Guggenheimdm.com

The timeline behind guggenheimdm.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 Guggenheim Capital, LLC v. Rick Gascon, PMC Case No. D2026-2255 1. The Parties The Complainant is Guggenheim Capital, LLC, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Snell & Wilmer, LLP, United States. The Respondent is Rick Gascon, PMC, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <guggenheimdm.com> is registered with Network Solutions, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 26, 2026. On May 27, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On May 28, 2026, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response, confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on the same day, providing the additional registrant information disclosed by the Registrar. The Center verified that the 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 of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on June 3, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 23, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Parties of the Respondent’s default on June 24, 2026. The Center appointed Ingrīda Kariņa-Bērziņa as the sole panelist in this matter on July 13, 2026. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration page 2 of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background The Complainant is a United States company providing investment and financial advisory services internationally. It is the proprietor of several trademarks, including United States Trademark Registration No. 3121127 for GUGGENHEIM (word mark) registered on July 25, 2006 for goods and services in classes 16, 36 and 41, claiming dates of first use for each class in 2002, 1951 and 2001, respectively. The Complainant operates its primary business website at the domain name <guggenheimpartners.com>. The disputed domain name was registered on January 15, 2013. The record contains evidence that it resolves to a website featuring pay-per-click (“PPC”) links related to, inter alia, financial investments, and previously did not resolve to an active website. 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 name. Notably, the Complainant contends that it has been in operation for more than a century and today operates fifteen offices in six different countries, employs more than 2,200 employees worldwide, with over USD 350 billion under management. Through lengthy use and promotion of the GUGGENHEIM mark in connection with financial services, the mark has become well known worldwide. The Complainant has operated its website since 2003. The disputed domain incorporates the entirety of the GUGGENHEIM mark. The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor is it affiliated with the Complainant. The Respondent has no rights in the GUGGENHEIM mark. The disputed domain name resolved to a website featuring PPC links including those related to “finance investments,” which is the Complainant’s area of business. The Complainant requests transfer of the disputed domain name. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4(a) of the UDRP requires the Complainant to make out all three of the following: (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 Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. 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 page 3 the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“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 entirety of the Complainant’s GUGGENHEIM mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. Although the addition of other terms (here, the letters “dm”) may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such letters does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.8. 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 proving that 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 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 name. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. The Panel notes that the composition of the disputed domain name and finds that the disputed domain name comprises the Complainant’s GUGGENHEIM mark followed by the letters “dm”. The Panel further notes that the disputed domain name resolved to a website featuring PPC links related to the Complainant’s business. Under these circumstances, the Panel finds that such composition together with the use signal the Respondent’s intention of taking unfair advantage of the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant, which does not establish rights or legitimate interests. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.9. The previously inactive status of the disputed domain name does not alter this finding. 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. page 4 In the present case, the Panel notes that the Respondent intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark. The disputed domain name was registered more than ten years after the Complainant registered its GUGGENHEIM trademark. The disputed domain name comprises the Complainant’s mark, followed by the letters “dm”. The Respondent has offered no explanation for its registration of the disputed domain name, and the Panel takes the view that, more likely than not, by registering the disputed domain name, it intended to capitalize on the reputation and goodwill inherent in the Complainant’s GUGGENHEIM trademark. Under these circumstances, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.1. The Panel finds that the use of the disputed domain name to resolve to a website featuring PPC links related to the Complainant’s business is an indication of bad faith use of the disputed domain name. The Respondent has provided no evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use of the disputed domain name. Given the totality of the circumstances discussed above, the prior passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent the finding of bad faith in the present case. The Panel finds that the Complainant has 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 name <guggenheimdm.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Ingrīda Kariņa-Bērziņa / Ingrīda Kariņa-Bērziņa Sole Panelist Date: July 21, 2026

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