Jcbincome.com, Jcbincome.online

The timeline behind jcbincome.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 JCB Co., Ltd. v. Mansih Gupta Case No. D2026-3474 1. The Parties The Complainant is JCB Co., Ltd., Japan, represented by Markmonitor Limited, United Kingdom. The Respondent is Mansih Gupta, India. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar The disputed domain names <jcbincome.com> and <jcbincome.online> are registered with Dynadot Inc (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 5, 2026. On August 5, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On August 7, 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 (Redacted for Privacy) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on August 12, 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 August 12, 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 the 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. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 3, 2026. The Center appointed Rodrigo Azevedo as the sole panelist in this matter on September 11, 2026. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and page 2 Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background The Complainant is a company incorporated under the laws of Japan that operates under the brand JCB. According to the Complainant, it is Japan’s only international payment brand, offering credit, debit, and pre- paid card products through a network of financial partners, accepted in multiple countries and territories worldwide. The Complainant owns a large global portfolio of registered trademarks for the term JCB, including the following: – United States of America Trademark Registration No. 3608075 for JCB, registered on April 21, 2009; – European Union Trademark Registration No. 002574309 for JCB, registered on October 25, 2011; and – United Kingdom Trademark Registration No. UK00902574309 for JCB, registered on October 25, 2011. The disputed domain names <jcbincome.com> and <jcbincome.online> were both registered on April 17, 2026. Currently, neither disputed domain names resolve to active content. The Complainant brought evidence that the disputed domain name <jcbincome.com> previously resolved to a website displaying the Complainant’s JCB device mark and the words “JCB Income”, beneath which appeared a “Welcome Back” login screen soliciting a phone number and password from visitors, with the browser tab displaying the title “JCB Project Safe Investment”. 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 that: a) The disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The Complainant asserts longstanding registered rights in the JCB trademark, the oldest of its example marks predating the registration of the disputed domain names by more than sixteen years. Each disputed domain name incorporates the JCB mark in its entirety, combined with the English dictionary word “income”, a term closely related to the Complainant’s own field of activity as a financial services and payment card provider, which the Complainant avers increases, rather than dispels, the potential for confusion. The generic Top- Level Domains “.com” and “.online” are to be disregarded. b) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The Complainant has not licensed or authorized the Respondent to use the JCB mark, and the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names, holds no corresponding trademark, and has never traded legitimately under the name “JCB” or “JCB income”. The composition of the disputed domain names carries a risk of implied affiliation. Moreover, the disputed domain name <jcbincome.com> was used for a fraudulent login website impersonating the Complainant to collect users’ phone numbers and passwords, which can never confer rights or legitimate interests, while the disputed domain name <jcbincome.online> is passively held page 3 under common control with the disputed domain name <jcbincome.com> and equally confers no rights or legitimate interests. c) The disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names, which prominently incorporate the well-known and distinctive JCB mark together with a term associated with the Complainant’s field of activity, create initial interest confusion and a presumption of bad faith. The Respondent used the disputed domain name <jcbincome.com> to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to a website impersonating the Complainant and its JCB device mark in order to collect login credentials — conduct corroborated by the Google Chrome “Dangerous site” warning — which constitutes bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy and as illegitimate activity. The passively held the disputed domain name <jcbincome.online>, identical in construction and timing, was registered as a second instrument of the same scheme and its current inactivity does not dispel the presumption of bad faith. Finally, the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain names will be disruptive to the Complainant’s business. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that in order to be entitled to a transfer of each of the disputed domain names, a complainant shall prove the following three elements: a) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and b) the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and c) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used 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 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 JCB mark is reproduced within each of the disputed domain names. Accordingly, the disputed domain names are 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 term “income”) 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 names and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.8. The applicable Top-Level Domains, “.com” and “.online”, are viewed as a standard registration requirement and may be disregarded. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.11.1. The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established. page 4 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 names. 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 names such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. The Complainant has not licensed nor authorized the use of its famous trademark to the Respondent, and the Panel finds no indication that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain names. The Panel further notes that the disputed domain names, which reproduce the Complainant’s mark together with a term (“income”) associated with the Complainant’s field of activity, carry a risk of implied affiliation with the Complainant that cannot constitute fair use. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.5.1. Moreover, the disputed domain name <jcbincome.com> was used to host a website that reproduced the Complainant’s JCB device mark and impersonated the Complainant in order to mislead Internet users into disclosing their phone numbers and passwords. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity, here claimed and evidenced as phishing/identity theft, can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.13.1. The disputed domain name <jcbincome.online>, registered on the same day by the Respondent, and passively held, likewise does not give rise to any rights or legitimate interests under the circumstances of the case. 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. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances may be relevant in assessing whether a respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.2.1. The Panel concludes that it is not likely that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant’s trademark when it registered the disputed domain names. The JCB trademark is well known in the field of financial and payment card services and was registered decades before the disputed domain names, the oldest example mark in the record predating them by more than 16 years. The disputed domain names combine the JCB mark with the term “income”, closely associated with the Complainant’s own field of activity, and the website at the disputed domain name <jcbincome.com> reproduced the Complainant’s JCB device mark, which leaves no doubt that the Respondent targeted the Complainant and its trademark. page 5 With respect to the disputed domain name <jcbincome.com>, the Respondent used the disputed domain name to intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website, within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. The website impersonated the Complainant and solicited visitors’ phone numbers and passwords, and the Google Chrome browser flagged the site with a “Dangerous site” warning cautioning that attackers might trick users into revealing passwords, phone numbers, or credit card numbers. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity such as phishing constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.4. The Panel finds that the registration and use of the disputed domain name <jcbincome.com> constitutes bad faith under the Policy. With respect to the disputed domain name <jcbincome.online>, the disputed domain name does not resolve to any active content. Panels have found that the non-use of a domain name would not by itself prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. To the contrary, in looking at the totality of circumstances in each case, panels have found that the registration and non-use of a domain name can still constitute bad faith for purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.3. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel notes the reputation of the Complainant’s trademark, the composition of the disputed domain name <jcbincome.online> reproducing that mark in its entirety, the fact that the disputed domain name <jcbincome.online> was registered on the same day by the Respondent as the disputed domain name <jcbincome.com>, which was actively used for phishing, and the Respondent’s failure to submit any response or to provide any plausible good-faith explanation, and finds that in the circumstances of this case the passive holding of the disputed domain name <jcbincome.online> does not prevent a finding of 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 <jcbincome.com> and <jcbincome.online> be transferred to the Complainant. /Rodrigo Azevedo/ Rodrigo Azevedo Sole Panelist Date: September 25, 2026

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