Westmore · UDRP DecisionInsman.net
The Panel ordered transfer of <insman.net>. It found the domain confusingly similar to the Complainant’s marks containing MAN, that the Respondent had no rights or legitimate interests, and that the domain was registered and used in bad faith. The Respondent’s financial-services website used a similar MAN-formative logo, the name “Man Investments (Malaysia) Group LTD,” and the names of the Complainant’s products as HTML meta tags. The Panel found that this conduct showed knowledge and targeting of the Complainant, while the website’s login functionality created a potential for fraudulent acquisition of customer credentials.
The timeline behind insman.net
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 insman.net — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
The decision illustrates how coordinated website evidence can establish more than mere textual similarity. Here, overlapping financial services, MAN-formative branding, product-name meta tags, and login functionality collectively supported confusing similarity, absence of legitimate interests, and deliberate targeting in bad faith. The case is particularly useful for its treatment of meta tags as evidence of knowledge at registration and its careful reliance on the potential, rather than proof, of credential harvesting.
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 Man Group plc v. Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 1247758485 / Eric Case No. D2020-3199 1. The Parties The Complainant is Man Group plc, United Kingdom, represented by Dehns, United Kingdom. The Respondent is Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 1247758485, Canada / Eric, Taiwan, Province of China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <insman.net> is registered with Google LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 27, 2020. On November 30, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 30, 2020, 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 December 1, 2020, 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 December 3, 2020. 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 proceedings commenced on December 4, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 24, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 28, 2020. The Center appointed Evan D. Brown as the sole panelist in this matter on January 4, 2021. 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 an investment management company. It has used the name MAN in connection with these services for at least 25 years (though the company traces its origins to the 18th century). The Complainant uses a number of marks containing the term “Man” in connection with the services it provides, including a stylized uppercase “M” above the word “Man”. The Complainant owns trademark registrations in many countries for this mark and similar variations, including United Kingdom Trade Mark Registration No. 2547917, registered on September 17, 2010. The disputed domain name was registered on July 21, 2020. The Respondent has used the disputed domain name to provide a website offering financial and investment services. In connection with these services, the Respondent has used the name Man Investments (Malaysia) Group LTD and has used a logo containing, as a dominant element, an uppercase “M”, with the lower-case letters “an” underneath. Additionally, the Respondent used the particular names of certain of the Complainant’s products as meta tags within the site’s Hypertext Markup Language (“HTML”). 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and, that 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 To succeed, the Complainant must demonstrate that all of the elements listed in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied, namely, 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. The Complainant has demonstrated that each of these elements have been satisfied. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar A registered trademark provides a clear indication that the rights in the mark shown on the trademark certificate belong to its respective owner. See, Advance Magazine Publishers Inc., Les Publications Conde Nast S.A. v. Voguechen , WIPO Case No. D2014-0657 . The Complainant has demonstrated its rights in the marks containing the term “Man” by providing evidence of its longstanding use and its numerous trademark registrations. The disputed domain name incorporates the dominant feature of the Complainant’s mark M MAN. This is sufficient for showing confusing similarity under the Policy. The presence of the letters “ins” in the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. Additionally, the content of the website associated with the disputed domain name (namely, content promoting services essentially identical to those of the Complainant) confirms confusing similarity. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview”), section 1.15 (“In some instances, panels have however taken note of the content of the website associated with a domain name to confirm confusing similarity whereby it appears prima facie that the respondent seeks to target a trademark through the disputed domain name.”). Based on the content of the website found at the disputed domain name, it appears, prima facie , that the Respondent sought to target the Complainant’s mark through the disputed domain name. Id . The Complainant has established this first element under the policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Panel evaluates this element of the Policy by first looking to see whether the Complainant has made a prima facie showing that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. If the Complainant makes that showing, the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests shifts to the Respondent. On this point, the Complainant asserts, among other things, that: - The Respondent has operated a website at the disputed domain name, offering services similar to those provided by the Complainant. This presents a risk that consumers would be confused into believing there is an association between the Complainant and the Respondent. - The presence of a “login” page on the website found at the disputed domain name indicates the website could have been used for fraudulent purposes. - The uses of the disputed domain name were not bona fide or legitimate, nor were there any demonstrable preparations made for such use. - The Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name. - The Respondent is not making any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. Based on these assertions, the Panel finds that the Complainant has made a prima facie showing that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not come forth with any evidence to overcome that showing. The Complainant has succeeded under this second Policy element. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Policy requires a complainant to establish that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Policy describes several non-exhaustive circumstances demonstrating a respondent’s bad faith registration and use. Under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, a panel may find bad faith when a respondent “[uses] the domain name to intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [respondent’s] website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [respondent’s] website or location or a product or service on [the respondent’s] website or location”. The facts in the record – including the Respondent’s use of the Complainant’s product names as meta tags – show that the Respondent knew about and indeed targeted the Complainant and its mark when it registered the disputed domain name, and the Respondent’s probable intention to attract Internet users searching for the Complainant’s products to the website at the disputed domain name. Providing services that are similar to the Complainant’s services, using signs and a domain name that are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s marks, is a clear example of bad faith use. Further, the potential for the Complainant’s customers to enter their login details into the Respondent’s website, thereby enabling the Respondent to obtain login credentials fraudulently, supports the Panel’s bad faith findings. The Panel finds that the Complainant has succeeded under this third element of the Policy. 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 <insman.net> be transferred to the Complainant. Evan D. Brown Sole Panelist Date: January 18, 2021
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around insman.net
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.