Lntandemcapital.com

The timeline behind lntandemcapital.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 Intandem Capital Partners, LLC v. Ewais Sameh Case No. D2025-3004 1. The Parties The Complainant is Intandem Capital Partners, LLC, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Parsons Behle & Latimer, United States. The Respondent is Ewais Sameh, Canada. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <lntandemcapital.com> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with NameSilo, LLC (the “Reg istrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 28, 2025. On July 29, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request f or registrar verif ication in connection with the Domain Name. On July 29, 2025, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verif ication response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which diff ered f rom the named Respondent (Information not publicly available) and contact inf ormation in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on July 29, 2025, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant f iled an amended Complaint on August 2, 2025. The Center verif ied that the Complaint together with the amended 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 August 5, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date f or Response was August 25, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notif ied the Respondent’s def ault on August 26, 2025. page 2 The Center appointed Ian Lowe as the sole panelist in this matter on September 2, 2025. The Panel f inds 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 InTandem Capital Partners, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and private equity f irm that invests in and helps accelerate the growth of small to mid-sized companies in healthcare services sectors. The Complainant has operated since 2012 under the name “InTandem Capital Partners”. The Complainant registered the domain name <intandemcapital.com> in December 2011 and has used it continuously since 2012 in connection with its capital investment services, management of private equity f unds, and related services provide under the brand INTANDEM CAPITAL PARTNERS. In June 2024, the Complainant closed its Fund III with USD 715 million in total capital commitments. The Complainant filed United States Trademark Application Serial No. 99023528 f or INTANDEM CAPITAL PARTNERS on January 30, 2025, claiming first use in commerce since January 2012. The application has been published for opposition. The Domain Name was registered on July 8, 2025. The Domain Name resolves to a parking page with pay- per-click (“PPC”) advertisements. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is conf usingly similar to its INTANDEM CAPITAL PARTNERS trademark, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name, and that the Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad f aith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings For this Complaint to succeed in relation to the Domain Name the Complainant must prove that: (i) the Domain Name is identical or conf usingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and (iii) the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad f aith. 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. Although the Complainant does not rely on any registered trademarks, it has adduced evidence that it has carried on business under the name INTANDEM CAPITAL PARTNERS (the “Mark”) since January 2012 and page 3 accordingly claims common law trademark rights in the Mark through its continuous use of the Mark since that date. In addition, it relies on the approval of its pending United States trademark application, f iled six months before the Domain Name was registered, having been approved for publication, demonstrating that the Mark has been f ound distinctive and registrable. The Panel is satisfied on balance that the Complainant has established common law trademark rights in the Mark f or the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.3. Ignoring the generic Top-Level Domain “.com”, the Domain Name incorporates the dominant portion of the Mark, namely INTANDEM CAPITAL, save for the substitution of the letter “i” f or the letter “l”. “In cases [...] where at least a dominant f eature of the relevant mark is recognizable in the domain name, the domain name will normally be considered confusingly similar to that mark for purposes of UDRP standing.” WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. The Panel f urther notes that the substitution of the “i” f o r the lowercase “l” at the beginning of “intandem” creates visual similarity that is designed to confuse Internet users. As panels have consistently recognized, “a domain name which consists of a common, obvious, or intentional misspelling of a trademark is considered by panels to be confusingly similar to the relevant mark f or purposes of the f irst element”. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.9. Accordingly, the Panel f inds that the Domain Name is conf usingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights, and 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. Accordingly, where a complainant makes out a prima f acie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shif ts 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. The Complainant has made out a strong prima f acie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. The Respondent is not authorized by the Complainant to use its trademark, is not commonly known by the Domain Name, and there is no evidence of any trademark or service mark rights in “lntandem” or related terms. The Domain Name is being used for a parking page with PPC advertisements, which cannot constitute a bona f ide offering of goods or services. In the Panel’s view, the Domain Name is a typical example of typosquatting, whereby the Domain Name was registered with a minor variation of the dominant portion of the Complainant’s brand name “Intandem Capital” and the Complainant’s own domain name <intandemcapital.com>, with a view to taking advantage of typographical errors by Internet users. Such a registration cannot possibly give rise to rights or legitimate interests on the part of the Respondent in this case. The Respondent has chosen not to respond to the Complaint or to provide any evidence of rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. In the circumstances, the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. page 4 The Panel f inds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel notes that, f or 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. In light of the typosquatting nature of the Domain Name, comprising as it does a deliberate misspelling of the dominant portion of the Complainant's trademark and domain name, the Panel is in no doubt that the Respondent had the Complainant and its rights in the Mark in mind when it registered the Domain Name. The Domain Name was registered in July 2025, long after the Complainant began using its trademark (since January 2012) and af ter the Complainant's trademark application was filed (January 2025). The timing and nature of the registration, combined with the obvious targeting of the Complainant’s established mark and domain name, demonstrates bad f aith registration. The use of the Domain Name for a parking page displaying PPC advertisements constitutes bad f aith use. The Respondent registered a domain name that is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark with the intent to attract Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion as to source of its website, likely f or commercial gain through the PPC advertisements. This falls squarely within paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. Furthermore, the Panel considers that typosquatting amounts to paradigm bad faith registration and use f or the purposes of the Policy. The Panel cannot conceive of any legitimate use to which the Respondent could put the Domain Name, given its obvious derivation f rom the Complainant’s trademark and domain name. The only plausible purpose for registering such a domain is to take unf air advantage of the Complainant’s rights f or commercial gain. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad f aith, and the third element of the Policy has been established. 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 Domain Name <lntandemcapital.com> be transf erred to the Complainant. /Ian Lowe/ Ian Lowe Sole Panelist Date: September 11, 2025

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