Principla.com

The timeline behind principla.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 AN D MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Principal Financial Services, Inc. v. Host Master, Transure Enterprise Ltd Case No. D2025-2599 1. The Parties The Complainant is Principal Financial Services, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Neal & McDevitt, LLC, United States. The Respondent is Host Master, Transure Enterprise Ltd, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <principla.com> is registered with Above.com, Inc. (the “Reg istrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 3, 2025. On July 3, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 7, 2025, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verif ication response disclosing registrant and contact inf ormation f or the disputed domain name which dif fered from the named Respondent (“unknown registrant”) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on July 7, 2025, 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 July 7, 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 July 30, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date f or Response was August 19, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notif ied the Respondent’s def ault on August 20, 2025. The Center appointed Martin Schwimmer as the sole panelist in this matter on August 22, 2025. The Panel f inds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and page 2 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 publicly traded financial services company incorporated in the State of Iowa, United States, and headquartered in Des Moines, Iowa. The Complainant’s group of f ers global investment management, insurance, and other financial services to businesses and individuals, as described on its websites at “www.principal.com” and “www.principalbank.com”. According to the Complainant’s website at “www.principal.com”, the group employs some 20,000 people in 27 nations and territories, and reported net income of USD 1.571 billion in 2024. The Complainant holds numerous trademark registrations in the United States and other jurisdictions. These include United States Trademark Registration Number 1562541 (registered on October 24, 1989) f or the word PRINCIPAL in stylized letters in International Class 36, and United States Trademark Registration Number 4483644 (registered on February 18, 2014) f or PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL GROUP as a standard character mark in International Class 36. The disputed domain name does not resolve at this time. However, the Complainant provided a sworn declaration f rom a cybersecurity analyst that the domain name registration and SSL certif icate history showed a history of repeatedly registered certificates for subdomain names that closely resemble legitimate subdomains of the Complainant. 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 that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its famous family of PRINCIPAL marks. The “principla” element is identical to the Complainant’s trademark but for two letters of the disputed domain name being transposed. This transposition does not f orm a recognizable English word, and is evidence of typosquatting. The Complainant asserts ownership in a PRINCIPAL f amily of trademarks including PRINCIPAL BANK, PRINCIPAL SECURITIES, and PRINCIPAL GLOBAL INVESTORS (“and other marks in the Famous Family of Principal Marks”), citing numerous prior UDRP decisions finding that these marks are distinctive and well- known in f inancial services markets, such as Principal Financial Services, Inc. v. Barry Friedman, Seaport 17th Care Center, WIPO Case No . D2024-4955. The Complainant contents that the Respondent has conf igured the disputed domain name to resemble legitimate Principal inf rastructure by repeatedly registering SSL certif icates f or subdomains, such as <login.principla.com> and <career.principla.com>, that are similar to actual Complainant assets, such as <login.principal.com> and <careers.principal.com>. 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 f irst element f unctions 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 Panel f inds the mark is recognizable 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. The “principla” string in the disputed domain name does not form a recognizable word in English and is identical to the Complainant’s trademark but for the transposition of the letters “a” and “l”. The panel f inds the disputed domain name to be an intentional misspelling, and thus conf usingly similar under section 1.9. The Panel f inds the f irst 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 of ten 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 f orward 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 f ails to come f orward 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 f acie 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 f orward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. The Panel notes the present inactive webpage resolving from the disputed domain name does not support a f inding of rights or legitimate interests. Moreover, the purported use of subdomains similar to those used by the Complainant (e.g. <careers.principla.com> (discussed further below in Section C), are indicative of the Respondent’s intent to impersonate the Complainant, which would also not support a finding of rights or legitimate interests. The Panel f inds 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 f aith. page 4 The Complainant alleges that the Respondent obtained SSL certificates f or various subdomains similar to those used by or would be identif ied with the Complainant. An SSL certif icate (“Secure Sockets Layer certif icate”) is a digital certificate that authenticates a website’s identity and enables an encrypted connection between a web server and a browser. The padlock icon displayed by a browser indicating the existence of a SSL certificate for a typo site, aids in the deception that the s it e is authorized by a trademark owner. Going to the trouble of getting multiple SSL certif icates f or subdomains used by the “real” website, takes the deception one step further. This practice suggests the Respondent’s intent to be deceptively identif ied as the Complainant. The Panel takes notice of a recognized SSL certificate log tool, specifically the <crt.sh> tool, which supports the sworn declaration of the Complainant that SSL certificate logs shows that the Respondent has obtained SSL certificates for subdomains similar to those used by the Complainant, such as <login.principla.com>, <careers.principla.com>, or similar to subdomains that would be associated with the Complainant. Taking into account the totality of the circumstances – including the strength of the Complainant’s trademark, the Respondent’s use of false contact data, and the Respondent’s default – the Panel finds that it is probable that the Respondent obtained the disputed domain name to impersonate the Complainant for some illegitimate activity. 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 f aith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1. Panels have held that the typosquatting of a widely-known mark in a domain name supports a f inding of bad f aith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad f aith under the Policy. The Panel f inds that the Complainant has established the third element 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 name <principla.com> be transf erred to the Complainant. /Martin Schwimmer/ Martin Schwimmer Sole Panelist Date: September 5, 2025

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