My-planmembers.com

The timeline behind my-planmembers.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 PlanMember Financial Corporation v. Hagenes-VonRueden Diljá Freyjudóttir Case No. D2026-3835 1. The Parties The Complainant is PlanMember Financial Corporation, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Byron Bowman, United States. The Respondent is Hagenes-VonRueden Diljá Freyjudóttir, Iceland. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <my-planmembers.com> is registered with Nicenic International Group Co., Limited (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 27, 2026. On August 27, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 28, 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 (Name and Address of Respondent is Unknown) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on August 28, 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 amendment to the Complaint on August 31, 2026. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to 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 September 1, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 21, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 22, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Uwa Ohiku as the sole panelist in this matter on September 23, 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 The Complainant has been providing retirement plan services, investment products and annuity solutions for over 32 years under its PLANMEMBER trademark. The Complainant owns several trademarks including the following: United States trademark registration No. 6,318,746 PLANMEMBER, registered on April 13, 2021, and United States trademark registration No. 8,246,791 MYPLANMEMBER, registered on May 5, 2026. The Complainant also owns various domain names, including <planmember.com>, registered on October 22, 1995. The disputed domain name was registered on August 11, 2026. The Complainant has provided evidence that it used to resolve to a site where it appeared the Complainant’s PLANMEMBER circle-design logo, the wording “PlanMember Services” and the identical copy of the landing page of the Complainant’s website. Presently, the disputed domain name resolves to an inactive page, with the following message: “this site cannot be reached”. The Respondent appears to be an individual located in Iceland. 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 as follows, amongst several other contentions: That the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered MYPLANMEMBER and PLANMEMBER marks; that the disputed domain name incorporates its MYPLANMEMBER trademark entirely; that the additional elements “my”, the hyphen “-”, and the letter “s” at the end of the disputed domain name do not alter the fact that PLANMEMBER remains the dominant element. That the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; that registration of the disputed domain name alone, does not give the Respondent rights or legitimate interests; that the Respondent does not own a trademark incorporating the disputed domain name; that the Respondent is not making a legitimate or bona fide use of the disputed domain name, which resolves to a website identical to the Complainant’s, with the same sign-in format, and displaying the Complainant’s PLANMEMBER mark and distinctive circle-design logo. That the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith; that the Complainant owns several trademark registrations incorporating the PLANMEMBER mark, with a substantial online and marketplace presence; that a basic Internet search would have disclosed the Complainant’s rights in the PLANMEMBER marks and related domain names; that the Respondent’s bad faith conduct is evident in the configuration of the disputed domain name and in its manner of use, which is an impersonation of the Complainant’s website, with the same sign-in format and displaying the Complainant’s PLANMEMBER mark and distinctive circle-design logo; that these circumstances are likely to mislead Internet users into believing that the disputed domain name is an official webpage of the Complainant, thus creating a substantial risk of exposure of personal and financial information to Internet users. page 3 B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The first element functions as a standing requirement, and 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 trademarks PLANMEMBER and MYPLANMEMBER are reproduced and recognizable 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. Further, hyphen “-”, and the letter “s” at the end of the disputed domain name do not prevent the 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. Whilst the complainant always bears the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings, Panels recognize that proving that a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult task of “proving a negative”, which requires information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. Thus, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden shifts to the respondent, who must then come forward to demonstrate that it has rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to do so, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.1. Having reviewed the available record, the contentions made by the Complainant, the annexures appended to the Complaint, and the overall preponderance of evidence, 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 or come forward to demonstrate that it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity, as applicable to this case: impersonation, passing off, or other types of fraud, can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a 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 out a list of circumstances that may indicate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances may also 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. page 4 In the present case, the Panel notes that the configuration of the disputed domain name clearly establishes foreknowledge of the Complainant on the part of the Respondent before the disputed domain name was registered and that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith. As for bad faith use, the Panel further notes that the manner of use which the disputed domain name was used to resolve to a site that displays the Complainant’s PLANMEMBER distinctive circle-design logo, the wording “PlanMember Services” and the identical copy of the landing page of the Complainant’s website upon entering the disputed domain name, c onstitute an intentional attempt on the part of the Respondent, to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark, acts which fall particularly within paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity, here, claimed: impersonation, passing off, or other types of fraud, constitutes bad faith. 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 disputed domain name is presently inactive. Panels have however found that the non-use of a domain name, including an inactive page, as in this case, does not by itself prevent the finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding, but the totality of the circumstances in each case is considered in determining whether the registration and non-use of a domain name constitute bad faith for purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.3. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel notes the distinctiveness or reputation of the Complainant’s trademark, and the composition of the disputed domain name, and finds that in the circumstances of this case the current passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent the 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 <my-planmembers.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Uwa Ohiku/ Uwa Ohiku Sole Panelist Date: September 29, 2026

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