Indiaares.com

The timeline behind indiaares.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 Ares Management LLC v. wu ming bao Case No. D2025-0180 1. The Parties The Complainant is Ares Management LLC, United States of America, represented by Greenberg Traurig, LLP, United States of America. The Respondent is wu ming bao, Cambodia. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <indiaares.com> is registered with Gname.com Pte. Ltd. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 17, 2025. On January 17, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 20, 2025, 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 (Redacted for privacy) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on January 20, 2025, 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 January 23, 2025. 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 January 27, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 16, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 17, 2025. page 2 The Center appointed Dawn Osborne as the sole panelist in this matter on February 19, 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 an investment management company (part of a larger corporate group that has offices around the world including in India) owns the mark ARES registered, inter alia, in the United States of America as trademark registration number 3014171 for investment management services since November 8, 2005. The disputed domain name was registered on November 25, 2024, and has been used for a site purporting to be a site operated by the Complainant using the Complainant’s corporate name and the name of one of the Complainant’s employees. 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 the Complainant’s mark only adding the generic geographical term “india” and the generic Top-Level Domain “.com”, neither of which prevents such confusing similarity. The Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and is not authorised by the Complainant. It has provided a false address for the WhoIs details of the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name has been pointed to a site purporting to be operated by the Complainant using the Complainant’s corporate name and the name of one of the Complainant’s employees for to offer an alleged contest hosted by the Complainant with participants entered to win various valuable prizes. This is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate use. It is registration and use in bad faith causing confusion amongst Internet users for commercial gain and disrupting the Complainant’s business. Phishing and provided a false address to the WhoIs register are both bad faith per se. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 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. page 3 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 is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is 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, “i ndia”, may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such term does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed 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. The Respondent is not authorised by the Complainant or commonly known by the disputed domain name. The Respondent has used the disputed domain name for a site purporting to be operated by the Complainant using the Complainant’s corporate name and the name of one of its employees, which is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. The Respondent has apparently provided a false address for the WhoIs details of the disputed domain name, which in this case is indicative of a lack of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. 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. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity, here, impersonation/passing off and likely phishing, can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 2.13.1. 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. In the present case, the Panel notes that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name for a site purporting to be operated by the Complainant using the Complainant’s corporate name and the name of one page 4 of its employees and has apparently provided a false address for the WhoIs details of the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark thereby disrupting the Complainant’s 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. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity, here, impersonation/passing off, constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 3.4. Moreover, while the exact mechanism of the fraud is unclear, the Panel finds the circumstances of this case suggest that the Respondent has been using the disputed domain name for phishing purposes. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith under the Policy. The provision of false contact details for the WhoIs details for a domain name is also regarded by Panels as being indicative of bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 3.2.1. 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 <indiaares.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Dawn Osborne/ Dawn Osborne Sole Panelist Date: February 24, 2025

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