Lplfinancialservices.net + 3 more domains

The timeline behind lplfinancialservices.net

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 LPL Financial LLC v. Anton N Belozerov, Utkirbek S Turdiev, Robert F Browdy Case No. D2026-1263 1. The Parties The Complainant is LPL Financial LLC, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Hogan Lovells (Paris) LLP, France. The Respondents are Anton N Belozerov, Sweden, Utkirbek S Turdiev, Uzbekistan, Robert F Browdy, United States. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar The disputed domain names <lplfinancialservices.net>, <lpl-fin.com>, <lplsupport.info>, and <lplsupport.org> are registered with Global Domain Group LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 24, 2026. On March 25, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On March 27, 2026, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain names which differed from the named Respondent (Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Global Domain Group, Global Domain Group Privacy Service) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on March 30, 2026 with the registrant and contact information of nominally multiple underlying registrants revealed by the Registrar(s), requesting the Complainant to either file separate complaint(s) for the disputed 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 April 1, 2026. 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 April 8, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 28, 2026. The Respondents did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondents’ default on April 29, 2026. The Center appointed Ganna Prokhorova as the sole panelist in this matter on May 8, 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, founded in 1989, is a leading participant in the retail financial advice market and the largest independent broker-dealer in the United States. Publicly traded under the ticker “LPLA” since 2010, the Complainant provides an integrated platform of brokerage and investment advisory services to more than 32,000 investment advisors, managing over USD 2.3 trillion in assets. The Complainant employs over 9,000 people and operates from major offices across the United States. The Complainant has established substantial goodwill and reputation in the LPL brand within the financial services industry. The Complainant has developed a strong online presence. The Complainant holds rights to the LPL and LPL FINANCIAL trademark registrations worldwide, including, but not limited to, the following: - United States Trademark Registration LPL (word), No. 1801076, registered on October 26, 1993, in respect of goods in class 36; - United Kingdom Trademark Registration LPL (word), No. UK00003753607, registered on May 13, 2022, in respect of goods in classes 36 and 42; and - European Union Trade Mark Registration LPL FINANCIAL (fig.), No. 018653024, registered on November 11, 2022, in respect of goods in class 36. The Complainant operates the official domain name <lpl.com> since 1994. The Complainant also has registered numerous domain names incorporating its LPL trademark. In addition, the Complainant’s parent company, LPL Holdings, Inc., is the owner of the branded new Top-Level Domains (“TLDs”) “.lpl” and “.lplfinancial”. The disputed domain names are: <lplfinancialservices.net>, registered on December 24, 2025, <lpl- fin.com>, registered on January 30, 2026, <lplsupport.info>, registered on October 15, 2025, <lplsupport.org>, registered on October 15, 2025. As of the date of this Decision, the disputed domain names do not resolve to active websites. The disputed domain names resolve to web pages that state either: “Account disabled by server administrator” or “Greetings! Website s17.link-host.net is ready. The content is to be added”. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain names. page 3 Notably, the Complainant contends that: (1) The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks, since they incorporate the LPL and LPL FINANCIAL marks in their entirety, and the addition of the descriptive terms “fin ”, “support” or “services”, also intersected by a hyphen, does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity with the Complainant’s LPL and LPL FINANCIAL marks, which remain clearly recognizable. The addition of the TLDs “.com”, “.net”, “.org,” or “.info” may also be disregarded for purposes of assessing confusing similarity, as they are viewed as standard registration requirements. (2) The Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names. The Respondents are not affiliated with the Complainant, have no license or authorization to use the LPL and LPL FINANCIAL marks, and are not commonly known by “lpl ” or “lpl financial”. The disputed domain names do not resolve to active web pages, which is not a bona fide offering of goods or services. There is no evidence of the Respondents having made demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain names. Nor is there any evidence of the Respondents having acquired or applied for any trademark registrations for LPL, LPL FINANCIAL, or any variation thereof, as reflected in the disputed domain names. The Respondents are not making any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names. The nature of the disputed domain names is such that they carry a risk of implied affiliation with the Complainant. Such conduct negates any claim of legitimate interest. (3) The disputed domain names are registered and are being used in bad faith. Registering the disputed domain names so obviously connected to the well-known LPL and LPL FINANCIAL marks, without authorization, is itself indicative of bad faith. The Respondents registered the disputed domain names between October 2025 and January 2026, more than 30 years after the Complainant’s first registration of its LPL trademark, and therefore with knowledge of the Complainant’s rights. The Respondents could not credibly have been unaware of the Complainant and its trademarks at the time of registration. The registration of multiple disputed domain names incorporating the Complainant’s marks further supports a finding of bad faith. Although the disputed domain names do not currently resolve to active websites, such passive holding does not preclude a finding of bad faith in the circumstances of this case, taking into account the absence of any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use, the Respondents’ use of a privacy service, and the provision of apparently inaccurate registrant details. The Complainant asks the disputed domain names be transferred. B. Respondent The Respondents did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1. Сonsolidation: Multiple Respondents The amended Complaint was filed in relation to nominally different disputed domain name registrants. The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name registrants are the same entity or mere alter egos of each other, or under common control. The Complainant requests the consolidation of the Complaint against the multiple disputed domain name registrants pursuant to paragraph 10(e) of the Rules. The disputed domain name registrants did not comment on the Complainant’s request. 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 disputed domain names or corresponding websites are subject to common control; and (ii) the consolidation would be fair and equitable page 4 to all Parties. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 4.11.2. As regards common control, the Panel notes that: (a) The disputed domain names follow similar naming structure incorporating the Complainant’s LPL and LPL FINANCIAL trademarks with additional terms “fin ”, “support” or “services” and gTLDs “.com”, “.net”, “.org”, or “.info”); (b) The disputed domain names were registered within a four-month period, between October 15, 2025 and January 30, 2026. The disputed domain names <lplsupport.org> and <lplsupport.info> were registered on the same day – October 15, 2025; (c) The disputed domain names were registered via the same registrar, Global Domain Group LLC; (d) The disputed domain names resolve to web pages that state either “Account disabled by server administrator” or “Greetings! Website s17.link-host.net is ready. The content is to be added”, with no further substantive content on the web pages; (e) There appear to be inconsistencies in the registrants’ original information that may indicate that such information is inaccurate or incomplete. The Center has discharged its duties to notify the Respondents, who have not objected to the consolidation request of the Complainant or to its arguments in support of the request. As regards fairness and equity, the Panel sees no reason why consolidation of the disputes would be unfair or inequitable to any Party. Accordingly, the Panel decides to consolidate the disputes regarding the nominally different disputed domain name registrants (referred to below as “the Respondent”) in a single proceeding. 6.2. Substantive Issues Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules provides that the Panel is to decide the Complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, the Rules, and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable. The onus is on the Complainant to make out its case and it is apparent, both from the terms of the Policy and the decisions of past UDRP panels, that the Complainant must show that all three elements set out in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been established before any decision order can be made to transfer the disputed domain name. In UDRP cases, the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities. To succeed in a UDRP complaint, the Complainant has to demonstrate that all the elements listed in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied, namely: (i) the disputed domain name is 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 respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The Panel has reviewed the entire case file and the evidence provided. The Panel is also guided, where pertinent, by the WIPO Overview 3.1, which reflects consensus positions of UDRP panels on many common issues. The Panel will make reference to these consensus views in the analysis below as applicable. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or page 5 threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant’s mark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. Based on the evidence submitted by the Complainant, the Panel finds that the Complainant has shown rights in respect of its LPL and LPL FINANCIAL trademarks for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. The Panel finds that the Complainant’s marks are recognizable within the disputed domain names. The disputed domain names incorporate the Complainant’s LPL and LPL FINANCIAL trademarks in their entirety, with the only differences being the addition of the descriptive terms “fin ”, “support”, or “services” intersected by a hyphen. In accordance with WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.8, the addition of other terms, whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise, would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element, as the Complainant’s marks remain clearly recognizable within the disputed domain names. The Panel further notes that the TLDs “.com”, “.net”, “.org” or “.info” are required only for technical reasons and are generally ignored for the purposes of comparison of the Complainant’s marks to the disputed domain names. WIPO Overview 3.1, sections 1.11.1 and 1.11.2. Accordingly, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s marks and that the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is satisfied. 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 often 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 forward 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 fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.1. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds that the Complainant has made a prima facie showing that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The Complainant has established rights in the LPL and LPL FINANCIAL trademarks and confirms that it has no business or other relationship with the Respondent. The Complainant has not authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use its mark. Furthermore, there is nothing in the record to suggest that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain names or any corresponding name under paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy. The evidence before the Panel shows that the disputed domain names wholly incorporate the Complainant’s LPL and LPL FINANCIAL trademarks. At the time of this Decision, the disputed domain names do not resolve to active websites and do not appear to be used for any genuine business purpose. Such use cannot constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services under paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy, nor does it qualify as a legitimate noncommercial or fair use without intent for commercial gain under paragraph 4(c)(iii). There is no evidence that, before notice of the dispute, the Respondent made any demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain names in connection with a legitimate offering of goods or services. Nor is there any evidence that the Respondent has acquired or applied for any trademark rights in LPL, LPL FINANCIAL, or any variation thereof. The manner in which the Respondent has used the disputed domain page 6 names indicates an intent to take unfair advantage of the Complainant’s reputation, rather than to pursue any legitimate business purpose. Furthermore, the nature of the disputed domain names carries a risk of implied affiliation with the Complainant, which does not support any claim of legitimate fair use. In view of the above, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Accordingly, the Complainant has satisfied the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. 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 faith. In the present case, the Panel notes that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith under paragraph 4(b) of the Policy. The Complainant, established in 1989, is well known in the retail financial advice market and is considered one of the largest independent broker-dealers in the United States. The Complainant is well known for providing services to independent financial advisers and financial institutions, supplying them with technology, analytical data, clearing and compliance services, as well as practice management software, which they require to establish and grow their businesses. The Complainant has also operated the domain name <lpl.com>. Given the Complainant’s international reputation and the distinctive nature of its LPL and LPL FINANCIAL trademarks, the Panel finds it implausible that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant’s rights. The Respondent registered the disputed domain names more than 30 years after the Complainant’s first registration of its LPL trademark. The Panel takes into account the nature of the disputed domain names, the timing of their registration, the fact that the Respondent registered not one but four disputed domain names, and that all disputed domain names were registered via the same registrar. In accordance with section 3.2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.1, such composition strongly supports a finding of deliberate targeting. Although the disputed domain names do not resolve to an active website, Panels have consistently held that passive holding does not preclude a finding of bad faith. Considering the reputation of the Complainant’s marks, the composition of the disputed domain names, and the Respondent’s failure to submit any Response, the Panel finds that the passive holding of the disputed domain names in this case does not prevent a finding of bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.3. See BioNTech SE v. Joseph, [dRIME] [OMNX Inc.], WIPO Case No. D2025-3388. The Panel further notes that the underlying registrant details appear to contain inconsistencies, suggesting that such information may be inaccurate or incomplete, and that the Respondent has made use of a privacy or proxy service to conceal its identity. In the circumstances of this case, these elements support an inference that the Respondent sought to obscure its identity and avoid accountability, which constitutes an additional indicium of bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.6. The Respondent has provided no explanation for its choice of the disputed domain names, is not commonly known by the disputed domain names, and has not been authorized by the Complainant to use its trademark. The absence of any Response further reinforces the Panel’s inference of bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 4.3. Considering the totality of circumstances, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. Accordingly, the third element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been established. page 7 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 disputed domain names <lplfinancialservices.net>, <lpl-fin.com>, <lplsupport.info>, and <lplsupport.org> be transferred to the Complainant. /Ganna Prokhorova/ Ganna Prokhorova Sole Panelist Date: May 19, 2026

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