Westmore · UDRP DecisionApollomanagementllp.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <apollomanagementllp.com>. It found the domain confusingly similar to the Complainant’s APOLLO and APOLLO GENERAL MANAGEMENT marks, that the Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests, and that the domain had been registered and used in bad faith through a website impersonating Apollo and apparently intended to obtain personal data improperly or lure users into fraudulent transactions.
The timeline behind apollomanagementllp.com
Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.
Westmore reconstructs the full history behind apollomanagementllp.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
The case illustrates a strong impersonation fact pattern in which the domain composition, copied branding, financial-services presentation, management footage, and account-login feature collectively supported findings under all three UDRP elements. The Panel did not require proof of a completed fraud; it relied on the website’s features and the surrounding circumstances to infer improper data collection or fraudulent solicitation.
Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Apollo IP Holdings, LLC v. apollo management Case No. D2018-2270 1. The Parties The Complainant is Apollo IP Holdings, LLC of New York, New York, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, United States. The Respondent is apollo management of Israel. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <apollomanagementllp.com> is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 6, 2018. On October 8, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 8, 2018, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”). In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on October 22, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 11, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on November 12, 2018. The Center appointed Ian Lowe as the sole panelist in this matter on November 14, 2018. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background The Complainant is a member of the Apollo group of companies (“Apollo”). Apollo was founded in 1990 and is one of the world’s largest asset managers, with assets under management totaling some USD 270 billion as of June 2018. It invests in a wide range of sectors and industries, including chemicals, oil and gas, mining, financial services, manufacturing and entertainment. Apollo Global Management, LLC is quoted on the New York Stock Exchange. The Complainant is the registered proprietor of a number of trademarks comprising APOLLO, including United States trademark number 4,056,671 APOLLO GENERAL MANAGEMENT registered on November 15, 2011, European Union trademark number 17313826 APOLLO GENERAL MANAGEMENT registered on February 7, 2018, and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (“UK”) trademark number 2485108 APOLLO registered on November 21, 2008. The Complainant has carried on business under the names “Apollo” and “Apollo General Management over many years since it was founded. The disputed domain name was registered on September 6, 2018. According to the Registrar’s WhoIs information, the address of the registrant is in Israel, yet the city address is given as Schenectady, New York, a city in the United States. The registrant telephone number is a UK mobile phone number. At the date of the Complaint, the disputed domain name resolved (as it continues to resolve) to a web page stating that “This Account has been suspended.” However, when the Complainant was first alerted to the disputed domain name it resolved to a website (the “Website”) purporting to offer financial services under the names “Apollo” and “Apollo Management”, and used UK trademark number 2485107 APOLLO and device that had been commonly used previously by the Complainant. The website also featured a video clip of Apollo’s senior management at the New York Stock Exchange. Its content was very similar to websites using the domain names <apollomanagement.co.uk> and <apollomanagementllp.co.uk>, against which the Complainant has taken action, that had also included references to Apollo’s registration number with the UK Financial Conduct Authority. A web page linked to the Website also invited users to log in to their Apollo account. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its APOLLO and APOLLO GENERAL MANAGEMENT trademarks (the “Marks”), that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings For this Complaint to succeed in relation to the disputed domain name the Complainant must prove that: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has uncontested rights in the Marks by virtue of its various trademark registrations. In addition, as a result of the goodwill and reputation acquired through its widespread use of the Marks over many years, the Complainant has acquired unregistered trademark rights in respect of the Marks. Ignoring the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”, the disputed domain name includes the entirety of the APOLLO mark, with the addition of “managementllp”. The disputed domain name differs from the APOLLO GENERAL MANAGEMENT trademark only by the omission of “general” and the addition of “llp”. In the view of the Panel, these differences do not detract from the confusing similarity between the Complainant’s Marks and the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant has made out a strong prima facie case that the Respondent could have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. The Respondent has not used the disputed domain name for the bona fide provision of goods and services but for a course of conduct in impersonating Apollo from which the legitimate inference is that it has done so for fraudulent purposes. In the view of the Panel, it appears most likely that the Website has been created to take advantage of the Complainant’s rights in the Mark to phish for personal data for improper purposes or to draw users in to fraudulent transactions. The Respondent has chosen not to respond to the Complaint or to take any steps to counter the prima facie case established by the Complainant. In the circumstances, the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith In light of the nature of the disputed domain name and the above finding, the Panel considers that the Respondent must have had the Complainant and its rights in the Marks in mind when it registered the disputed domain name. The Panel cannot conceive of any legitimate use to which the Respondent could put the disputed domain name. In the Panel’s view, the Respondent registered the Domain Name for commercial gain with a view to taking unfair advantage of the Complainant’s rights in the Mark, by confusing Internet users into believing that the Domain Name was being operated by or authorized by the Complainant. The Respondent has used the Website with a view to extracting personal data for improper purposes or to lure users into fraudulent transactions. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. 7. Decision For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name, <apollomanagementllp.com>, be transferred to the Complainant. Ian Lowe Sole Panelist Date: November 21, 2018
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around apollomanagementllp.com
The decision is only the record. Westmore connects it to the cases, authorities, panelists, parties and domain evidence surrounding it.
A short, grounded explanation drawn only from this decision's record — not legal advice or a prediction.
Grounded in the Westmore record for this decision. Research/informational only — not legal advice or a prediction of any outcome.
The decision is only the beginning.
You've seen what happened. Now discover the deeper intelligence behind the case, the panelist, the parties and the authorities that matter.
Go beyond the public record: see how this case has been cited, find comparable decisions, analyze the panelist and apply the relevant authorities to your Matter.
Westmore Professional · $395/month
Research with UDRP IntelligenceWestmore AI drafts an attorney-review-ready UDRP response from your facts, grounded in the exact panel and closest precedent.
$895 one-time per matter · no subscription required. Self-help drafting aid — not legal advice.
Build your responseWestmore UDRP records draw on WIPO-indexed decisions and are provided for research and informational purposes only. Not legal advice, a clearance opinion, or a prediction of any outcome.