Lafiseleaks.org

The timeline behind lafiseleaks.org

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 AN D MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Banco Lafise and Lafise Corp. v. Jose Caceres Case No. D2025-0512 1. The Parties The Complainants are Banco Lafise, Nicaragua and Lafise Corp., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Greenberg Traurig, LLP, United States. The Respondent is Jose Caceres, El Salvador. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <lafiseleaks.org> (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with NameCheap, Inc . (the “Reg istrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 7, 2025. On February 10, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verif ication in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On February 10, 2025, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact inf ormation f or the Disputed Domain Name which dif f ered f rom the named Respondent (Redacted for Privacy, Privacy service provided by Withheld f or Privacy ehf) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on February 11, 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 amendment to the Complaint on February 14, 2025. 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” or “UDRP”), the Rules f or 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 February 14, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 6, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any f o rmal response. However, the Respondent sent an email communication to the Center on March 4, 2025, written in Spanish. The Center notified the Parties of the Commencement of Panel Appointment Process on March 12, 2025. page 2 The Center appointed Nick J. Gardner as the sole panelist in this matter on March 18, 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 Complainants are subsidiaries of Banco Laf ise, Panama. The Complainants’ operations cover the United States, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, and Venezuela. The Complainant Banco Laf ise, Nicaragua is responsible f or activities in Nicaragua. The Complainant Lafise Corp holds the registered trademarks relied upon and licenses their use to relevant operating entities. In practice nothing turns on the distinction between the two Complainants who are referred to collectively as the ”Complainant”. The Complainant has won numerous awards – for example it was recognised as “Central America and the Caribbean’s Best Bank” by Euro Money in 2024. The Complainant has various registered trademarks which include the term LAFISE – see f or example United States Registration No. 2003126, registered on September 24, 1996, with f irst use priority dated October 1987. The trademark comprises a logo design incorporating the outline of North and South America and the word LAFISE. These trademarks are ref erred to as the “LAFISE trademark” in this decision. The Complainant also owns the domain name <lafise.com> which resolves to its official website. Over the month of December 2024 alone, the Complainant’s website received more than 538,600 unique visits. It also has a strong social media presence. The Disputed Domain Name was registered on August 10, 2024. It did not, at the time the Complaint was f iled and at the time of the decision, resolve to an active website. Filed evidence shows that it previously resolved to a website with content in Spanish (the “Respondent’s Website”). See below as to the nature of this content. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy f or a transf er of the Disputed Domain Name. Notably, the Complainant contends t hat the Disputed Domain Name incorporates the LAFISE trademark in f ull, changing the trad emark only by adding the term “leaks” and the generic Top-Level domain (“gTLD”) “.o rg” af ter the trad emark. It says the Disputed Domain Name is conf usingly similar to the LAFISE trademark. The Complainant says the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name given that (1) the Respondent is not a licensee of the Complainant; (2) the Complainant’s rights in the LAFISE trademark precede the Respondent’s registration of the Disputed Domain Name; and (3) the Respondent is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name. The Complainant says that the Disputed Domain Name was used to resolve to a Spanish-language website which purported to be a noncommercial fair use site with content critical of the Complainant but that site was pretextual and not bona f ide (see f urther below). The Complainant says the nature and content of the Respondent’s Website gives rise to a f inding that the Disputed Domain Name has been registered and used in bad faith. The evidence in English in this regard is provided by way of a sworn statement provided by the Complainant’s counsel which says as follows: page 3 “7. I have reviewed the website content previously posted on the <laf iseleaks.org> domain name. I have also conducted an investigation with Grupo Lafise and, to the extent possible without any waiver of attorney- client privilege, have determined that the same website content contained f alse, and theref ore malicious, statements about Grupo Laf ise and its personnel. 8. The website content falsely alleged that Grupo Lafise was responsible for the resources and infrastructure used to facilitate container house fraud and embezzlement in Honduras. This is false. Further, no court has made that determination, and Grupo Laf ise has not been charged with any such crimes. 9. The website content also f alsely alleged that Grupo Laf ise has sheltered in Nicaragua Mr. Ebal Diaz, f ormer Honduran minister, from law enforcement authorities in Honduras. This is false. And, again, no court has made that determination, and Grupo Laf ise has not been charged with any such crime. 10. The website content also f alsely alleged that the US Department of State 2024 Annual Report to Congress on Targeted Sanctions to Fight Corruption in El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua (the “2024 Section 353 Report”) highlighted Grupo Laf ise involvement in container house f raud and embezzlement in Honduras. However, the 2024 Section 353 Report does not in f act mention Grupo Laf ise anywhere. 11. The f oregoing are examples of intentionally f alse, and theref ore malicious, statements previously contained in the Respondent’s website content. I can provide further examples, and further explain their false and malicious nature, as may be required by the Panel in this administrative proceeding”. The Complainant makes a number of further detailed points in support of its arguments that the Disputed Domain Name has been registered and used in bad faith. In view of the Panel’s finding based on consent to transf er (see below) the Panel does not intend to set out the considerable detail that is provided but in summary the main f urther points the Co mplainant relies on include the f ollowing. The Respondent’s Website made unnecessarily replete and prominent use of the LAFISE trademark, including in the Respondent’s purported name “Fraunde Laf ise”. The Respondent’s Website misappropriated the Complainant’s copywritten pictorial images directly f rom the Complainant’s official Facebook profile page, which included fraudulent use of the Complainant’s photo of its General Manager and her children as the Respondent’s prof ile picture The Respondent’s Website was configured to enable monetization, through the misdirection of Internet traffic and directly through Google Analytics and indirectly through an embedded webhost PayPal Client ID and GooglePay ID. The Disputed Domain Name was configured with mail exchange (“MX”) records that enable the Respondent to send and receive emails from an address that wholly incorporates the Complainant’s LAFISE Trademark. The Complainant suggests this may be indicative of phishing and produces evidence that a number of third party analytics companies have identif ied the Disputed Domain Name as a potential security risk. Notably the Respondent’s Website content has changed multiple times, and was ultimately disabled, directly in response to the Complainant’s cease-and-desist demands and takedown notices. B. Respondent The Respondent did not file a formal Response. On March 4, 2025 the Respondent filed a submission with the Center. The substantive part of this said as follows (in Spanish) “Por medio de la presente, manifiesto mi intención de ceder y transf erir voluntariamente el dominio al Complainante, sin oposición, para dar por f inalizada esta disputa”. Machine translation indicates that in English this means “I hereby declare my intention to voluntarily assign and transfer the domain to the Complainant, without opposition, to end this dispute”. page 4 6. Discussion and Findings Given the content of the Respondent’s submission dated March 4, 2025 (see above), the Panel adopts the approach set out in the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0 ”), section 4.10 as f ollows: “Where parties to a UDRP proceeding have not been able to settle their dispute prior to the issuance of a panel decision using the ‘standard settlement process’ described above, but where the respondent has nevertheless given its consent on the record to the transf er (or cancellation) remedy sought by the complainant, many panels will order the requested remedy solely on the basis of such consent. In such cases, the panel gives effect to an understood party agreement as to the disposition of their case (whether by virtue of deemed admission, or on a no-f ault basis).” See f or example Infonxx.Inc v. Lou Kerner, WildSites.com, WIPO Case No . D2008-0434 , where the Panel stated as f ollows: “However, this Panel considers that a genuine unilateral consent to transfer by the Respondent provides a basis for an order for transfer without consideration of the paragraph 4(a) elements. As was noted by the Panel in The Cartoon Network LP, LLLP v. Mike Morgan, WIPO Case No . D2005-1132 , when the Complainant seeks the transfer of the disputed domain name, and the Respondent consents to transf er, the Panel may proceed immediately to make an order f or transf er pursuant to paragraph 10 of the Rules. Accordingly, and in light of the parties’ stipulations set f orth above, the Panel will order the transf er of the disputed domain name to the Complainant. This is clearly the most expeditious course. Id.; Williams- Sonoma, Inc. v. EZ-Port, WIPO Case No . D2000-0207.” The Panel concludes that the Respondent has given its clear and unambiguous consent to the transfer of the Disputed Domain Name. Given this finding it is not necessary f or the Panel to consider the detail of the Complainant’s case on the merits. 7. Decision According to paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 10 and 15 of the Rules the Panel orders that the Disputed Domain Name <laf iseleaks.org> be transf erred to the Complainant. /Nick J. Gardner/ Nick J. Gardner Sole Panelist Date: April 1, 2025

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