Besteggloanus.com + 3 more domains

The timeline behind besteggloanus.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.

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION Best Egg Technologies, LLC v. Teodor Hansen / Theodor Hansen Claim Number: FA2503002145232 PARTIES Complainant is Best Egg Technologies, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Jennifer Kwon of Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP, Delaware, USA. Respondent is Teodor Hansen / Theodor Hansen ("Respondent"), USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES The domain names at issue are <besteggloanus.com>, <besteggloanusa.com>, <usabesteggloan.com> and <usbesteggloan.com>, registered with NameCheap, Inc. and Internet Domain Service BS Corp. 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. Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on March 14, 2025; Forum received payment on March 14, 2025. On March 14 and March 17, 2025, NameCheap, Inc. and Internet Domain Service BS Corp confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <besteggloanus.com>, <besteggloanusa.com>, <usabesteggloan.com> and <usbesteggloan.com> domain names are registered with NameCheap, Inc. and Internet Domain Service BS Corp and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. NameCheap, Inc. and Internet Domain Service BS Corp have verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, Inc. and Internet Domain Service BS Corp registration agreements 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 March 20, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 9, 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@besteggloanus.com, postmaster@besteggloanusa.com, postmaster@usabesteggloan.com, postmaster@usbesteggloan.com. Also on March 20, 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 April 10, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE RESPONDENTS In the instant proceedings, Complainant alleges that the entities controlling the disputed domain names are, in effect, under the common control of a single person and/or entity operating under multiple aliases. Paragraph 3(c) of 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." Complainant asserts that the disputed domain names are thematically and functionally interconnected, having been registered by a single entity using multiple aliases and providing false contact details, inter alia: (i) All disputed domain names were registered using the same email address (t.hansen0122@gmail.com), notwithstanding minor differences in registrant names and address details, indicating that a single person or entity exercises common control. (ii) The domain names incorporate Complainant's marks with similar deviations (e.g., "us," "usa") and resolve to websites displaying nearly identical features, including disclaimers, site maps, and loan application functionalities. (iii) The shared use of registrars, privacy protection services, identical contact information, and substantially similar website structures strongly supports the conclusion that the disputed domain names are subject to unified control and have been used concurrently to deceive third parties affiliated with Complainant. The Panel concurs with Complainant's position and determines that the domain names are commonly owned or controlled by a single Respondent operating under multiple aliases. For purposes of this proceeding, all such aliases shall collectively be referred to as Respondent. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant (i) Complainant operates an online financial services platform offering personal consumer loans. Complainant holds rights in the BEST EGG mark through various trademark registrations, including with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 4,603,274, registered on September 9, 2014). The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the BEST EGG mark, as they incorporate the mark in its entirety, adding only the term "loan," which is descriptive of Complainant's services, and the geographical terms "us" or "usa," which merely denote the location where Complainant's services are provided, i.e., the United States. (ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names, nor has Complainant authorized or licensed Respondent to use the BEST EGG mark in any capacity. Moreover, Respondent is not making any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names. Rather, Respondent is using the disputed domain names to impersonate Complainant in furtherance of a phishing scheme. (iii) Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith. The use of the disputed domain names is fraudulent and executed in bad faith, creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark and thereby disrupting Complainant's business operations. The websites associated with the disputed domain names fail to disclose Respondent's identity or its lack of any affiliation with Complainant. Respondent registered the disputed domain names as part of a phishing scheme and has intentionally attempted to impersonate Complainant by creating user confusion as to source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement. Respondent did so with actual or constructive knowledge of Complainant's longstanding use of the BEST EGG mark. A respondent using the same name, Teodor Hansen, has previously been found to have acted in bad faith in at least one prior UDRP proceeding involving conduct that was substantially similar to the facts presented in this case. B. Respondent Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS (i) The disputed domain names were registered within a one-year period, between August 30, 2023 and August 12, 2024. (ii) Complainant has established rights in the BEST EGG mark through various trademark registrations, including with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 4,603,274, registered on September 9, 2014). (iii) Respondent prominently displays Complainant's exact BEST EGG mark on the fraudulent websites hosted at the disputed domain names to promote financial services that are identical to those offered by Complainant. (iv) The websites associated with the disputed domain names solicit consumers to submit sensitive personal information—including email addresses, partial social security numbers, phone numbers, dates of birth, and banking details—under the guise of loan application processes. 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 Complainant asserts rights in the BEST EGG mark through various trademark registrations, including with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (e.g., Reg. No. 4,603,274, registered on September 9, 2014). Registration of a trademark with the USPTO serves as prima facie evidence of the validity of the mark and the rights therein under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Complainant has submitted official documentation evidencing its registration of the BEST EGG mark. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in the BEST EGG mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Complainant contends that the disputed domain names, <besteggloanus.com>, <besteggloanusa.com>, <usabesteggloan.com>, and <usbesteggloan.com>, are confusingly similar to its BEST EGG mark, as they fully incorporate the mark and merely add the descriptive or geographic terms "loan," "usa," and "us," along with the ".com" gTLD. The addition of such terms does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. Incorporating an entire trademark and appending a descriptive term and a gTLD does not eliminate confusing similarity. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognizable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element."); see also Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association v. Shi Lei aka Shilei, FA 1784643 (Forum June 18, 2018) ("A TLD (whether a gTLD, sTLD or ccTLD) is disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax requires TLDs."). As each of the disputed domain names incorporates Complainant's mark in its entirety and appends only non-distinctive terms and a gTLD, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant's BEST EGG mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Section 2.1, WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 ("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. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element."). Complainant argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain names as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names, nor has Respondent been authorized by Complainant to use Complainant's mark, and Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant. Relevant information, such as WHOIS information, can be used as evidence to show a respondent is or is not commonly known by the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). The Panel notes that the unmasked WHOIS data lists "Teodor Hansen / Theodor Hansen" as the registrant, and there is no evidence in the record to suggest Respondent was authorized to use the mark. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Complainant contends that Respondent does not use the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor for any legitimate noncommercial or fair use, as Respondent employs the disputed domain names to impersonate Complainant. When a respondent uses a disputed domain name to misrepresent itself as the complainant, the Panel may find that the respondent has failed to establish rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Ripple Labs Inc. v. Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund, FA 1790949 (Forum July 9, 2018) (holding that the respondent's use of the domain name to feature the complainant's mark and related content did not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)). Complainant has submitted screenshots of the websites associated with the disputed domain names, demonstrating that Respondent prominently displays Complainant's exact BEST EGG mark to promote financial services identical to those offered by Complainant. The websites also include a section inviting users to leave a message and, in doing so, to submit sensitive personal information—including email addresses, partial social security numbers, phone numbers, dates of birth, and banking details—under the pretense of applying for loans. The Panel finds that Respondent's use of the disputed domain names is fraudulent, creates a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark, and is likely to mislead Internet users, including Complainant's customers. Accordingly, the Panel concludes that Respondent's impersonation and phishing activities do not constitute use of the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor do they constitute a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). The Panel further finds that Complainant has established a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. In the absence of any Response or other evidence rebutting this prima facie case, the Panel concludes that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant asserts that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith by disrupting Complainant's business and attempting to attract Internet users to its fraudulent websites for commercial gain. When a respondent uses a disputed domain name to impersonate a complainant, this can constitute bad faith disruption of the complainant's business under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and an attempt to attract users for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum Dec. 27, 2017) (finding bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where "Respondent registered and uses the <lbittrex.com> domain name in bad faith by directing Internet users to a website that mimics Complainant's own website to confuse users into believing that Respondent is Complainant, or is otherwise affiliated or associated with Complainant"). As discussed above, Respondent prominently displays Complainant's exact BEST EGG mark on the fraudulent websites hosted at the disputed domain names to promote financial services identical to those of Complainant. The Panel further notes that the websites associated with the disputed domain names solicit users to submit sensitive personal data—including email addresses, partial social security numbers, phone numbers, birthdates, and banking information—under the pretense of loan applications. The Panel finds that Respondent's use of the disputed domain names constitutes a disruption of Complainant's business by impersonating Complainant and offering competing services. This conduct diverts Internet users to Respondent's websites, generates confusion, and falsely suggests affiliation or endorsement. The Panel further notes that the disputed domain names are presumptively used in a phishing scheme. Phishing activity may constitute independent evidence of bad faith. See Zoetis Inc. and Zoetis Services LLC v. VistaPrint Technologies Ltd, FA 1623601 (Forum July 14, 2015) ("Respondent's attempt to use the <zoietis.com> domain name to phish for personal information in fraudulent emails also constitutes bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)."). As indicated, Respondent's attempt to collect such information supports a finding of bad faith. The Panel therefore determines that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). Additionally, Complainant argues that Respondent registered the disputed domain names with actual or constructive knowledge of Complainant's rights, as evidenced by Respondent's deliberate and misleading use of Complainant's BEST EGG mark in its entirety. While constructive knowledge alone is insufficient to establish bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii), actual knowledge is sufficient and may be inferred from a respondent's use of the disputed domain name to impersonate the complainant. See Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014) ("The Panel notes that although the UDRP does not recognize 'constructive notice' as sufficient grounds for finding Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith, the Panel here finds actual knowledge through the name used for the domain and the use made of it."); see also Spectrum Brands, Inc. v. Guo Li Bo, FA 1760233 (Forum Jan. 5, 2018) ("[T]he fact Respondent registered a domain name that looked identical to the SPECTRUM BRANDS mark and used that as an email address to pass itself off as Complainant shows that Respondent knew of Complainant and its trademark rights at the time of registration."). The Panel infers that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the BEST EGG mark at the time of registration, as evidenced by its use of the mark, its offering of identical services, its impersonation of Complainant, and the well-established reputation of Complainant's mark. Accordingly, the Panel concludes that Respondent registered the disputed domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). 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 <besteggloanus.com>, <besteggloanusa.com>, <usabesteggloan.com> and <usbesteggloan.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist Dated: April 11, 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.