Fisherinvestmentseurope.net, Fisher-investments-europe.org

The timeline behind fisherinvestmentseurope.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 Fisher Asset Management, LLC v. Fill Basket, Efim Denysenko Case No. D2026-1408 1. The Parties The Complainant is Fisher Asset Management, LLC, United States of America, represented by CSC Digital Brand Services Group AB, Sweden. The Original Respondent is Fill Basket, France. The Additional Respondent is Efim Denysenko, Ukraine. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar The Original Disputed Domain Name <fisher-investments-europe.org> and the Additional Disputed Domain Name <fisherinvestmentseurope.net> are registered with Dynadot Inc (the “Registrar”). The Original Disputed Domain Name and the Additional Disputed Domain Name are collectively referred to herein as the “Disputed Domain Names”. 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 2, 2026. On April 2, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Original Disputed Domain Name. On April 4, 2026, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Original Disputed Domain Name which differed from the named Original Respondent (REDACTED FOR PRIVACY / Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot) 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. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on April 7, 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 On April 23, 2026, the Center received a supplemental filing from the Complainant requesting the addition of the Disputed Domain Name <fisherinvestmentseurope.net> (the “Additional Disputed Domain Name”). In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Original Respondent 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 Original Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Original Respondent’s default on April 30, 2026. The Center appointed Andrea Mondini as the sole panelist in this matter on May 5, 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. On May 6, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Additional Domain Name according to the Panel’s instruction. On May 6, 2026, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Additional Domain Name. On May 13, 2026, the Panel invited (i) the Complainant to submit by no later than May 18, 2026, an amended Complaint including a request for the Additional Domain Name to be consolidated to the present dispute and to provide relevant arguments or evidence demonstrating that all domain name registrants are, in fact, the same entity and/or that all domain names are under common control; and (ii) the Additional Respondent to submit by no later than May 25, 2026 a response to the Complainant’s submission. The Complainant filed a second amended complaint on May 13, 2026. The Additional Respondent did not submit any response. 1 4. Factual Background The Complainant was founded in 1979, is a privately held investment advisory firm founded by Ken Fischer, an influential investment management advisor. The Complainant has 6,300 employees and serves 195,000 clients globally. The Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations in several jurisdictions, including: TRADEMARK JURISDICTION REGISTRATION NUMBER REGISTRATION DATE INTERNATIONAL CLASS FISHER INVESTMENTS EUROPE European Union 013338629 February 5, 2015 16, 36, 41 FISHER INVESTMENTS EUROPE United Kingdom UK00913338629 February 5, 2015 16, 36, 41 The Complainant holds several domain names, among them <fisherinvestments.com> and <fisherinvestments.org> which host its main websites. The Original Respondent and the Additional Respondent did not file a Response. Therefore, not much is known about them. 1 On Friday, May 22, 2026, the Center received a copy of a court order dated May 15, 2026, issued by the court where the Registrar is located, granting the Complainant a temporary restraining order against the Respondent. The Panel’s determination in the present dispute is limited to the scope of the UDRP. page 3 The Original Disputed Domain Name was registered on March 24, 2026. The Additional Disputed Domain Name was registered on April 22, 2026. According to the evidence submitted with the Complaint, the Disputed Domain Names resolve to websites prominently displaying the Complainant’s trademark and purporting to offer financial and investment consulting services. 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. Notably, the Complainant contends as follows: The fact that the Disputed Domain Names are registered with the same Registrar and resolve to websites in French claiming to be “Fisher Investments Europe” and offering financial services, indicates that both Disputed Domain Names are owned or controlled by the same person. Therefore, the Complainant requests the consolidation of multiple respondents. The trademark FISHER INVESTMENT EUROPE has been extensively used to identify the Complainant and its services. The Disputed Domain Names are identical to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights, because they incorporate this trademark in its entirety, and the addition of the hyphen does nothing to distinguish the Original Disputed Domain name from the Complainant’s trademark. The Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Names. The Respondents have not been authorized by the Complainant to use this trademark and is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Names. The Respondent’s unauthorized use of the Disputed Domain Names to offer financial and investment services using the Complainant’s mark does not qualify as a bona fide offering of services. The Disputed Domain Names were registered in bad faith because it is obvious that the Respondents had knowledge of both the Complainant and its well known trademark at the time they registered the Disputed Domain Names. The Respondents are using the Disputed Domain Names in bad faith, by posting websites offering financial and investment services using the Complainant’s mark, thereby intentionally attempting to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to their websites, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark. Moreover, the Respondent set up MX records on the Original Disputed Domain Name, giving rise to the possibility that the Respondent may send fraudulent emails for phishing purposes. B. Respondents The Respondents did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, in order to succeed, a complainant must establish each of the following elements: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; page 4 (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. 6.1 Preliminary Procedural Considerations Under paragraph 10 of the Rules, the Panel is required to ensure that the Parties are treated with equality and that each Party is given a fair opportunity to present its case, and also that the administrative proceeding takes place with due expedition. Since the Additional Respondent’s location is stated to be in Ukraine, which is subject to an international conflict at the date of this Decision that may affect case notification, it is appropriate for the Panel to consider, in accordance with its discretion under paragraph 10 of the Rules, whether the proceedings should continue. While it is unclear if the Written Notice was delivered by post to the Additional Respondent, it appears that the Notification of Complaint emails were delivered at the Additional Respondent’s email address, as provided by the Registrar. Therefore, there is no evidence that the case notification was not successfully delivered to the disclosed Additional Respondent’s email address. It is moreover noted that, for the reasons which are set out later in this Decision, the Panel has no serious doubt (albeit in the absence of any Response) that the Additional Respondent registered and has used the Additional Disputed Domain Name in bad faith and with the intention of unfairly targeting the Complainant’s goodwill in its trademark. The Panel concludes that the Parties have been given a fair opportunity to present their case, and decides that the administrative proceedings should continue (see Netbet Entreprises Ltd v. Privacy Service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf / Vladimir Vladimir, Crowd inc, WIPO Case No. D2022- 1420). 6.2 Request for Addition of a Domain Name to the Complaint On April 23, 2026, i.e., after the commencement of the proceedings, the Complainant sent an email communication to the Center requesting the addition of the Additional Disputed Domain Name to the Complaint and on-going proceedings. Requests for addition of domain names to a complaint after it has been notified to the respondent and the proceedings have formally commenced are generally not encouraged – in particular given the potential to delay the case – and would be addressed by the panel on appointment. Except in limited cases where there is clear evidence of respondent gaming/attempts to frustrate the proceedings (e.g., by the respondent’s registration of additional domain names subsequent to complaint notification), panels are generally reluctant to accept such requests because the addition of further domain names would delay the proceedings (which are expected to take place with due expedition). In those cases where panels would grant such a request, the complainant would need to hold relevant trademark rights and the proposed additional domain names would need to be prima facie registered by the same or related respondent. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 4.12.2. In the present case, with its second amended complaint, the Complainant submitted prima facie evidence that (i) the Additional Disputed Domain Name was registered shortly after the Center had formally notified the Original Respondent of the Complaint, and (ii) that the website hosted under the Additional Disputed Domain Name features the same content as that previously hosted under the Original Disputed Domain Name, and (iii) that both Disputed Domain Names have been registered with the same Registrar. The Complainant has therefore submitted evidence of the Respondents’ attempt to frustrate these proceedings. Therefore, the Panel accepts the Complainant’s request to add the Additional Disputed Domain Name to the present dispute. page 5 6.3 Consolidation: Multiple Respondents The second 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. 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 to all Parties. See WIPO Overview 3.1, section 4.11.2. As regards common control, the Panel notes that both of the Disputed Domain Names are registered with the same Registrar and resolve to websites in French claiming to be “Fisher Investments Europe” and offering financial services. These circumstances indicate that the Disputed Domain Names are subject to common control. 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 hereinafter as “the Respondent”) in a single proceeding. 6.4 Substantive issues A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well accepted that the first element functions 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 3.1, section 1.7. The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. The Panel finds the entirety of the mark is identically reproduced within the Disputed Domain Names. The addition of the hyphen between the words forming the Original Disputed Domain Name does not distinguish this domain name from the Complainant’s mark. The addition of the generic Top-Level Domains (“gTLD”) “.org” I and “.net”, respectively, is a standard registration requirement and as such may be disregarded under the confusing similarity test under the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i). WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.11.1. The Panel finds the first 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 for a complainant to prove that a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may page 6 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 available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Names. Furthermore, the composition of the Disputed Domain Names itself suggests a connection or implied affiliation between the Complainant and the Respondent which in fact does not exist. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.5.1 Based on the available record, the Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. 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. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.2.1. In the view of the Panel, noting that the Complainant’s trademark registration predates the registration of the Disputed Domain Names and considering that they resolve to websites featuring the Complainant’s trademark and purporting to offer financial services, it is inconceivable that the Respondent could have registered the Disputed Domain Names without knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark. In the circumstances of this case, this is evidence of registration in bad faith. The impression given by the websites hosted under the Disputed Domain Names would cause Internet users to believe that the Respondent is somehow associated with the Complainant when, in fact, it is not. The Panel holds that by using the Disputed Domain Names, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its web site, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its web site in the sense of Policy, paragraph 4(b)(iv). Moreover, Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity such as in the present case impersonating the Complainant constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.4. Based on the available record, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy with regard to the disputed domain name. 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 <fisher-investments-europe.org> and <fisherinvestmentseurope.net> be transferred to the Complainant. /Andrea Mondini/ Andrea Mondini Sole Panelist Date: May 27, 2026

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