Lplinancial.com

The timeline behind lplinancial.com

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

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

ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION LPL Financial LLC v. Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio Electronico Case No. D2024-1858 1. The Parties The Complainant is LPL Financial LLC, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Hogan Lovells (Paris) LLP, France. The Respondent is Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio Electronico, Panama. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <lplinancial.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 May 2, 2024. On May 3, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On May 3, 2024, 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 ( Registration Private Domains By Proxy, LLC) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on May 6, 2024, 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 May 7, 2024. 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 May 8, 2024. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 28, 2024. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 30, 2024. The Center appointed Nayiri Boghossian as the sole panelist in this matter on June 4, 2024. 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. page 2 4. Factual Background The Complainant was founded in 1989 and is a leader in the retail financial advice market serving financial advisors and institutions through providing technology, research, clearing, and compliance services and practice management programs. The Complainant owns many trademark registrations for LPL such as the following: - United States Trademark Registration No. 1801076, registered on October 26, 1993; and - European Union Trademark Registration No. 018653022, registered on May 26, 2022. The Complainant owns many trademark registrations for LPL FINANCIAL such as the following: - United States Trademark Registration No. 3662425, registered on August 4, 2009; and - United Kingdom Trademark Registration No. UK00003753611, registered on May 13, 2022. The disputed domain name was registered on April 9, 2024, and resolves to a parking page with Pay-Per-Click (“PPC”) links for a variety of financial and banking services. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name. Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. The disputed domain name comprises the Complainant’s trademark LPL as well as its trademark LPL FINANCIAL with an omission of the letter “f” and the space between the two elements of the trademark. The generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” can be ignored. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not licensed by the Complainant to use its trademark. The Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The disputed domain name resolves to a website with PPC links for services that compete with the Complainant. The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name as there is no evidence to that effect. The Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name resolves to a website with sponsored links which may indicate that the Respondent derives revenue. The disputed domain name also carries a high risk of implied affiliation. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Respondent must have had knowledge of the Complainant’s trademarks as they are well known and inherently distinctive and the disputed domain name was registered over 30 years after the Complainant’s registration of its trademark LPL. The disputed domain name resolves to a parking page containing PPC links for goods and services in direct competition with the Complainant. The Respondent presumably derives revenue from such links by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademarks. Given the high similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s official domain name, there’s a possibility for phishing or other illegitimate activity. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. page 3 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0 ”), section 1.7. The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 1.2.1. The entirety of the mark LPL is reproduced within the disputed domain name and the mark LPL FINANCIAL is reproduced with a typo omitting the letter “f”. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 1.7. The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 2.1. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. The use of a domain name to host a parked page comprising PPC links does not represent a bona fide offering where such links compete with or capitalize on the reputation and goodwill of the complainant’s mark or otherwise mislead Internet users. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 2.9. In this regard, the Panel notes that the typosquatting nature of the disputed domain name as compared to the LPL FINANCIAL mark is inherently misleading and such composition cannot constitute fair use. The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel notes that, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. page 4 In the present case, the Panel notes that the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant’s trademark as the disputed domain name was registered 30 years after the registration of the Complainant’s trademark, the disputed domain name is a typo of the Complainant’s trademark, and the PPC links relate to financial services, which is the Complainant’s field of business. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances may be relevant in assessing whether a respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 3.2.1. The Panel finds that by using the disputed domain name for websites with PPC links, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its websites or other online location by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark. Such use constitutes bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the 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 <lplinancial.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Nayiri Boghossian/ Nayiri Boghossian Sole Panelist Date: June 10, 2024

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