Clearscorepath.net

The timeline behind clearscorepath.net

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 Clear Score Technology Limited v. Bala Murugan, Lemmatrix Pvt Ltd Case No. D2026-3280 1. The Parties The Complainant is Clear Score Technology Limited, United Kingdom, represented by Stobbs IP Ltd, United Kingdom. The Respondent is Bala Murugan, Lemmatrix Pvt Ltd, India. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <clearscorepath.net> is registered with Name.com, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 24, 2026. On July 24, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 24, 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 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 August 7, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 27, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 28, 2026. The Center appointed Alexander Duisberg as the sole panelist in this matter on September 4, 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. page 2 4. Factual Background The Complainant is a United Kingdom company incorporated in 2014. The Complainant operates as a financial technology business, providing individuals with free access to their credit score reports through its website at “www.clearscore.com”. The Complainant has expanded internationally, including into South Africa, Australia, Canada and New Zealand. The Complainant has partnered with over 200 financial institutions and had a cumulative total of 7.5 million user accounts in 2024. The Complainant is the owner of the following registered trademarks: - European Union word mark CLEARSCORE No. 014984108, registered on July 21, 2016, in classes 35, 36 and 42; - United States of America (“United States”) word mark CLEARSCORE No. 6138408, registered on September 1, 2020, in classes 35, 36 and 42; and - United States word and device mark CLEARSCORE No. 6258636, registered on February 2, 2021, in class 9. The disputed domain name <clearscorepath.net> was registered on May 11, 2026. According to the uncontested evidence submitted by the Complainant, the disputed domain name resolved to a website operating under the name “ClearScorePath” and offering financial and credit-related services, including credit monitoring, identity theft protection, credit-score simulation, debt consolidation and personalised financial action plans. The website invited users to engage with or subscribe to these services through calls to action such as “Analyze My Score”, “View Protection Plans”, “Get My Plan”, “Compare Loans” and “Subscribe Now”. These services fall directly within the Complainant’s field of commercial activity. The website listed a United States address ([...] North Carolina) which, according to the evidence submitted by the Complainant, is associated with a commercial mailbox service. Nothing on the website indicated that the disputed domain name was not affiliated with the Complainant. The Respondent did not submit any response. 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 the disputed domain name <clearscorepath.net> is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s CLEARSCORE trademarks, as it incorporates the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety. The Complainant submits that the addition of the descriptive term “path” does not change the overall impression or meaning of the disputed domain name and that CLEARSCORE is the dominant and distinctive element appearing at the beginning of the disputed domain name. The Complainant states that it has never authorised the use of the disputed domain name for such website. The Complainant argues that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in connection with a website offering services that are identical or highly similar to the Complainant’s services. The Complainant further contends that the Respondent has never been commonly known by the name CLEARSCORE and that the Respondent is not making any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. The Complainant submits that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Complainant argues that the Respondent could not have been unaware of the Complainant’s brand when registering the disputed domain name. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of page 3 confusion with the Complainant’s trademarks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the Respondent’s website and the services promoted through it. The Complainant finally submits that the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name disrupts the Complainant’s business by diverting Internet users seeking the Complainant’s services to a competing platform. B. Respondent The Respondent did not submit any response. 6. Discussion and Findings According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove each 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 disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The Panel acknowledges the consensus view that the Respondent’s default to respond to the Complaint does not automatically result in a decision in favor of the Complainant. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1“), section 4.3. Although the Panel may draw appropriate inferences from the Respondent’s default, paragraph 4 of the Policy requires the Complainant to support its assertions with actual evidence in order to succeed in the UDRP proceeding. 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 entirety of the 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, “path”) may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such term does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy (see LEGO Holding A/S v. John Bau dk, WIPO Case No. D2025-4362; and Soch Apparels Private Limited v. Navya Creation, Navya creation, WIPO Case No. D2025-0870. 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. page 4 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 (see Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. WalMart Careers, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2012-0285; Sanofi v. rahil ahmed, rahil foods, WIPO Case No. D2025-2234; and Swedish Match North Europe AB, Philip Morris International, Inc v. durant Kevin, Host Master, Njalla Okta LLC, WIPO Case No. D2026-0081). 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. Based on the available record, the Panel notes that the Respondent does not own any rights in any trademark which comprises part or all of the disputed domain name. The Complainant has not given its consent for the Respondent to use its registered CLEARSCORE trademarks in a domain name registration nor is the Respondent commonly known by the disputed domain name (see OSRAM GmbH. v. Mohammed Rafi/Domain Admin, Privacy Protection Service INC d/b/a PrivacyProtect.org, WIPO Case No. D2015-114 9; and Sanofi v. rahil ahmed, rahil foods, WIPO Case No. D2025-2234). WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.1. The disputed domain name resolved to a website operating under the name “ClearScorePath” and offering financial and credit-related services which fall directly within the Complainant’s field of commercial activity. Nothing on the website indicated that the disputed domain name was not affiliated with the Complainant. The Panel finds that the composition of the disputed domain name along with its use may imply to Internet users interested in services of the Complainant that the website is an official website from the Complainant. In these circumstances, and given what is said in relation to bad faith below, the Panel finds the likelihood is that the Respondent intended to take advantage of the Complainant’s trademark to attract Internet users to its competing platform for its commercial gain, which cannot confer rights or legitimate interests (see Accor v. Eren Atesmen, WIPO Case No. D2009-0701; and President and Fellows of Harvard College v. Adam Mohd isa, WIPO Case No. D2022-3001). WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.1. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent (see Lonza Ltd v. Geral Gera, SEGLINK, WIPO Case No. D2025-1342; SESSUN v. Samuel Williams Williams, WIPO Case No. D2023-2132; and Aspen Insurance Holdings Limited v. Bukayo Ajiboye, WIPO Case No. D2023-0669). WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.13.1. 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. The outcome of the third element analysis here largely mirrors that of the second element above. The Panel finds that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name to intentionally attract, for commercial gain, Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s CLEARSCORE trademarks. Based on the uncontested evidence submitted by the Complainant, the Respondent operated a website under the disputed domain name offering services in the exact same field as the Complainant, under “ClearScorePath”. Furthermore, the website did not disclose the Respondent’s (lack of) relationship with the page 5 Complainant. Additionally, the Panel notes the reputation of the Complainant’s CLEARSCORE mark and its use for almost ten years before the registration of the disputed domain name, and finds that the Respondent could not reasonably ignore the reputation of the Complainant’s brand and the services offered under its trademarks. Taken together, these circumstances suggest that the disputed domain name was deliberately registered and used to attract Internet users seeking the Complainant’s financial services by creating confusion with the Complainant’s trademarks and business. Panels have confirmed in a variety of UDRP decisions that where a complainant’s trademark registrations significantly predate the registration of a disputed domain name and the mark is well known, the mere registration of a confusingly similar domain name by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith, and the respondent must be deemed to be trading on the goodwill of the complainant’s mark (see Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin, Maison Fondée en 1772 v. The Polygenix Group Co., WIPO Case No. D2000-0163; Barclays Bank PLC v. PrivacyProtect.org / Sylvia Paras, WIPO Case No. D2011-2 011; and International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) v. Zachary Silva, Catenact.io, WIPO Case No. D2025-1941). WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.1.4. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity such as passing off, constitutes bad faith (see Natixis v. Nicole Laboissiere, NATIXIS COFICINE, WIPO Case No. D2024-5310; Besins Manufacturing Belgium S.A. v. MaroonX Technologies, WIPO Case No. D2025-0692; and Hachette Filipacchi Presse v. archit kumar, WIPO Case No. D2025-4087). WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.4. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith under the Policy. The Panel further notes that the Respondent has not come forward to contest the Complainant’s allegations or to provide any explanation as to the registration and use of the disputed domain name. The Panel also notes that at the time of the rendering of this Decision, the disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website, which, however, does not preclude a finding of bad faith (see Accenture Global Services Limited v. Patel Holdings, WIPO Case No. D2016-0367; Keller Group plc v. Hoskins Felicia, WIPO Case No. D2025-1452; and BioNTech SE v. Joseph, [dRIME] [OMNX Inc.], WIPO Case No. D2025-3388). WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.3. 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 <clearscorepath.net> be transferred to the Complainant. /Alexander Duisberg/ Alexander Duisberg Sole Panelist Date: September 14, 2026

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