Ubssydney.net

The timeline behind ubssydney.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.

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION UBS Group AG v. Marinah Binti Claim Number: FA2502002139433 PARTIES Complainant is UBS Group AG ("Complainant"), represented by Patrick J. Jennings of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP, United States. Respondent is Marinah Binti ("Respondent"), Singapore. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <ubssydney.net>, registered with NameCheap, Inc. PANEL The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. David E. Sorkin as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 10, 2025; Forum received payment on February 10, 2025. On February 10, 2025, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by email to Forum that the <ubssydney.net> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, Inc. 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 11, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 3, 2025 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@ubssydney.net. Also on February 11, 2025, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email 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 March 4, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed David E. Sorkin as Panelist. 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 name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant is a large financial services firm with offices in more than 50 countries, including Australia, and approximately 115,000 employees. Complainant has used the UBS mark in connection with financial services since at least as early as 1962. Complainant owns longstanding trademark registrations for UBS and related marks, including an international registration pursuant to the Madrid Protocol designating Australia and Singapore, among other jurisdictions. Complainant asserts that the UBS mark has become famous and notes that its fame has been recognized in previous decisions under the Policy. See, e.g., UBS AG v. Ray Don, FA 1866856 (Forum Nov. 14, 2019); UBS AG v. G.A.S. Ltd., D2006-1181 (WIPO Nov. 10, 2006). The disputed domain name <ubssydney.net> was registered in January 2025. The name is registered in the name of a privacy registration service on behalf of Respondent. The domain name is being used for a website that purports to promote "digital marketing experts" at "UBS SYDNEY." Complainant alleges that Respondent is not actually using the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, and is instead attempting to divert Internet users seeking Complainant. Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name, is not connected with or affiliated with Complainant, and is not authorized to use Complainant's mark. Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <ubssydney.net> is confusingly similar to its UBS mark; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. 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 Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, § 4.3 (3d ed. 2017), available at http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/; UDRP Perspectives on Recent Jurisprudence, §§ 0.2, 0.8 (updated Jan. 15, 2025), available at https://udrpperspectives.org/; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (dismissing complaint where complainant failed to "produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations"). Identical and/or Confusingly Similar The disputed domain name <ubssydney.net> incorporates Complainant's registered UBS trademark, adding the geographic term "Sydney" and the ".net" top-level domain. These additions do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., UBS AG v. Ray Don, supra (finding <ubslondon-online.com> confusingly similar to UBS); UBS AG v. Mr.uncle Mr.uncle, FA 1754571 (Forum Nov. 17, 2017) (finding <ubs-sms.net> confusingly similar to UBS); UBS AG v. Kumail Bokhari / UBS & Associates, FA 1704570 (Forum Jan. 9, 2016) (finding <ubsassociates.net> confusingly similar to UBS). The Panel considers the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights. Rights or Legitimate Interests Under the Policy, the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc. v. Entertainment Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's registered mark without authorization. Its sole apparent use has been for a website that uses Complainant's UBS mark to promote purported "digital marketing" services. Based upon the extremely limited information appearing on Respondent's perfunctory website and the lack of a submission by Respondent in these proceedings, and having found no information about Respondent or "UBS Sydney" in its own web searches, the Panel is inclined to accept Complainant's allegation that Respondent is not using the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. See, e.g., UBS AG v. Kumail Bokhari / UBS & Associates, supra (noting that "using another's mark or a domain that is closely reminiscent of another's mark for the purposes of hosting a website for a respondent's benefit is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use"). Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of such rights or interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered the disputed domain name "primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor." Under paragraph 4(b)(iv), bad faith may be shown by evidence that "by using the domain name, [Respondent] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent's] web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [Respondent's] web site or location or of a product or service on [Respondent's] web site or location." Respondent used a privacy registration service and what appears to be at least partially fictitious underlying registration information to register a domain name incorporating Complainant's well-known mark, and appears to be using the domain name to divert Internet users seeking Complainant rather than in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Such circumstances are indicative of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See, e.g., UBS AG v. Mr.uncle Mr.uncle, supra (finding bad faith registration and use in similar circumstances); UBS AG v. Kumail Bokhari / UBS & Associates, supra (same). The Panel so finds. DECISION Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <ubssydney.net> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. David E. Sorkin, Panelist Dated: March 4, 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.