Westmore · UDRP DecisionAmbacgroup.com
The Panel ordered transfer of ambacgroup.com after finding all three UDRP elements satisfied. The domain incorporated the AMBAC mark with the word “group” and resolved to a bilingual Chinese-English website copying the look and feel of the Complainant’s official website, displaying its logo, and purporting to offer its services as “Ambac International.” The Panel found that the site was being used to fraudulently pass itself off as the Complainant and obtain deposits and bank account information from members of the public.
The timeline behind ambacgroup.com
Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.
This decision illustrates a straightforward impersonation case in which the domain reproduced the complainant’s entire mark, added an organizational term, and was used for a website imitating the complainant. The Panel’s express finding that the site sought deposits and bank account information made the use particularly significant to both the legitimate-interests and bad-faith analyses.
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 Ambac Assurance Corporation v. SureSupport Privacy, SureSupport Privacy Service Case No. D2019-2531 1. The Parties The Complainant is Ambac Assurance Corporation, United States of America (“US”), represented by Debevoise & Plimpton, United States of America. The Respondent is SureSupport Privacy, SureSupport Privacy Service, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <ambacgroup.com> is registered with eNom, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 15, 2019. On October 16, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 16, 2019, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on October 18, 2019 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on October 22, 2019. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 proceeding commenced on October 29, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 18, 2019. The Center received an email from the Respondent on October 30, 2019. The Center replied to the Respondent’s email on November 4, 2019. The Center notified the Commencement of Panel Appointment Process on November 19, 2019. The Center appointed Sebastian M.W. Hughes as the sole panelist in this matter on November 27, 2019. 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 A. Complainant The Complainant is a company incorporated in the State of Wisconsin in the US and the provider, since 1972, of mortgage assurance and related services under the trade mark AMBAC (the “Trade Mark”). The Complainant is the owner of US registration No. 1,391,089 for the Trade Mark, with a registration date of April 22, 1986. The Complainant is also the owner of the domain name <ambac.com> comprising the Trade Mark. B. Respondent The Respondent is apparently an individual resident in Hong Kong, China. C. The Disputed Domain Name The disputed domain name was registered on July 18, 2019. D. Use of the Disputed Domain Name The disputed domain name is resolved to a dual Chinese and English language website which copies the look and feel of the Complainant’s official website at “www.ambac.com”, features the logo version of the Complainant’s Trade Mark, and appears to be offering the Complainant’s services under the name “Ambac International” (the “Website”). 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Trade Mark, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings The Complainant must prove each of the three elements in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in order to prevail. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the Trade Mark acquired through use and registration. The disputed domain name incorporates the entirety of the Trade Mark (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7 ) together with the word “group”. Where a relevant trade mark is recognisable 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 WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 1.8 ). The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of non-exhaustive circumstances any of which is sufficient to demonstrate that a respondent has rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name: (i) before any notice to the respondent of the dispute, the respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or (ii) the respondent (as an individual, business, or other organization) has been commonly known by the disputed domain name even if the respondent has acquired no trade mark or service mark rights; or (iii) the respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trade mark or service mark at issue. The Complainant has not authorised, licensed, or permitted the Respondent to register or use the disputed domain name or to use the Trade Mark. The Panel finds on the record that there is therefore a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and the burden is thus on the Respondent to produce evidence to rebut this presumption. The Respondent has failed to show that he or she has acquired any trade mark rights in respect of the disputed domain name or that the disputed domain name has been used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. To the contrary, the Respondent has made use of the disputed domain name in respect of the Website, in order to fraudulently pass off the Website as a website of the Complainant, and obtain deposits and bank account information from unsuspecting members of the public. There has been no evidence adduced to show that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name. There has been no evidence adduced to show that the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. In all the circumstances, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith In light of the manner of the use of the disputed domain name highlighted in Section 6.2.B. above, the Panel finds that the requisite element of bad faith has been made out. The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name has been 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 <ambacgroup.com> be transferred to the Complainant. Sebastian M.W. Hughes Sole Panelist Dated: December 11, 2019
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around ambacgroup.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.