Newmountaincapitalmx.com

The timeline behind newmountaincapitalmx.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 AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION New Mountain Capital, LLC v. Gabriel Herrera, mountaincapital Case No. D2026-1386 1. The Parties The Complainant is New Mountain Capital, LLC, United States of America (“United States” or “U.S.”), represented by Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, United States. The Respondent is Gabriel Herrera, mountaincapital, Spain. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <newmountaincapitalmx.com> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Squarespace Domains II LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 1, 2026. On April 1, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On April 1, 2026, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response, disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on April 7, 2026, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. On April 7, 2026, the Center informed the parties in Spanish and English, that the language of the registration agreement for the Domain Name is Spanish. The Respondent sent an email communication to the Center on April 9, 2026. On April 12, 2026, the Complainant filed an amended Complaint containing a request that English be the language of the proceedings. 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”). In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent in Spanish and English of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on April 16, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 6, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Mathias Lilleengen as the sole panelist in this matter on May 27, 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 global investment firm headquartered in New York City with over 300 employees in offices and operations across the United States, Europe, and Asia. Since its inception in 1999, the Complainant has invested in the trademark NEW MOUNTAIN CAPITAL. The Complainant owns U.S. registration number 3,850,335 for NEW MOUNTAIN CAPITAL, registered on September 21, 2010. The Domain Name was registered on February 7, 2026. The Complainant filed evidence showing that the Domain Name redirects to the Complainant’s official site and has also been used in furtherance of a fraudulent email scheme, with the Respondent posing as an employee of the Complainant. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant requests for English to be the language of the proceedings. The Complainant documents trademark rights in NEW MOUNTAIN CAPITAL and argues that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its trademark. The Domain Name incorporates the entirety of the Complainant’s well-established trademark. The addition of a geographic suffix “mx” is inadequate to prevent confusion between the trademark and the Domain Name. The Complainant argues that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name and the Respondent has registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith. Given the Respondent’s consent to transfer the Domain Name, it is not necessary for the Panel to present and assess the Complainant’s arguments in detail. B. Respondent The Respondent sent as mentioned above an informal email to the Center on April 9, 2026, in which the Respondent agreed to English as the language of proceedings. Moreover, the Respondent referred to WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 4.10, and “explicitly” consented to transfer the Domain Name to the Complainant. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Language of Proceedings The Panel notes that the language of the registration agreement for the disputed domain name is Spanish. Pursuant to the Rules, paragraph 11, in the absence of an agreement between the parties, or unless specified otherwise in the registration agreement, the language of the administrative proceedings shall be the language of the registration agreement. The Complainant requested that the language of the proceedings be English. The Respondent sent its informal email communication in English to “expedite the resolution of the matter.” In the circumstances, the Panel determines under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules that the language of the proceedings shall be English. page 3 B. Consent to Transfer Under UDRP panel decisions, when a respondent unilaterally consents to the transfer of a disputed domain name (and a transfer is sought by the complainant), the panel may order the immediate transfer solely on the basis of such consent. See WIPO Overview 3.1, section 4.10. In this case, the Respondent has given an unambiguous, unconditional and “explicit” consent to transfer of the Domain Name. The Panel may in its discretion still find it appropriate to proceed to a substantive decision on the merits; in particular if there is a broader interest in recording a substantive decision or there is ambiguity as to the scope of the respondent’s consent. This is not the case here. The Complainant agrees with the Respondent’s willingness for the Panel to transfer the Domain Name without assessing the three UDRP elements. The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant holds trademark rights in NEW MOUNTAIN CAPITAL. Under the circumstances of this case, the Panel does not find it necessary to address the merits (see Rockwool International A/S v. Lin Chengxiong, WIPO Case No. D2012-0472). 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 Name <newmountaincapitalmx.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Mathias Lilleengen/ Mathias Lilleengen Sole Panelist Date: June 3, 2026

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