Westmore · UDRP DecisionLiqulditybook.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <liqulditybook.com> after finding it confusingly similar to the registered LIQUIDITYBOOK mark and concluding that the Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests and had registered and used the domain in bad faith to impersonate the Complainant and send phishing emails seeking financial fraud.
The timeline behind liqulditybook.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 liqulditybook.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
The case illustrates a straightforward typosquatting and phishing pattern in which a visually similar character substitution was used to mimic a registered mark and support fraudulent email impersonation. It also demonstrates that a complainant’s sparse filing can require limited panel research into public records, even where the substantive evidence ultimately establishes all three UDRP elements.
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 LiquidityBook LLC v. Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf / Mark Fish Case No. D2021-4045 1. The Parties The Complainant is LiquidityBook LLC, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Soteria LLC, United States. The Respondent is Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf, Iceland / Mark Fish, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <liqulditybook.com> is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 2, 2021. On December 6, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 6, 2021, 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 14, 2021, 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 14, 2021. 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 21, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 10, 2022. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January 12, 2022. The Center appointed Evan D. Brown as the sole panelist in this matter on February 3, 2022. 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 factual assertions in the Complaint are sparse. The Panel has scoured the scant record to ascertain facts relevant to the various UDRP elements and has, where appropriate, conducted independent investigation of matters of public record, which it is within bounds to do under the principles set forth in section 4.8 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“ WIPO Overview 3.0 ”). For example, the Panel visited the Complainant’s website found at “www.liquiditybook.com” and also searched the records of the United States Patent and Trademark Office to ascertain whether the trademark application included in the Annexes to the Complaint ever matured into a registration. The Complainant owns the mark LIQUIDITYBOOK, which is the subject of United States Reg. No. 4,490,571, registered on March 4, 2014. The disputed domain name was registered on October 5, 2021. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to send email messages while impersonating employees of the Complainant, in order to mislead email recipients. The email messages submitted with the Complaint indicate the Respondent is seeking to commit financial fraud in this way. 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: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights, (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 Panel finds that all three of these elements have been met in this case. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar This element requires the Panel to consider two issues: first, whether the Complainant has rights in a relevant mark; and, second, whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that mark. This element under the Policy functions primarily as a standing requirement. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 1.7. The Panel further finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the LIQUIDITYBOOK mark. The disputed domain name mimics the LIQUIDITYBOOK mark by copying the mark but with only one minor alteration (the use of a lower case “l” as the fifth letter, which closely resembles an upper case “i” – that letter being the fifth letter in the Complainant’s mark). In this respect, this case is much like Informatica LLC v. Withheld for Privacy Purposes, Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf / jay ferg , WIPO Case No. D2021-2612 , in which the panel found confusing similarity when the disputed domain name swapped out the same letters in a similar way. UDRP panels have consistently held that “[a] domain name which consists of a common, obvious, or intentional misspelling of a trademark is considered by panels to be confusingly similar to the relevant mark for purposes of the first element”. See WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 1.9. Accordingly, the Complainant has established this first element. 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 production of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests shifts to the Respondent (with the burden of proof always remaining with the Complainant). On this point, the Complainant asserts that (1) the Respondent is neither affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant to register or use the LIQUIDITYBOOK trademark, (2) the Respondent has not used or engaged in demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services, and (3) there is no evidence indicating the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name. Additionally, the Panel notes that using a disputed domain name for phishing purposes (which appears to be what is happening here) is not a bona fide offering of goods or services. See Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Nikki Dockum, Tred , WIPO Case No. D2018-0155 The Panel finds that the Complainant has made the required prima facie showing. The Respondent has not presented evidence to overcome this prima facie showing, and nothing in the record otherwise tilts the balance in the Respondent’s favor. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established this second element under the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Policy requires a complainant to establish that the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The facts of this case show that the Respondent targeted the Complainant when it registered the disputed domain name and when it used the disputed domain name to imitate the Complainant and seek to engage in fraud by sending phishing email messages. These facts clearly establish bad faith use and registration of the disputed domain name. See Informatica LLC v. Withheld for Privacy Purposes, Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf / jay ferg , supra . The Complainant has succeeded under this third Policy element. 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 <liqulditybook.com> be transferred to the Complainant. Evan D. Brown Sole Panelist Date: February 17, 2022
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around liqulditybook.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.