Mail-cfainstiitute.org + 3 more domains

The timeline behind mail-cfainstiitute.org

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.

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION CFA Institute v. CFA Program / cfainstitute.org Tommy Hold / joy green / yusuf alimatu / NTW National Tire Wholesale Claim Number: FA2502002138655 PARTIES Complainant is CFA Institute ("Complainant"), represented by Andrew J. Avsec of Crowell & Moring LLP, Illinois, USA. Respondent is CFA Program / cfainstitute.org Tommy Hold / joy green / yusuf alimatu / NTW National Tire Wholesale ("Respondent"), Multiple Locations. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES The domain names at issue are <mail-cfainstiitute.org>, <mails-cfainstiitute.org>, <mails-cfainstitute.org> and <mailscfainstitute.org>, (the "Domain Names") registered with Squarespace Domains II LLC and HOSTINGER operations, UAB. PANEL The undersigned certifies that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Dawn Osborne as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 4, 2025; Forum received payment on February 4, 2025. On February 4, 2025 and February 5, 2025, Squarespace Domains II LLC and HOSTINGER operations, UAB confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <mail-cfainstiitute.org>, <mails-cfainstiitute.org>, <mails-cfainstitute.org> and <mailscfainstitute.org>, Domain Names are registered with Squarespace Domains II LLC and HOSTINGER operations, UAB and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Squarespace Domains II LLC and HOSTINGER operations, UAB have verified that Respondent is bound by the Squarespace Domains II LLC and HOSTINGER operations, UAB registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy"). On February 7, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 27, 2025 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@mail-cfainstiitute.org, postmaster@mails-cfainstiitute.org, postmaster@mails-cfainstitute.org, postmaster@mailscfainstitute.org. Also on February 7, 2025, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts. Having received no response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On February 28, 2025 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Dawn Osborne as Panelist. On March 3, 2025 the Panel asked the Complainant to produce a comparative table and step by step explanation to support the Complainant's assertion that the entities which control the domain names at issue are effectively controlled by the same person and/or entity, which is operating under several aliases which was duly filed by the Complainant on March 6, 2025. Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the Domain Names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE RESPONDENTS In the instant proceedings, Complainant has alleged that the entities which control the Domain Names are effectively controlled by the same person and/or entity, which is operating under several aliases. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") provides that a "complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder." The Panel notes the highly similar construction of the Domain Names which all begin with the prefix 'mail'. Additionally the Complainant has linked WhoIs details for the Domain Names and has shown they share the same address details or the same pattern or practices of common registrar, email accounts and SSL certificate providers. The Respondent has not answered this Complaint or challenged any of these assertions. The Panel finds it more likely than not that the Domain Names have been registered by the same entity and this Complaint may proceed against all of them. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant The Complainant's contentions can be summarised as follows: Complainant is the owner of, inter alia, the mark CFA INSTITUTE registered in the USA for services relating to professional standards since 2007. The Domain Names registered in 2024 or 2025 are confusingly similar to the Complainant's prior CFA INSTITUTE mark adding the generic word 'mail' or 'mails' and/or a hyphen and/or an extra letter 'i' and the gTLD .org none of which prevent confusing similarity between the Domain Names and the Complainant's mark. The Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Names and has not been authorised by the Complainant to use the Complainant's mark. <mailscfainstitute.org> fraudulently lists the Complainant's domain name <cfainstitute.org> as the registrant organisation. <mail-cfainstiitute.org> has been used for a fraudulent e-mail scheme for phishing purposes using the Complainant's unabbreviated name Chartered Financial Analysist Institute in the sign off. The Domain Names do not point to active sites and carry a high risk of affiliation with the Complainant being registered to impersonate the Complainant and there is no legitimate or bona fide use of them. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names which are registered and used in opportunistic bad faith as part of a pattern of activity for fraudulent purposes in actual knowledge of the Complainant's rights. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant is the owner of, inter alia, the mark CFA INSTITUTE registered in the USA for services relating to professional standards since 2007. Respondent registered the <mail-cfainstiitute.org> domain on October 4, 2024; registered the <mails-cfainstiitute.org> domain on October 16, 2024; registered the <mails-cfainstitute.org> domain on March 3, 2024; and registered the <mailscfainstitute.org> domain on January 3, 2025. <mail-cfainstiitute.org> has been used for a fraudulent e mail scheme for phishing purposes using the Complainant's unabbreviated name Chartered Financial Analysist Institute in the sign off. <mailscfainstitute.org> fraudulently lists the Complainant's domain name cfainstitute.org as the registrant organisation. The Domain Names do not point to active sites. DISCUSSION Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable." Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred: (1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and (2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) ("Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint"). Identical and/or Confusingly Similar The Domain Names consist of the Complainant's mark CFA INSTITUTE, (registered in 2007 in the USA for services related to professional standards), the generic words 'mail' or 'mails' and/or a hyphen and/or an extra letter 'i' and the gTLD .org Previous panels have found confusing similarity when a respondent merely adds a generic word to a Complainant's mark. See PG&E Corp. v Anderson, D2000-1264 (WIPO Nov. 22, 2000)(finding that respondent does not by adding common descriptive or generic terms create new or different marks nor does it alter the underlying mark held by the Complainant). Panels have found that adding one letter to a registered mark in a domain name does not prevent confusing similarity between that domain name and that mark. See Twitch Interactive, Inc. v Antonio Teggi, FA 1626528 (Forum Aug 3, 2015)(finding that twitcch.tv is confusingly similar to the TWITCH TV trade mark because the domain name consisted of a common misspelling of the mark by merely adding the letter 'c'). The addition of a hyphen as punctuation does not prevent confusing similarity between a domain name and a complainant's mark. See Health Devices Corp. v Aspen STC, FA 158254 (Forum July 1, 2003)(The addition of punctuation marks such as hyphens is irrelevant in the determination of confusing similarity pursuant to Policy 4(a)(i).) The gTLD .org does not serve to distinguish a domain name from a complainant's mark. See Red Hat Inc v Haecke FA 726010 (Forum July 24, 2006) (concluding that the redhat.org domain name is identical to the complainant's red hat mark because the mere addition of the gTLD was insufficient to differentiate the disputed domain name from the mark). Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Names are each confusingly similar to the Complainant's mark. As such the Panel holds that Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant has not authorised the use of its mark. There is no evidence or reason to suggest the Respondent is, in fact, commonly known by the Domain Names. See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA1408001574905 (Forum September 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark). Although <cfainstitute.org> appears as the registrant organisation on the WhoIs details for <mailscfainstitute.org>, it was not registered until 2025 and there is no corroborating evidence to show that the Respondent is commonly known by the Domain Name. see Ripple Labs Inc. v. Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund, FA 1790949 (Forum July 9, 2018) (finding that, although the respondent listed itself as "Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund" in the WHOIS contact information, it did not provide any affirmative evidence to support this identity; combined with the fact that the complainant claimed it did not authorize the respondent to use the mark, the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name). <mail-cfainstiitute.org> has been used in a fraudulent e-mail phishing scheme using the Complainant's unabbreviated name Chartered Financial Analysist Institute in the sign off. This is deceptive and confusing. As such it cannot amount to the bona fide offering of goods and services or a legitimate non commercial or fair use. (See DaVita Inc. v Cynthia Rochelo FA 1738034 (Forum July 20, 2017) finding that 'Passing off in furtherance of a fraudulent scheme is not considered a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate non commercial or fair use'.) There has been no use evidenced of the other Domain Names. See Hewlett-Packard Co. v Shemesh, FA 434145 (Forum April 20, 2005)(Inactive use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy 4(c)(i).) The Respondent has not responded to this Complaint or provided any explanation to counter the prima facie case evidenced by the Complainant as set out herein. As such the Panelist finds that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The use of the Complainant's unabbreviated name in the phishing e mail scheme used in relation to <mail-cfainstiitute.org> and the use of the Complainant's domain name <cfainstitute.org> as the registrant organisation for <mailscfainstitute.org> both show that the Respondent is targeting the Complainant. Impersonating a complainant by use of a complainant's mark in a fraudulent phishing scheme is disruptive and evinces bad faith registration and use. See Microsoft Corporation v Terrence Green/ Whois Agent/Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc., FA 1661030 (Forum Apr 4 2016)(finding that respondent's use of the disputed domain name to send fraudulent e- mails constituted bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy 4(b)(iii).) Passive holding of a domain name containing a mark with a reputation without legitimate excuse is bad faith registration and use. See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows, D2000-0003 (WIPO Feb. 18, 2000). Additionally, the registration of several domain names containing the Complainant's mark suggests a pattern of bad faith activity. See NIKE, Inc., and Nike Innovate, C.V. v. Emile Boulanger, FA 1732458 (Forum July 3, 2017) (finding that registration of multiple domain names in a case satisfies the burden imposed by the Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii)). A false organisation name has been used for the information given to the WhoIS database for <mailscfainstitute.org>. Providing false information at the time of a domain name's registration may be evidence of respondent's bad faith registration and use under Policy 4(a)(iii). See Farouk Systems, Inc. v. Jack King / SLB, FA1505001618704 (Forum June 19, 2015) (finding bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) where the respondent had provided false contact information when registering the disputed domain name). As such, the Panelist believes that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Names were each registered and used in bad faith and has satisfied the third limb of the Policy. DECISION Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <mail-cfainstiitute.org>, <mails-cfainstiitute.org>, <mails-cfainstitute.org> and <mailscfainstitute.org> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Dawn Osborne, Panelist Dated: March 10, 2025 Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page. Click Here to return to our Home Page

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