Finextra.app, Finextra.club, Finextra.org

The timeline behind finextra.app

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 AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Finextra Research Limited v. ka buda, Akhil Krishna, Akl Wyd, lamarhaute Case No. D2025-5097 1. The Parties The Complainant is Finextra Research Limited, United Kingdom, represented by Osborne Clarke LLP, United Kingdom. The Respondents are ka buda (the “First Respondent”), United States of America (“United States”); Akhil Krishna (the “Second Respondent”), India; and Akl Wyd, lamarhaute (the “Third Respondent”), India. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar The disputed domain names <finextra.app> (the “First Domain Name”), <finextra.club> (the “Second Domain Name”), and <finextra.org> (the “Third Domain Name”) (collectively referred to as the “Domain Names”) are registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 8, 2025. On December 9, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Names. On December 9, 2025, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Names which differed from the named Respondent (unknown / Privacy service provided by Withheld for Pravacy ehf)) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on December 11, 2025 with the registrant and contact information of nominally multiple underlying registrants revealed by the Registrar, requesting the Complainant to either file separate complaint(s) for the Domain Names associated with different underlying registrants or alternatively, demonstrate that the underlying registrants are in fact the same entity and/or that all Domain Names are under common control. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on December 15, 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”). page 2 In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondents of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on December 19, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 8, 2026. The Center received email communications from the Second Respondent on December 15 and 16, 2025 regarding the First and Second Domain Names. The Second Respondent filed a Response with respect to the First and Second Domain Names on December 19, 2025. The remaining Respondents did not file any response. On January 12, 2026, the Center notified the Parties that it would proceed to panel appointment. The Center appointed Piotr Nowaczyk as the sole panelist in this matter on January 20, 2026. 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 is a provider of online news and information services in the field of financial technology. The Complainant publishes news, research, and related content covering technology used in banking, capital markets, insurance, and related financial services sectors through its official website at the domain name <finextra.com>. As stated by the Complainant, its website is visited by approximately 425,000 professionals operating in the financial technology sector each month. The Complainant is the owner of numerous FINEXTRA trademark registrations, including: - the United Kingdom Trade Mark Registration for FINEXTRA (figurative) No. UK00916961724, registered on March 20, 2018; - the European Union Trade Mark Registration for FINEXTRA (figurative) No. 016961724, registered on March 20, 2018; and - the European Union Trade Mark Registration for FINEXTRA (word) No. 016961765, registered on March 20, 2018. The First Domain Name was registered on March 6, 2025. The Second Domain Name was registered on March 5, 2025. The Third Domain Name was registered on August 3, 2025. At the time of submitting the Complainant, the First Domain Name resolved to a website displaying the FINEXTRA trademark and the slogan “Go Extra on Your Finances”, and consisting of a login interface inviting users to sign in or sign up, including via a third-party email service. The website also displayed the contact details of an email address and a WhatsApp number for contacting. The Second Domain Name did not resolve to any active website. The Third Domain Name resolved to a website that replicated the appearance and content of the Complainant’s official website, including its branding, layout, and financial news and information content. The website also contained user account–related features, such as login and password recovery pages. As of the date of this Decision, the Domain Names do not resolve to any active websites. 5. Parties’ Contentions The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the Domain Names. First, the Complainant contends that the Domain Names are identical to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights. page 3 Second, the Complainant argues that the Respondents have neither rights nor legitimate interests in the Domain Names. Third, the Complainant submits that the Domain Names were registered and are being used in bad faith. B. Respondents The Second Respondent contends that the Complainant has not satisfied the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the First and Second Domain Names. First, the Second Respondent states that the First and Second Domain Names were registered because they were publicly available and without knowledge of or intent to target the Complainant. Second, the Second Respondent asserts that the First and Second Domain Names were registered solely for personal and noncommercial use, with no intention to mislead users or derive commercial benefit. Third, the Second Respondent denies bad faith, stating that he resides in India and at the time of registration he was unaware of the Complainant whose operations appear to be based in the United States and the United Kingdom. Fourth, the Second Respondent submits that any associated websites have been taken down and that the registrations do not form part of any pattern of cybersquatting and the registration was an isolated registration. As results from the content of the Response, the Second Respondent did not file a response with respect to the Third Domain Name. Further, the Second Respondent sent email communications to the Center on December 15 and 16, 2025 indicating that he only owns the First and Second Domain Names and he is not the owner of the Third Domain Name. 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1. Preliminary Issue - Consolidation of Multiple Respondents The amended Complaint was filed in relation to nominally different Domain Name registrants. The Complainant alleges that the Domain Name registrants are the same entity or mere alter egos of each other, or under common control. As indicated above, on December 15 and 16, 2025, the Second Respondent sent email communications to the Center indicating that he only owns the First and Second Domain Names and he is not the owner of the Third Domain Name. The remaining Domain Name registrants did not comment on the Complainant’s request for consolidation. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules states that a complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder. In addressing the Complainant’s request, the Panel will consider whether (i) the Domain Names or corresponding websites are subject to common control; and (ii) the consolidation would be fair and equitable to all Parties. See section 4.11.2 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”). As regards common control, the Panel reiterates that on December 15 and 16, 2025, the Second Respondent sent email communications to the Center confirming that he is the registrant of the First and page 4 Second Domain Names and he is not the owner of the Third Domain Name. Moreover, as regards fairness and equity, the Panel sees no reason why consolidation of the disputes with respect to the First and Second Domain Names would be unfair or inequitable to any Party. As regards the Third Domain Name, the Panel finds that the evidence and arguments submitted by the Complainant do not sufficiently demonstrate that the Third Domain Name is under common control with the First and Second Domain Names and/or the registrant of the Third Domain Name and the registrant of the First and Second Domain Names are somehow connected to each other. In particular, the Panel notes that the Third Domain Name was registered several months after the registration of the First and Second Domain Names and that its website content differs materially from that associated with the other two Domain Names. While the First Domain Name resolved to a website displaying the FINEXTRA trademark and the slogan “Go Extra on Your Finances”, featuring a login interface, third-party email sign-in options, and specific contact details, and the Second Domain Name did not resolve to any active website, the Third Domain Name resolved to a website closely replicating the Complainant’s official website, including its branding, layout, and financial news and information content, as well as user account–related functionalities such as login and password recovery pages. The Panel further observes that, unlike the First and Second Domain Names, the registrant of the Third Domain Name is located in the United States, and the available record indicates that the Written Notice was delivered to this registrant’s address. Moreover, the Second Respondent has expressly stated that he owns only two of the three Domain Names, and the Complainant has not provided persuasive evidence to contradict this assertion or to establish a nexus between the registrant of the Third Domain Name and the registrants of the First and Second Domain Names. Considering the above, the Panel decides not to consolidate the disputes regarding all three Domain Names in a single proceeding. Accordingly, the proceeding is dismissed regarding the Third Doman Name <finextra.org>, without prejudice to the filing of a new complaint regarding this domain name <finextra.org>. In the remainder of this decision, the term “the Domain Names” refers to the First and the Second Domain Names, and the term “the Respondent” refers to Akhil Krishna, India; and Akl Wyd, lamarhaute, India. 6.2. Substantive Issue - Three Elements Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy places a burden on the Complainant to prove the presence of three separate elements, which can be summarized as follows: (i) the Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names; and (iii) the Domain Names have been registered and are being used in bad faith. The requested remedy may only be granted if the above criteria are met. At the outset, the Panel notes that the applicable standard of proof in UDRP cases is the “balance of probabilities” or “preponderance of the evidence”. See section 4.2 of the WIPO Overview 3.0. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Under the first element, the Complainant must establish that the Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights. page 5 The Complainant holds valid registrations for the FINEXTRA trademark. The Domain Names incorporate this trademark in its entirety. As numerous UDRP panels have held, incorporating a trademark in its entirety is sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark. See section 1.7 of the WIPO Overview 3.0. The generic Top-Level Domains “.app” and “.club” in the Domain Names are viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such are typically disregarded under the first element test. See section 1.11.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0. Given the above, the Panel finds that the Domain Names are identical to the Complainant’s FINEXTRA trademark for purposes of the Policy. In sum, the Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Under the second element, the Complainant must prove that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names. A right or legitimate interest in the Domain Names may be established, in accordance with paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, if the Panel finds any of the following circumstances: (i) that the Respondent has used or made preparations to use the Domain Names or a name corresponding to the Domain Names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services prior to the dispute; or (ii) that the Respondent is commonly known by the Domain Names, even if the Respondent has not acquired any trademark rights; or (iii) that the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Names without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark. In the present case, the Complainant’s FINEXTRA trademark registrations predate the Respondent’s registration of the Domain Names. There is no evidence in the case record that the Complainant has licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use the FINEXTRA trademark or to register the Domain Names incorporating this trademark. Moreover, it results from the evidence on record that the Respondent does not make use of the Domain Names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor does it make a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Names. As noted above, at the time of submitting the Complainant, the First Domain Name resolved to a website displaying the FINEXTRA trademark and the slogan “Go Extra on Your Finances” and consisting of a login interface inviting users to sign in or sign up, including via a third-party email service. The website also displayed the contact details of an email address and a WhatsApp number for contacting. The Second Domain Name did not resolve to any active website. Thus, the First Domain Name was used to display the FINEXTRA trademark in connection with the website with the intention to impersonate the Complainant, while the Second Domain Name was passively held. As of the date of this Decision, the Domain Names do not resolve to any active websites. Such use of the Domain Names cannot confer rights or legitimate interests on the Respondent. The Respondent’s assertions do not alter this conclusion. The Respondent has not provided any evidence supporting his claimed personal and noncommercial use of the Domain Names, nor did the Respondent explain why he chose to use the term “Finextra” in registering the Domain Names. One of the Domain Names has been used for a website displaying the FINEXTRA trademark requring credentials to sign in or sign up. Noting the composition of the Domain Names, being identical to the Complainant’s distinctive page 6 FINEXTRA trademark, Internet users may well believe that the sign in page website belongs to the Complainant, contrary to the fact. Given the above, there are no circumstances in evidence which could demonstrate, pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, any rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent in respect of the Domain Names. Thus, there is no evidence in the case record that refutes the Complainant’s prima facie case. In sum, the Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Under the third element, the Complainant must prove that the Domain Names have been registered and are being used in bad faith. Bad faith under the UDRP is broadly understood to occur where a respondent takes unfair advantage of or otherwise abuses a complainant’s mark. See section 3.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0. Under paragraph 4(b) of the Policy, evidence of bad faith registration and use includes, without limitation: (i) circumstances indicating the domain name was registered or acquired primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the owner of a trademark or to a competitor of the trademark owner, for valuable consideration in excess of the documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or (ii) circumstances indicating that the domain name was registered in order to prevent the owner of a trademark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided it is a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) circumstances indicating that the domain name was registered primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) circumstances indicating that the domain name has intentionally been used in an attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to a website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with a trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website or location or of a product or service on a website or location. As indicated above, the Complainant’s rights in the FINEXTRA trademark predate the registration of the Domain Names. This Panel finds that the Respondent was or should have been aware of the Complainant’s trademark at the time of registration. This finding is supported by the composition of the Domain Names, which consist exclusively of the Complainant’s FINEXTRA trademark, as well as the subsequent use of the First Domain Name in connection with a website apparently with the intention to impersonate the Complainant. In addition, the Respondent did not provide any explanation regarding his choice of the term “Finextra”, being identical to the Complainant’s mark, in registering the Domain Names. Although the Respondent asserts that he was unaware of the Complainant at the time of registration, which, in the Panel’s view, is unsupported by the record. Moreover, it has been proven to the Panel’s satisfaction that the Complainant’s FINEXTRA trademark is well known and unique to the Complainant, at least within the financial technology sector. Thus, the Respondent could not reasonably ignore the reputation of goods and services under this trademark. In sum, the Panel finds that the Respondent most likely registered the Domain Names with the expectation of taking advantage of the reputation of the Complainant’s FINEXTRA trademark. As noted above, at the time of submitting the Complaint, the First Domain Name was used by the Respondent to host a website reproducing the Complainant’s trademark, displaying the slogan “Go Extra on Your Finances”, and and consisting of a login interface inviting users to sign in or sign up, including via a third-party email service. Consequently, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered and used this page 7 Domain Name deliberately in order to take advantage of the Complainant’s reputation and to give credibility to its operations, and it is also possible that the Respondent could collect personal data through log in requirements on the website. Such use constitutes bad faith. Moreover, as of the date of this Decision, as well as at the time of submitting the Complaint, the Second Domain Name did not resolve to any active website. Considering the overall circumstances of this case, the Panel finds that the Respondent’s passive holding of the Second Domain Name does not prevent a finding of bad faith. As numerous UDRP panels have held, passive holding, under the totality of circumstances of the case, would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the Policy. See section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0. In this case, given the distinctiveness and reputation of the Complainant’s FINEXTRA trademark, the use of the First Domain Name with the intention to impersonate the Complainant, the composition of the Domain Names, and the absence of any plausible good-faith use of the Second Domain Name, the Panel finds the Respondent’s bad faith in relation to the Second Domain Name. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Respondent’s registration and use of the Domain Names constitutes bad faith under the Policy. For the reasons discussed above, the Panel finds the third element of the Policy has been established. 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 Domain Names <finextra.app> and <finextra.club> be transferred to the Complainant. The Panel dismisses the Complaint for the Third Domain Name <finextra.org>, without prejudice to the filling of a new complaint. /Piotr Nowaczyk/ Piotr Nowaczyk Sole Panelist Date: February 6, 2026

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