Raiseglobalco.com + 3 more domains

The timeline behind raiseglobalco.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 AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Akkadian Ventures, Inc. v. Aman Sajid, Cold IQ LLC Case No. D2026-2075 1. The Parties Complainant is Akkadian Ventures, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Com Laude Limited, United Kingdom. Respondent is Aman Sajid, Cold IQ LLC, United States. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar The disputed domain names <raiseglobalco.com>, <raiseglobalpartners.com>, <raiseglobalplatform.com>, and <raiseglobalprimehub.com> are registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 14, 2026. On May 15, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On May 18, 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 (Registration private, Domains By Proxy, LLC) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on May 19, 2026, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on May 20, 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”). In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on May 27, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 16, 2026. Respondent did not submit any response. page 2 On June 19, 2026, the proceedings were suspended upon Complainant’s request and on July 29, 2026, Complainant requested to reinstitute the proceedings. The proceedings were reinstituted on July 30, 2026. The Center appointed Scott R. Austin as the sole panelist in this matter on August 17, 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 Without contest by Respondent, Complainant asserts in its Complaint, as amended, and in its attached annexes provides sufficient evidence to support that: Complainant, Akkadian Ventures, Inc., is a private investment firm founded in 2010 and incorporated in Delaware, United States that organizes and conducts business conferences in the field of venture capital under the service mark RAISE (the “RAISE Mark”). Complainant operates in the venture capital and startup industry, connecting founders, investors, and industry leaders through curated events, advisory services, and investment initiatives. As of September 2025, Complainant reports USD 1.27 billion in assets under management and a portfolio of 97 companies. A central component of Complainant’s business is an international conference series organized annually since 2016 for entrepreneurs, venture capitalists, and other participants in the startup community markete d under the trademark RAISE GLOBAL SUMMIT (the “RAISE GLOBAL SUMMIT Mark”). Complainant operates the official website for the RAISE Global Summit at “www.raiseglobal.co” (the “Official RAISE Global Website”). Complainant owns trademark registrations for the RAISE GLOBAL SUMMIT and RAISE Marks, including the following: • United States Trademark Registration No. 7,309,827, RAISE GLOBAL SUMMIT, registered on February 20, 2024, for services in International Class 41. The registration disclaims “GLOBAL SUMMIT” apart from the mark as shown; • United Kingdom Trademark Registration No. UK00004080217, RAISE GLOBAL SUMMIT, registered on October 18, 2024, in International Class 41; and • United States Trademark Registration No. 7,309,824, RAISE (stylized), registered on February 20, 2024, for services in International Class 41. The registration depicts the word RAISE with a stylized letter “R”. Respondent registered all four disputed domain names <raiseglobalco.com>, <raiseglobalpartners.com>, <raiseglobalplatform.com>, and <raiseglobalprimehub.com> with the same registrar on the same day, September 1, 2025. The disputed domain name registrations therefore postdate Complainant’s above United States trademark registrations by more than one year. The disputed domain names were also registered shortly before the October 23, 2025, RAISE Global Summit. At the time of the Complaint, each disputed domain name redirected Internet users to Complainant’s Official RAISE Global Website. The record further shows that the DNS configurations for each disputed domain name include Mail Exchanger (“MX”) and Sender Policy Framework (“SPF”) records, enabling the disputed domain names to be used for email communications. page 3 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain names. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings In view of Respondent’s failure to submit any Response, the Panel shall decide these administrative proceedings on the basis of Complainant’s undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. See Talk City, Inc. v. Michael Robertson, WIPO Case No. D2000-0009; see also Microsoft Corporation v. Freak Films Oy, WIPO Case No. D2003-0109. Where no Response is filed, however, Complainant must still make out its case in all respects under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. To succeed, Complainant must demonstrate that all the elements listed in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied. The Panel will address its findings on each of these requirements in more detail below. The standard of proof under the Policy is often expressed as the “balance of the probabilities” or “preponderance of the evidence” standard. Under this standard, an asserting party needs to establish that it is more likely than not that the claimed fact is true. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 4.2. 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 Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain names. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. Complainant has demonstrated registered rights in the RAISE GLOBAL SUMMIT and RAISE marks. Ownership of a registered trademark generally satisfies the threshold requirement of having trademark rights for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. The Panel notes that Complainant’s United States RAISE GLOBAL SUMMIT registration disclaims “GLOBAL SUMMIT” apart from the mark as shown, and that Complainant’s RAISE registration includes a stylized letter “R”. These features do not prevent Complainant from establishing standing here. In assessing confusing similarity, panels generally compare the alphanumeric domain name with the textual components of the relevant mark and largely disregard design elements incapable of representation in a domain name. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.10. In each disputed domain name, the textual element RAISE is plainly recognizable. Each disputed domain name incorporates RAISE in its entirety and combines it with the term “global” and one or more additional terms - “co”, “partners”, “platform”, or “primehub”. The addition of these terms does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity where the relevant trademark remains recognizable in the disputed domain names. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.8. page 4 The generic Top-Level Domain “.com” is a standard registration requirement and may be disregarded for purposes of the first-element comparison. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.11.1. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to trademarks in which Complainant has rights and that Complainant has established the first element of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a non-exclusive list of circumstances in which a respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. Although the overall burden of proof remains on Complainant, once Complainant makes out a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production shifts to Respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating such rights or legitimate interests. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.1. See also, Malayan Banking Berhad v. Beauty, Success & Truth International, WIPO Case No. D2008-1393. The Panel finds that Complainant has established such a prima facie case. Complainant has not licensed, authorized, or otherwise permitted Respondent to use the RAISE GLOBAL SUMMIT or RAISE marks or to register domain names incorporating those marks. There is no evidence that Respondent, identified by the Registrar as Aman Sajid, Cold IQ LLC, has been commonly known by any of the disputed domain names or by “raise” or “raise global”. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.3. Nor does the record support a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Each disputed domain name redirected to Complainant’s Official RAISE Global Website. Such redirection, without Complainant’s authorization, confirms that the disputed domain names were selected with Complainant and its marks in mind and does not constitute a bona fide offering or fair use. See CSC Holdings, Inc. v. cablevision-lightpath.com Inc., WIPO Case No. D2004-1057. The composition and use of the disputed domain names also create a risk of implied affiliation with Complainant rather than a clear distinction from it. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.5.2. See also Suncor Energy Inc. v. Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc. / andre bechamp, WIPO Case No. D2012-2123. The MX and SPF records further show that the disputed domain names are configured for email use. In the circumstances of this case, where the disputed domain names incorporate Complainant’s RAISE mark and redirect users to Complainant’s official website reinforcing the false impression of affiliation, the Panel finds it implausible to believe that potential emails originating from the disputed domain names or received from users intending to reach Complainant but directed to Respondent without alerting users that their message has been misdirected could support rights or any legitimate interest in Respondent. See WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.5.2. Respondent has not rebutted Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with evidence of any circumstance contemplated by paragraph 4(c) of the Policy or otherwise establishing rights or legitimate interests. The Panel therefore finds that Complainant has established the second element of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith For purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) sets out non-exclusive circumstances that constitute evidence of registration and use in bad faith. Bad faith is broadly understood to arise where a respondent takes unfair advantage of or otherwise abuses a complainant’s mark, and panels may infer intent from the totality of the facts and circumstances. WIPO Overview 3.1, sections 3.1 and 3.2.1. The Panel finds that Respondent registered the disputed domain names with actual knowledge of and with the intention of targeting Complainant and its marks. Complainant’s United States registrations for RAISE GLOBAL SUMMIT and RAISE predate the September 1, 2025, registrations of the disputed domain names by more than one year. More significantly, each disputed domain name was configured to redirect Internet users to Complainant’s Official RAISE Global Website. That redirection is compelling evidence that Respondent was aware of Complainant and deliberately selected the disputed domain names because of page 5 their association with Complainant’s RAISE Global Summit. The timing of the registrations shortly before the October 23, 2025, RAISE Global Summit provides additional contextual support for targeting. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.2.1. The same redirection also supports a finding of bad-faith use. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.1.4 recognizes, among the evidence relevant to bad faith based on confusion, redirection of a disputed domain name to the complainant’s own website. See International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) v. Tyler Dikman, WIPO Case No. D2025-2376. Respondent, rather than Complainant, retains control of the disputed domain names and therefore retains the ability to alter the redirection. See CSC Holdings, Inc. v. cablevision-lightpath.com Inc., WIPO Case No. D2004-1057. The DNS configuration provides further support for the Panel’s conclusion. Each disputed domain name has MX and SPF records and therefore is capable of being used for email communications. The record does not establish that Respondent actually sent phishing or fraudulent emails, and the Panel does not make such a finding. Nevertheless, panels recognize that non-website uses of domain names, including deceptive email and phishing, may constitute bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.4. In Arnold Clark Automobiles Limited v. Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC / Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio Electronico, WIPO Case No. D2021-3924, the panel treated the presence of MX and SPF records on a confusingly similar domain name, together with other evidence, as supporting an inference of bad faith because of the risk of deceptive email use. See also Publix Asset Management Company v. WhoisGuard, Inc. / Entrep, David Levey / Mr. Dunaway, WIPO Case No. D2013-1349. Considering cumulatively the confusing composition of four domain names targeting Complainant’s RAISE Mark, their registration after Complainant acquired trademark rights and shortly before its 2025 summit, their redirection to Complainant’s official website, the MX and SPF email configuration, and Respondent’s failure to provide any explanation or evidence of good-faith use, the Panel finds on the balance of probabilities that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. Complainant has therefore established the third element of the Policy. 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 <raiseglobalco.com>, <raiseglobalpartners.com>, <raiseglobalplatform.com>, and <raiseglobalprimehub.com> be transferred to Complainant. /Scott R. Austin/ Scott R. Austin Sole Panelist Date: September 2, 2026

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