected "Fargo" for his documented connection to Fargo, North Dakota, and not to target the Complainant; that at registration he was aware of Wells Fargo as a bank but did not register the domain names to invoke, copy, or target the Complainant, and was not aware of any standalone FARGO trademark or FARGO virtual assistant. He contends that none of the Policy ¶ 4(b) circumstances applies: he never offered the domain names for sale to the Complainant or a competitor, engaged in a pattern of abusive registrations, or registered the domain names primarily to disrupt the Complainant's business, and never impersonated Complainant. Respondent contends that Complainant's e-mail theory is expressly hypothetical ("potential exists") and identifies no actual impersonating e-mail, and that the March 2026 acquisition of the non-hyphenated domain is consistent with his established business identity. He contends that constructive notice is not automatically dispositive.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant is a financial services company with $2.1 trillion in assets and 263,000 employees, providing banking, insurance, investments, mortgages, and consumer and commercial finance for more than 70 million customers worldwide through over 8,050 locations, more than 13,000 ATMs, the internet at <wellsfargo.com> and via mobile banking. Complainant is the owner of numerous US federal trademark registrations for WELLS FARGO, including registration no. 779,187 registered on October 27, 1964, and many others. Complainant is also the owner of trademark registrations for FARGO, including US federal trademark registrations no. 7,191,272 registered October 10, 2023, and 7,316,849 registered February 27, 2024; UK registration number UK00912830981, registered October 31, 2014. Complainant provides its clients financial services also via its mobile application which features Complainant's artificial intelligence software under the registered FARGO mark. On the Internet, Wells Fargo has operated a website since 1994 identified by the <wellsfargo.com> domain name.

 

Respondent was born in Fargo, North Dakota and operates a business under the name Fargo Funding LLC established on September 29, 2024. Respondent registered <fargofunding.com> on March 27, 2026 and <fargo-funding.com> on September 28, 2024.

 

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.

 

A timely Response having been filed, the Panel decides this proceeding on the basis of the statements and documents submitted by both Parties, in accordance with Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules. Under Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant bears the burden of proving each of the three elements, and the failure to establish any one element requires that the requested relief be denied.

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) requires the Complainant to establish that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.

 

Complainant provided evidence of trademark registrations showing that it has rights in the WELLS FARGO and FARGO trademarks. The Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in the WELLS FARGO and FARGO marks for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Respondent does not contest Complainant's registrations. The addition of generic terms "funding" or "funding" with a hyphen, and a top-level domain fails to distinguish the disputed domain names for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

The Panel holds that Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) requires Complainant to establish that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names.

 

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), then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See 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 has provided sufficient evidence of trademark registrations and notoriety of the WELLS FARGO and FARGO trademarks in connection with financial services. Complainant has not authorized nor licensed Respondent to use Complainant's registered marks. Complainant has made out its prima facie case, and the burden shifts to Respondent.

 

Policy ¶ 4(c) sets out circumstances that, if found by the Panel, demonstrate rights or legitimate interests, including (i) before notice of the dispute, use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a corresponding name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; and (ii) being commonly known by the domain name.

 

Respondent contends that Complainant's assertion that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests is contradicted by contemporaneous evidence since Policy ¶ 4(c) recognizes rights or legitimate interests where, before notice of a dispute, a respondent used or made demonstrable preparations to use the domain name or a corresponding name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, or where respondent, as an individual, business, or organization, has been commonly known by the domain name. Respondent cites to the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Question ("WIPO Overview") 3.0 §§ 2.1-2.3 as the basis for supporting that the overall burden remains on Complainant, that bona fide pre-complaint preparations may be shown through business-formation materials and other contemporaneous evidence, and that no trademark registration is required for the 'commonly known' defense; concrete evidence may include independent correspondence, bills or invoices, and articles of incorporation.

 

WIPO Overview 3.1 § 2.1 states that although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on complainant, panels have recognized that when a complainant has made out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.  While various types of evidence may be used to show prior use of, or demonstrate preparations to use, the disputed domain name, these should be contemporaneous and should be commensurate with the expected level of activity in accordance with the circumstances of each case. Id. at § 2.2. The Panel further notes that Respondent appears through argument to claim he is "commonly known" by the disputed domain names, and in such case the Respondent must adduce sufficient evidence beyond bare assertions and self-serving evidence.

 

The Respondent's evidence, for bona fide pre-complaint preparations and being commonly known by the disputed domain names, comprises: (1) a redacted birth certificate indicating he was born in Fargo, North Dakota, (2) an extract from the Florida Secretary of State showing that on September 29, 2024 Respondent incorporated a business with an address in Miami, Florida under the name Fargo Funding LLC, (3) a screenshot of an iPhone screen purportedly showing an email sent to Respondent on October 2024 reflecting Respondent's email being operative under the disputed domain names (4) … that Respondent had as of October 2024 a website under the disputed domain name <fargo-funding.com> offering a simple form for users wishing to obtain a line of credit. Respondent argues that with these four pieces of evidence he has shown clear contemporaneous evidence of prior use or demonstrable preparations for use and that the evidence is credible, and independently documented.

 

The Panel finds however that the evidence provided is considerably lacking and does not support the contention that it is contemporaneous, and sufficient. First, Respondent did not provide the full email message including its header. Rather what was provided is a screenshot of what appears to be a photo of an email message, which is redacted. The photo date appears to be in October 2024 but the email details or date are not shown, and since the original email and its header were not provided, there is no evidence when this email was sent nor by whom nor when it was delivered. Second, the evidence of Respondent's website shows an iPhone picture of a website under the <fargo-funding.com>. However, the date on the computer screen showing the webpage is cut off and cannot be seen.

 

Aside from the establishment of Fargo Funding LLC, Respondent provided no dated and credible evidence of the circumstances or operations surrounding Respondent's business, such as a business plan, invoices, other communications with any third parties, advertising, or the like. While it would have been relatively straight forward for Respondent to provide additional evidence of Respondent's pre-complaint corporate and business records to establish rights or legitimate interests, he chose not to file those.

 

No evidence was provided to show that Respondent is commonly known by the name Fargo Funding. Being born in a certain geographical area is insufficient, in and of itself, to establish that Respondent was commonly known by a name comprising the name of that geographical area. WIPO Overview 3.1§ 2.2 (Mere assertions that a respondent is commonly known by the domain name will not suffice; respondents are expected to produce specific credible evidence.)

 

The Panel finds that Respondent failed to establish bona fide pre-complaint preparations or being commonly known by the disputed domain names under Policy ¶¶ 4(c). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain names.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) requires Complainant to establish that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Policy ¶ 4(b) sets out non-exclusive circumstances that, if found by the Panel to be present, are evidence of bad-faith registration and use, including ¶ 4(b)(iv) (using the domain name to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark as to source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement). Respondent is of the position that none of the Policy ¶ 4(b) are shown.

 

Complainant provided evidence to show the notoriety of the WELLS FARGO mark in relation to the provision of financial services and further evidence of registration and use of the mark FARGO in connection with its mobile application offering financial services.

 

Respondent stated he adopted the disputed domain names because he was born in Fargo, North Dakota but the disputed domain names are <fargofunding.com> and <fargo-funding.com> and not <fargo.com>. Given the notoriety of Complainant and its WELLS FARGO marks, the addition of the term "funding" to the disputed domain names would serve to suggest a connection with Complainant, especially given the particular circumstances of this case. See WIPO Overview 3.1 § 3.21. 

 

Respondent admitted he was aware of Complainant and its WELLS FARGO mark when he registered the disputed domain names, but not of Complainant's registration of the FARGO trademark and the use of the term FARGO within Complainant's mobile application. Be that as it may, the evidence is that Respondent registered the disputed domain names with Complainant in mind. Respondent's use of the disputed domain names to offer "flexible capital solutions … across the US" puts the services offered by Respondents in direct competition nation-wide with those of Complainant, and therefore the Panel is convinced that Respondent was aware of the potential likelihood of consumer confusion when he registered the disputed domain names and began providing services under the disputed domain names in view of Complainant's marks and notoriety. See Samsonite Corp. v. Colony Holding, FA0003000094313 (Forum April 17, 2000) (Evidence of bad faith includes actual or constructive knowledge of commonly known mark at time of registration). 

 

On the evidence, the Panel agrees with Complainant that, at least in part, Respondent chose the disputed domain names to attract Internet users to his website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent's website. Such use and registration are further evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Citadel LLC and its related entity, KCG IP Holdings, LLC v. Joel Lespinasse / Radius Group, FA 1579141 (Forum Oct. 15, 2014) ("Here, the Panel finds evidence of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) bad faith as Respondent has used the confusingly similar domain name to promote its own financial management and consulting services in competition with Complainant."); see also OneWest Bank N.A. v. Matthew Foglia, FA 1611449 (Forum Apr. 26, 2015) (the respondent's use of the disputed domain name to direct Internet users to a website which competed with the complainant was evidence of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)).

The Panel took into consideration that Respondent, being fully aware of Complainant and its trademarks, chose not to adopt a notice alerting users to the fact that he is not connected nor associated with Complainant and its famous WELLS FARGO mark.

 

The Panel notes the parties' assertions in relation to the use of emails and the potential confusion these may cause, but neither party filed evidence in support of these assertions, and the arguments would not have changed the result herein.

 

Having satisfied all three elements of Policy ¶ 4(a), the Panel finds that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith.

 

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 <fargofunding.com> and <fargo-funding.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

 

Jonathan Agmon, Panelist

Dated: September 07, 2026