Lplfinancialllcef.com + 5 more domains

The timeline behind lplfinancialllcef.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

How each disputed name was decided in this proceeding.

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 LPL Financial LLC v. Hota Coinbase Ltd, ANjjltd James Bro Case No. D2025-3773 1. The Parties Complainant is LPL Financial LLC, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Hogan Lovells (Paris) LLP, France. Respondent is Hota Coinbase Ltd and ANjjltd James Bro, United States. 2. The Domain Names and Registrars The disputed domain names <lplf inancialllcef .com>, <lplf inancialllcef ra.cc>, <lplf inancialllcef re.cc>, <lplf inancialllcef reoos.cc>, and <lplf inancialllcotp.cc> are registered with Gname.com Pte. Ltd. The disputed domain name <lplfinancialllcmailotp.cc> is registered with NameSilo, LLC (the “Registrars”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 17, 2025. On September 17, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar Gname.com Pte. Ltd a request f or registrar verif ication in connection with the disputed domain names <lplf inancialllcef .com>, <lplfinancialllcefra.cc>, <lplfinancialllcefre.cc>, and <lplfinancialllcefreoos.cc>. On September 18, 2025, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verif ication response disclosing registrant and contact inf ormation for the disputed domain names which differed from the named Respondent (Redacted for privacy Redacted for privacy) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on September 23, 2025, providing the registrant and contact inf ormation disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant f iled an amended Complaint on September 29, 2025, adding <lplfinancialllcmailotp.cc> and <lplfinancialllcotp.cc> to the Complaint. On October 2 and 6, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrars a request f or registrar verification in connection with these additional disputed domain names. On October 3 and 6, the Registrars transmitted by email to the Center their verification responses disclosing registrant and contact inf ormation f or the disputed domain names which dif f ered f rom the named Respondent and contact inf ormation in the Complaint. page 2 The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on October 6, 2025 with the registrant and contact inf ormation of nominally multiple underlying registrants revealed by the Registrars, requesting the Complainant to either file separate complaints f or the disputed domain names associated with dif f erent underlying registrants or alternatively, demonstrate that the underlying registrants are in f act the same entity and/or that all domain names are under common control. Complainant f iled an amended Complaint on October 10, 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 Respondents of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on October 24, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date f or Response was November 13, 2025. Respondents did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notif ied Respondents’ def ault on November 17, 2025. The Center appointed Lorelei Ritchie as the sole panelist in this matter on November 24, 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 A. Complainant Complainant is a multinational company based in the United States. For decades prior to the registration of the disputed domain names, Complainant has offered financial and brokerage services under the mark LPL. Complainant is the owner of numerous registrations for the LPL mark in various global jurisdictions. These include, among others, United States Registration No . 1,801,076 (registered on October 26, 1993) and European Union Registration No. 018653024 (reg istered on November 12, 2022). Complainant also owns the registration for various domain names that incorporate its LPL mark, including some with Complainant’s f ull corporate name, LPL Financial LLC. Among these are “lpl.com” (reg istered on August 2, 1994), which Complainant uses to engage with users online regarding the products and services of f ered under its LPL mark. B. The Disputed Domain Names The disputed domain names were registered between August 7 and September 18, 2025. The disputed domain name <lplf inancialllcef re.cc> previously resolved to a website that sought to impersonate Complainant, featuring Complainant's LPL FINANCIAL trademark and logo in its top-left corner, while purporting to operate an online currency trading platform. Complainant has also received a report of f raudulent activity via the disputed domain names <lplfinancialllcefra.cc> and <lplfinancialllcefreoos.cc>. At the time of submission of the Complaint, none of the disputed domain names resolved to an active web page. page 3 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends that (i) the disputed domain names are identical or conf usingly similar to Complainants’ trademarks, (ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names; and (iii) Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad f aith. Specifically, Complainant contends that it owns rights the LPL mark, which is “well known internationally”, that Complainant is the “largest independent broker-dealer” in the United States, and that Complainant manages over USD 1.7 trillion in advisory and brokerage assets, trading under the moniker “LPLA” on the NASDAQ stock exchange since 2010. Complainant contends that Respondent has incorporated Complainant’s LPL mark into the disputed domain names as part of Complainant’s full corporate name, LPL Financial LLC, and merely added various other terms, with the Top-Level-Domain such as “.cc” or “. c om.” Complainant f urther contends that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names and rather has registered and is using them in bad f aith, having simply acquired the disputed domain names f or Respondent’s own commercial gain, including by using some or all of the disputed domain names to communicate with consumers online in a f raudulent attempt to impersonate Complainant. Finally, Complainant alleges that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of bad f aith conduct in registering inf ringing domain names. B. Respondents Respondents did not rep ly to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Consolidation: Multiple Respondents The disputed domain names were registered between August 7 and September 18, 2025. One of the disputed domain names, <lplf inancialllcmailotp.cc>, was registered with a dif f erent registrar, and was reported by that registrar as having a dif f erent named registrant than the other f ive. Complainant nevertheless alleges that the domain name registrants are the same entity or are otherwise under common control. Complainant thus requests consolidation of the Complaint against the listed registrants of all six disputed domain names pursuant to paragraphs 3(c) and 10(e) and of the Rules. Pursuant to WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.11.2, the Panel considers whether (i) the disputed domain names or corresponding websites are subject to common control; and (ii) the consolidation would be fair and equitable to all Parties. In this regard, five of the six disputed domain names were registered with the same registrar and have the same registrant. The disputed domain name <lplfinancialllcmailotp.cc>, although with a dif f erent registrar and listing a dif f erent registrant, f ollows a highly similar pattern in the selected name, incorporating Complainant’s full corporate name and ending with the Top-Level Domain “.cc.” One of the disputed domain names has been linked to a website masquerading as an of f icial website of Complainant, and two others have been f lagged for fraudulent communications, also masquerading as Complainant. The Panel f inds that Complainant has shown prima f acie evidence of common control, which the listed registrants named collectively as Respondent have neither addressed nor rebutted. The request to consolidate the Complaint as to the all disputed domain names is granted and the Respondents will collectively be hereinaf ter ref erred to as the “Respondent”. page 4 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 3.0, section 1.7. Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark, LPL, for the purposes of the Policy, which is incorporated in f ull in each of the disputed domain names. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1. Although the addition of other terms may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel f inds the addition of such term does not prevent a f inding of conf using similarity between the disputed domain names and Complainant’s mark for purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8. The Panel theref ore finds that each of the disputed domain names is conf usingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which 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 satisf ied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds Complainant has established a prima f acie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Respondent has not rebutted Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come f orward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. The Panel f inds that Complainant has provided suf f icient evidence of Respondent’s lack of “rights or legitimate interests” in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy which Respondent has not rebutted. D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith There are several ways that a complainant can demonstrate that a domain name was registered and used in bad f aith. Although the disputed domain names do not appear to resolve to active websites as of the filing of Complainant, the Panel notes that the disputed domain name <lplf inancialllcef re.cc> was used to impersonate Complainant to consumers online. Panels have held that the use of a domain name f or illegal activity constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4. Furthermore, Complainant has submitted evidence that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of bad faith conduct. In addition to the disputed domain names in this proceeding, Respondent was one of the named p arties in a prior UDRP proceeding, transf erring a number of similarly-worded domain names to Complainant, upon a finding of bad f aith. (LPL Financial LLC v. Anna li, Hota Coinbase Ltd, pi xiu, WIPO Case No . D2025-2223 .) page 5 The disputed domain names resolve to inactive websites. Panels have found that the non-use of a domain name would not prevent a f inding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel notes the distinctiveness or reputation of the Complainant’s trademark, and the composition of the disputed domain names, and f inds that in the circumstances of this case the passive holding of the disputed domain names does not prevent a f inding of bad f aith under the Policy. Given the extensive exposure of Complaint’s marks, and the inclusion of Complainant’s f ull corporate name in each of the disputed domain names, the Panel finds sufficient evidence that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain names in bad f aith for purposes of p arag rap h (4)(a)(iii) o f the Po licy. 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 names <lplf inancialllcef .com>, <lplf inancialllcef ra.cc>, <lplfinancialllcefre.cc>, <lplfinancialllcefreoos.cc>, <lplf inancialllcotp.cc>, and <lplf inancialllcmailotp.cc> be transf erred to Complainant. /Lorelei Ritchie/ Lorelei Ritchie Sole Panelist Date: December 4, 2025

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