Perellaweinbergpartner.com

The timeline behind perellaweinbergpartner.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 Perella Weinberg Partners Group LP v. Laura Rivero, perellaweinbergpartner Case No. D2026-3356 1. The Parties Complainant is Perella Weinberg Partners Group LP, United States of America (“United States” or “U.S.”), represented by Markmonitor Limited, United Kingdom. Respondent is Laura Rivero, perellaweinbergpartner, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The Disputed Domain Name <perellaweinbergpartner.com> is registered with Tucows Domains Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 29, 2026. On July 29, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On July 30, 2026, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Disputed Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent (Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 0178627920) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on August 3, 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 August 4, 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 August 13, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 2, 2026. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on September 8, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Richard W. Page as the sole panelist in this matter on September 10, 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 Complainant is part of Perella Weinberg Partners (PWP), an independent, global financial services firm headquartered in New York, United States. Complainant was founded in 2006 by Joseph R. Perella, Peter A. Weinberg and Tarek “Terry” Abdel-Meguid. The firm provides strategic and financial advisory services, including mergers and acquisitions execution, shareholder and defense advisory, capital raising, restructuring and capital markets advisory, to public and private corporations, individual entrepreneurs, institutional investors, and government institutions across a range of industry sectors. Complainant completed its public listing on the Nasdaq Global Select Market under the ticker symbol “PWP” in June 2021. In addition to its New York headquarters, Complainant maintains offices in London, United Kingdom, Paris, France, Munich, Germany, Houston, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago, Denver, United States, and Calgary, Canada. Complainant operates its official corporate website from the domain name <pwpartners.com>. Complainant is the owner of registered rights in the trademark PERELLA WEINBERG PARTNERS (the “PERELLA Mark”) as described below: United States Registration No. 3357877 for PERELLA WEINBERG PARTNERS registered December 18, 2007, in International class 36. The Disputed Domain Name was registered on June 17, 2026, and resolves to a default parking page provided by Zoho Sites, inviting the visitor to “Get Started” building a website. The Disputed Domain Name has been enrolled in three mail exchanges (MXs) to allow the sending and receiving of emails, and which has been used to facilitate a fraudulent recruitment scheme. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name incorporates the PERELLA Mark in its near-entirety, omitting only the final letter “s” from “partners”. Complainant further contends that this is a case of typosquatting and thus the Disputed Domain Name is considered confusingly similar to the PERELLA Mark for purposes of the Policy. Complainant submits that Respondent is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name. Complainant further submits that it has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use the PERELLA Mark in a domain name or in any other way. Complainant further submits that the Disputed Domain Name’s DNS zone file is configured with three MX records, directing mail, together with an SPF TXT record authorizing zohomail.com to send mail on its behalf. The Disputed Domain Name is therefore configured for, and capable of, email communication. Complainant further submits that, notwithstanding the absence of an active website, the Disputed Domain Name has been used to conduct a fraudulent recruitment scheme targeting at least one member of the page 3 public. On or around July 22, 2026, a third party received an unsolicited text message offering a remote “Help Desk Specialist” position and was instructed to correspond with a purported recruiter at an email address using the Disputed Domain Name. Complainant further submits that the third party was subsequently interviewed by way of a Microsoft Teams chat conducted by an individual purporting to be a member of Complainant’s human resources team. When the third party questioned the use of the Disputed Domain Name rather than Complainant’s genuine domain name, the purported interviewer became hostile and dismissive. Complainant further submits that the third party separately ran a ping test confirming that the Disputed Domain Name resolved to an IP address consistent with the WHOIS and DNS records, and noted that the Disputed Domain Name returned a “this site can’t be reached” error when accessed directly in a browser. Complainant further submits that Respondent’s use of the Disputed Domain Name in a fraudulent recruitment scheme prohibits any bona fide or legitimate use of the Disputed Domain Name. Complainant alleges that the fraudulent recruitment scheme also constitutes bad faith under the Policy. Complainant further alleges that the registration of the PERELLA Mark predates the registration of the Disputed Domain Name by 19 years, making it unlikely that Respondent did not know of Complainant’s existence at the time Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name. Complainant further alleges that its agent wrote to Respondent on July 9, 2026, in care of the privacy service and several email addresses at the Disputed Domain Name, but received no response. Complainant concludes that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the Disputed Domain Name. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs the Panel as to the principles the Panel is to use in determining the dispute: “A Panel shall decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules, and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable”. Even though Respondent has failed to file a Response or to contest Complainant’s assertions, the Panel will review the evidence proffered by Complainant to verify that the three essential elements of the claims are met. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 4.3. Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements: i) that the Disputed Domain Name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to the PERELLA Mark in which Complainant has rights;, ii) that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name; and, iii) that the Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. page 4 A. Identical or Confusingly Similar WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1 states that registration of a trademark, here the PERELLA Mark, prima facie satisfies the threshold requirement of Complainant having trademark rights for purposes of standing to file a UDRP case. Complainant has shown rights in respect of the PERELLA Mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. 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 PERELLA Mark and the Disputed Domain Name. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. The entirety of the PERELLA Mark is reproduced within the Disputed Domain Name, with the exception of the deletion of a single letter “s” in “partners”. Accordingly, the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the PERELLA Mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. The disputed domain name is considered a variation of Complainant’s trademark, with the deletion of the letter “s”. The Panel finds such deletion does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the Disputed Domain Name and the PERELLA Mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.9. 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 Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. (i) before any notice to you [Respondent] of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Disputed Domain Name or a name corresponding to the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or (ii) you [Respondent] (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) you [Respondent] are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the PERELLA Mark. Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on Complainant, panels have recognized that proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name may result in the difficult task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of Respondent. As such, where Complainant makes out a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to Respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name (although the burden of proof always remains on Complainant). If Respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, Complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.1. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds Complainant has established a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. Respondent has not rebutted 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. page 5 Panels have held that the use of the Disputed Domain Name for illegitimate activity, here claimed as a fraudulent recruitment scheme, can never confer rights or legitimate interests on Respondent. 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 Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets forth four nonexclusive criteria for Complainant to show bad faith registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name: (i) circumstances indicating that you [Respondent] have registered or you have acquired the Disputed Domain Name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the Disputed Domain Name registration to Complainant who is the owner of the PERELLA Mark or to a competitor of Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the Disputed Domain Name; or (ii) you [Respondent] have registered the Disputed Domain Name in order to prevent the owner of the PERELLA Mark from reflecting the PERELLA Mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) you [Respondent] have registered the Disputed Domain Name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) by using the Disputed Domain Name, you [Respondent] have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the PERELLA Mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your website or location or of a product on your website or location. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that the Disputed Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances may be relevant in assessing whether Respondent’s registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name is in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.2.1. Panels have held that the use of the Disputed Domain Name for illegitimate activity, here claimed as a fraudulent recruitment scheme, constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.4. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds Respondent’s registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name constitutes bad faith under the Policy. 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 <perellaweinbergpartner.com> be transferred to Complainant. /Richard W. Page/ Richard W. Page Sole Panelist Date: September 17, 2026

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