Ripplewood-equity.com, Ripplewoodequity.com

The timeline behind ripplewood-equity.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

How each disputed name was decided in this proceeding.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

ARBITRATION AN D MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Ripplewood Advisors, LLC v. PVA BALEAR Case No. D2023-3461 1. The Parties The Complainant is Ripplewood Advisors, LLC, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, United States of America. The Respondent is PVA BALEAR, Spain. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar The disputed domain names <ripplewoodequity.com> and <ripplewood-equity.com> (the “Disputed Domain Names”) are registered with HOSTINGER operations, UAB. 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 16, 2023. On August 17, 2023, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request f or registrar verif ication in connection with the Disputed Domain Names. On August 18, 2023, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verif ication response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Disputed Domain Names which differed from the named Respondent and contact inf ormation in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on the same day providing the registrant and contact inf ormation disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant f iled an amendment to the Complaint on August 22, 2023. The Center verif ied that the Complaint together with the amendment to the Complaint satisf ied the f ormal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” o r “UDRP”), the Rules f o r Unif orm Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules f or Unif orm Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”). In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center f ormally notif ied the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on August 23, 2023. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 12, 2023. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notif ied the Respondent’s def ault on September 13, 2023. page 2 The Center appointed Nicholas Weston as the sole panelist in this matter on September 18, 2023. The Panel f inds 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 Delaware limited liability company f ounded in 1995 that operates an investment business and has deployed more than USD6 billion in equity investments since its inception. The Complainant is an authorized user of United States registration No. 3,144,289 f or the trademark RIPPLEWOOD registered on September 19, 2006 f or services related to f inancial advisory services and investment services. The Disputed Domain Name <ripplewoodequity.com> was registered on July 12, 2023 and resolved to a f ake website with content relating to the Complainant, that purported to be a genuine website operated by the Complainant. The Disputed Domain Name <ripplewood-equity.com> was registered on July 24, 2023 and resolved to a webpage bearing the Complainant’s trademark. Currently, both Disputed Domain Names are inactive. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant cites its trademark registration for the mark RIPPLEWOOD in the United States, as prima facie evidence of ownership. The Complainant submits that its rights in that mark RIPPLEWOOD predate the Respondent’s registration of the Disputed Domain Names. It submits that the Disputed Domain Names are conf usingly similar to its trademark, because the Disputed Domain Names are comprised of the RIPPLEWOOD trademark with the addition, it submits, of the term “equity”, and in the case of <ripplewood-equity.com>, a hyphen. It also submits that the confusing similarity is not removed by the addition of the hyphen or the word “equity”, or the generic Top-Level Do main (“g TLD”) “.co m”. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Names because “[t]he Respondent is using the Disputed Domain Names to operate a site through which the Respondent offers investment services masquerading as the Complainant and its affiliated entities” and none of the circumstances set out in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy apply. Finally, the Complainant alleges that the registration and use of the Disputed Domain Names were, and currently are, in bad faith, contrary to the Policy and the Rules having regard to the prior use and nature of the Complainant’s trademark, and advances the argument that “Respondent’s clear intent is to (a) use the RIPPLEWOOD Trademark to lure potential inventors to its Website describing a fraudulent investment entity, and (b) to misleadingly divert consumers to the Disputed Domain Names under the f alse pretense that the Disputed Domain Names are endorsed by, sponsored by, or af f iliated with Complainant”. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. page 3 6. Discussion and Findings Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant has the burden of proving the f ollowing: (i) that the Disputed Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and (ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Names; and (iii) that the Disputed Domain Names have been registered and are being used in bad f aith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has produced sufficient evidence to demonstrate that it has registered trademark rights in the mark RIPPLEWOOD. The requirements of the first element for purposes of the Policy may be satisf ied by a trademark registered in any country (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected URDP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.2.1). Turning to whether the Disputed Domain Names are identical or conf usingly similar to the RIPPLEWOOD trademark, the Panel observes that the Disputed Domain Names comprise: - In the case of <ripplewoodequity.com> (a) the Complainant’s RIPPLEWOOD trademark; (b) followed by the word “equity”; (c) followed by the gTLD “.com”. - In the case of <ripplewood-equity.com> (a) the Complainant’s RIPPLEWOOD trademark; (b) followed by a hyphen; (c) followed by the word “equity”; and (d) followed by the gTLD “.com”. It is well established that the gTLD used as part of a domain name is generally disregarded under the f irst element confusing similarity test (WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.1). The relevant comparison to be made is with the second-level portion of the Disputed Domain Names, specif ically: “ripplewoodequity” and “ripplewood-equity”, respectively. On conducting a side-by-side comparison of the Disputed Domain Names and the textual components of the relevant trademark, it is apparent that as the relevant mark is incorporated in its entirety and as such is recognizable in each of the Disputed Domain Names, the addition of the hyphen or the word “equity” would not prevent a finding of conf using similarity under the f irst element. This Panel theref ore f inds that the Disputed Domain Names are conf usingly similar to the Complainant’s RIPPLEWOOD trademark f o r purposes of UDRP standing (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7). Accordingly, the Panel f inds that the Complainant has established paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy lists the ways that the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Names. The Policy also places the burden on the Complainant to establish the absence of the Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Names. Because of the inherent difficulties in proving a negative, the consensus view is that the Complainant need only put f o rward a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. The burden of production then shif ts to the Respondent to rebut that prima facie case (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1). The Complainant contends, in summary, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Names because (i) the Disputed Domain Names are being used f or phishing or to promote a fraudulent business undertaking; (ii) the Respondent has not acquired or owned any trademark or service mark rights in the name RIPPLEWOOD, and has not been commonly known by the name page 4 RIPPLEWOOD; (iii) the Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or f air use of the Disputed Domain Name without intent for commercial gain; and (iv) that the Respondents webpages are adorned with the Complainant’s trademark and content relating to the Complainant. The composition of the Disputed Domain Names, which each consist of the Complainant’s trademark together with the word “equity”, and in one case, a hyphen, does, in this Panel’s view, indicate an awareness and targeting of the Complainant with the intention to take unfair advantage of its trademark, which does not support a f inding of any rights or legitimate interests. The Panel notes the evidence that the Disputed Domain Names in this proceeding resolve respectively to a f ake webpage (in the case of <ripplewoodequity.com>) and to a webpage bearing the Complainant’s trademark (in the case of <ripplewood-equity.com>) supports the Complainant’s submissions on that point and f inds that these do not represent a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or f air use, given the substantial reputation and goodwill of the Complainant’s mark or capacity to otherwise mislead Internet users. On balance, the Panel is satisf ied that a prima facie case exists that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. In view of the evidence that calls f or an explanation from the Respondent, and in the absence of a Response, this Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Names. The Panel f inds f or the Complainant on the second element of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The third element of the Policy that the Complainant must also demonstrate is that the Disputed Domain Names have been registered and used in bad f aith. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out certain circumstances to be construed as evidence of both of these conjunctive requirements. The Panel f inds that the evidence in the case shows the Respondent registered and has used the Disputed Domain Names in bad f aith. On the issue of registration, taking into account the composition of the Disputed Domain Names and the distinctive nature of the Complainant’s trademark, the Panel is satisf ied that the Respondent knew of and targeted the Complainant’s well-known trademark RIPPLEWOOD when it registered the Disputed Domain Names. This Panel f inds that there is no reason for the Respondent to have registered the Disputed Domain Names other than to trade off the reputation and goodwill of the Complainant’s well-known trademark (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4). Further, a gap of several years between registration of a complainant’s trademark and respondent’s registration of a disputed domain name (containing the trademark) can indicate bad faith registration. In this case, the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name some 17 years af ter the Complainant established registered trademark rights in the RIPPLEWOOD mark. On the issue of use, the Panel notes that the Disputed Domain Name <ripplewoodequity.com> was used to resolve to an online website that purportedly attempts to impersonate the Complainant by displaying the Complainant’s trademark and information about the Complainant apparently lif ted f rom publicly available sources including the Complainant’s Wikipedia page. Targeting of this nature is a common example of use in bad f aith as referred to in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy and identif ied in many previous UDRP decisions (see WIPO Overview 3.0, sections 3.1.4, and 3.2.1). Further, the evidence is that the Disputed Domain Name <ripplewood-equity.com> resolved to a webpage bearing the Complainant’s trademark and unconnected with any bona fide supply of goods or services by the Respondent. Currently, the Disputed Domain Names resolve to inactive websites. Previous UDRP panels page 5 have f ound that the non-use of a domain name would not prevent a f inding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. “While panelists will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case, factors that have been considered relevant in applying the ‘passive holding’ doctrine include: (i) the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant’s mark, (ii) the failure of the respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use, (iii) the respondent’s concealing its identity or use of f alse contact details (noted to be in breach of its registration agreement), and (iv) the implausibility of any good faith use to which the domain name may be put” (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3). This Panel notes that the evidence is that all of these f actors are present in this proceeding. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, this Panel f inds that the Respondent has taken the Complainant’s trademark RIPPLEWOOD and incorporated it in the Disputed Domain Names without the Complainant’s consent or authorization, for the purpose of capitalizing on the reputation of the trademark by diverting Internet users f or commercial gain. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. 7. Decision For the f oregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the Disputed Domain Names, <ripplewood-equity.com> and <ripplewoodequity.com> be transf erred to the Complainant. /Nicholas Weston/ Nicholas Weston Sole Panelist Date: October 2, 2023

Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.