Lplaccuontview.com

The timeline behind lplaccuontview.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. Domain Privacy, Domain Name Privacy Inc. Case No. D2024-5027 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 Domain Privacy, Domain Name Privacy Inc., Cyprus. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <lplaccuontview.com> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Tucows Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 5, 2024. On December 5, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On December 6, 2024, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent (Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 0172959140) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on December 9, 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 December 9, 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 December 10, 2024. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 30, 2024. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January 2, 2025. page 2 The Center appointed Nicholas Smith as the sole panelist in this matter on January 6, 2025. 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 a United States company that provides a variety of services to financial advisors and financial institutions. The Complainant was formed in 1989 and today its 8,400 employees provide a set of brokerage and investment advisory services to more than 22,000 investment advisors managing over USD 1.4 trillion in advisory and brokerage assets. The Complainant promotes its operations through its websites at “www.lpl.com” and “www.lplaccountview.com”, and since 2010 has provided a consumer-facing product under the name LPL Account View that allows the Complainant’s clients to provide their clients with access to a snapshot of their investment portfolio. The Complainant has held a trademark registration for the abbreviation LPL (the “LPL Mark”) in various jurisdictions since 1993, including United States trademark registration number 1,801,076 registered on October 26, 1993, for financial management services. The Domain Name was registered on October 25, 2024. The Domain Name resolves to a website offering pay-per-click advertisements unrelated to any dictionary meaning of the Domain Name and indicating that the Domain Name may be for sale. The Complaint also notes that Mail Exchange (“MX”) records have been configured for the Domain Name indicating that the Domain Name may be used in connection with a fraudulent e-mail scheme. 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 Domain Name. Notably, the Complainant contends that: a) It is the owner of the LPL Mark, having registered the LPL Mark in various jurisdictions. The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the LPL Mark as it reproduces the LPL Mark in its entirety and adds the misspelled words “accuont view” which describes a customer-facing product offered by the Complainant. b) There are no rights or legitimate interests held by the Respondent in respect of the Domain Name. The Complainant has not granted any license or authorization for the Respondent to use the LPL Mark. The Respondent is not commonly known by the LPL Mark, nor does it use the Domain Name for a bona fide purpose or legitimate noncommercial purpose. Instead, the Domain Name resolves to a pay-per-click site. The Domain Name is also offered for sale. c) The Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Domain Name is being used for a pay-per-click site and may also likely be used for a fraudulent e-mail scheme targeting the Complainant and its customers. 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 Domain Name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0 ”), section 1.7. The Panel finds 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 Panel finds the entirety of the mark is reproduced within the Domain Name. Accordingly, the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 1.7. Although the addition of other terms here, “accuontview” (a misspelling of the words “account view”), may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such terms does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 1.8. 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 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 Domain Name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. The Panel considers that the record of this case reflects that: - Before any notice to the Respondent of the dispute, the Respondent did not use, nor has it made demonstrable preparations to use, the Domain Name or a name corresponding to the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy, and WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 2.2. - The Respondent (as an individual, business, or other organization) has not been commonly known by the Domain Name. Paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy, and WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 2.3. page 4 - The Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue. Paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy, and WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 2.4. - The record contains no other factors demonstrating rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent in the Domain Name. The use of the Domain Name for a parking page with pay-per-click links unrelated to a dictionary meaning of the Domain Name is not a bona fide offering of goods or services nor legitimate noncommerical or fair use. The Panel notes the statements in the WIPO Overview 3.0 on the question of whether “parked” pages comprising pay-per-click links support the respondent’s rights or legitimate interests. Section 2.9 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 notes that: “Applying UDRP paragraph 4(c), panels have found that the use of a domain name to host a parked page comprising PPC [pay-per-click] 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. Panels have recognized that the use of a domain name to host a page comprising PPC links would be permissible – and therefore consistent with respondent rights or legitimate interests under the UDRP – where the domain name consists of an actual dictionary word(s) or phrase and is used to host PPC links genuinely related to the dictionary meaning of the word(s) or phrase comprising the domain name, and not to trade off the complainant’s (or its competitor’s) trademark.” In the present case, the Respondent’s use of the confusingly similar Domain Name to host a parking page with pay-per-click links unconnected to any dictionary meaning of the Domain Name (and to advertise the Domain Name as being for sale), absent any further explanation, do not provide the Respondent with rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. Based on the available record, 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. The Panel considers that the record of this case reflects that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s web site or location or of a product or service on the Respondent’s web site or location. Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, and WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 3.1.4 and hence the Respondent’s registration and use of the Domain Name constitutes bad faith under the Policy. The Domain Name, which wholly incorporates the LPL Mark and is a minor misspelling of the Complainant’s LPL Account View product and the domain name <lplaccountview.com>, resolves to a page offering pay-per- click links for which the Respondent most likely receives some commercial gain. In these circumstances where the Respondent has offered no plausible explanation for the registration of the Domain Name, the Panel finds that the Respondent was most likely aware of the Complainant at the time of registration and is using the Domain Name to intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the LPL Mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website. Furthermore, the Complaint notes that MX servers have been configured for the Domain Name, indicating that the Domain Name is potentially used (or intended to be used) in a fraudulent e-mail scheme targeting the Complainant or its customers, which further supports Panel’s finding on bad faith. page 5 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 Domain Name <lplaccuontview.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Nicholas Smith/ Nicholas Smith Sole Panelist Date: January 7, 2025

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