Iconiqone.com

The timeline behind iconiqone.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.

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION ICONIQ Capital, LLC v. The Manager / Gensoft Pvt Ltd Claim Number: FA2506002159372 PARTIES Complainant is ICONIQ Capital, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Todd Marabella of Goodwin Procter LLP, Massachusetts, USA. Respondent is The Manager / Gensoft Pvt Ltd ("Respondent"), represented by Nilanka Pieris, Sri Lanka. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <iconiqone.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC. 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. Paddy Tam as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 5, 2025; Forum received payment on June 5, 2025. On June 5, 2025, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <iconiqone.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, LLC 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 June 9, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 30, 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@iconiqone.com. Also on June 9, 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. A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on June 28, 2025. On June 30, 2025, pursuant to the Parties' requests to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Paddy Tam 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. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant The Complainant, ICONIQ Capital, LLC, founded in 2011, provides financial services including investment, real estate, tax, and wealth management, and manages over $80 billion in assets. It holds common law trademark rights in the names ICONIQ and ICONIQ CAPITAL, which it has used since at least 2011. Through extensive marketing and media coverage, the Complainant has built strong consumer recognition, goodwill, and distinctiveness around its brand. The Complainant registered the domain <iconiqcapital.com> on September 14, 2011. The Complainant seeks the transfer of the Disputed Domain Name from the Respondent, asserting that: (1) the domain is confusingly similar to its trademarks ICONIQ and ICONIQ CAPITAL; (2) the registrant has no legitimate rights or interests in the domain; and (3) the domain was registered and is being used in bad faith. ICONIQ claims that the domain has been used to misleadingly suggest an affiliation with its brand. B. Respondent The Respondent, Gensoft (Pvt) Ltd, is a Sri Lankan software company incorporated in 2013 and part of the Iconiq One Holdings group. It shares directors, shareholders, and an address with Iconiq One Holdings (Pvt) Ltd, incorporated on November 9, 2023. At Iconiq One Holdings' request, Gensoft registered the disputed domain on or around October 10, 2023. The Respondent argues that the Disputed Domain Name is not confusingly similar to "ICONIQ," as the addition of "ONE" creates a distinct brand. It also notes that "ICONIQ" is used by many unrelated companies, so the Complainant cannot claim exclusive rights to the term. The Respondent claims legitimate interest, as the Disputed Domain Name reflects the name of Iconiq One Holdings and is used for its official business website. Respondent acted as an authorized agent, and under UDRP rules, this constitutes bona fide use. The Respondent asserts that the Disputed Domain Name was registered in good faith for a legitimate business purpose. It was never offered for sale or used to exploit the Complainant's mark. The Respondent's website is visually distinct, supports independent branding, and does not reference the Complainant. Finally, the Complainant holds no trademark rights in Sri Lanka, and there is no evidence of bad faith. The Respondent maintains that its actions reflect a good-faith registration for a legitimate business. FINDINGS The Disputed Domain Name was registered on October 10, 2023. The Complainant, ICONIQ Capital, LLC, has been providing financial services under the ICONIQ brand since 2011. It has registered various ICONIQ and ICONIQ CAPITAL trademarks in the United Kingdom, European Union, and Singapore since 2019. The Respondent, Gensoft (Pvt) Ltd, has been engaged in developing software solutions and websites for clients globally since 2013. It operates as part of the Iconiq One Holdings group. Iconiq One Holdings (Pvt) Ltd was incorporated in Sri Lanka on November 9, 2023, and operates across sectors such as real estate, capital markets, trading, and technology. An authorization letter was issued on June 24, 2025, authorizing the Respondent to register the Disputed Domain Name. 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. Identical and/or Confusingly Similar The Complainant claims rights in the ICONIQ mark through its trademark registrations in multiple jurisdictions. By virtue of its trademark registrations in the United States and other jurisdictions. The Complainant has proved that it has rights in the ICONIQ mark under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. By conducting a side-by-side comparison, the Panel finds that the distinctive and prominent part of the Disputed Domain Name is similar to Complainant's ICONIQ trademark. The descriptive term "one" and that the .com top-level domain (TLD) do not serve to distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant's mark. See Paragraph 1.7 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 ("While each case is judged on its own merits, in cases where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark, or where at least a dominant feature of the relevant mark is recognizable in the domain name, the domain name will normally be considered confusingly similar to that mark for purposes of UDRP standing.") See also Morgan Stanley v. ggggggccgggcccc / ss ss, FA 2097661 (Forum June 6, 2024) ("Complainant contends that the disputed domain names <morganstanleyone.xyz>, <morganstanleyone.com> and <morganstanleyone.top> are confusingly similar to Complainant's mark because the addition of generic or descriptive terms and gTLDs to its mark does not distinguish the disputed domain names from the mark incorporated therein per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)."). The Panel would also like to highlight that due to the nature of the Internet as a borderless community, the jurisdiction of Complainant's trademark is not considered relevant under Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, see Paragraph 1.1.2 of the WIPO Overview 3.0. For the foregoing reasons, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights and the Complainant has satisfied Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. Rights or Legitimate Interests To satisfy the second element under Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, a complainant must first make a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, and the burden of proof then shifts to the Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) ("Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests."). The Complainant asserts that it has neither licensed nor otherwise authorized the Respondent to use the ICONIQ trademarks or the Disputed Domain Name, and that the Respondent is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name. The Complainant further contends that the Respondent cannot claim to be making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name. The use of a domain name that is confusingly similar to a trademark and diverts users from the trademark owner's website constitutes illegitimate commercial use. Given the overall circumstances, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. See Textron Innovations Inc. v. Daniel Maccarone, FA 2093791 (Forum May 22, 2024) ("Complainant states that it has not authorized or licensed Respondent to use its mark. Complainant has specific competence to make this statement, and it is unchallenged by any evidence before the Panel. In the absence of evidence that a respondent is authorized to use a complainant's mark in a domain name or that a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name, the respondent may be presumed to lack rights or legitimate interests in the domain name."). The burden of proof has been shifted to the Respondent to prove that it has right or legitimate interests to the Disputed Domain Name. Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy listed some common circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate Respondent's rights or legitimate interests to the domain name for purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(ii): (i) before any notice to [Respondent] of the dispute, [Respondent's] use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Domain Name or a name corresponding to the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or (ii) [Respondent] (as an individual, business, or other organization) [has] been commonly known by the Domain Name, even if [Respondent has] acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) [Respondent is] making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue. The Respondent reiterates that the Disputed Domain Name was registered on behalf of Iconiq One Holdings (Pvt) Ltd, a legally incorporated and operational business in Sri Lanka commonly known as Iconiq One. As such, the Respondent acted as an agent for a bona fide entity with a legitimate interest in the Disputed Domain Name. The Disputed Domain Name resolves to the official corporate website of Iconiq One Holdings (Pvt) Ltd, which provides information about its subsidiaries and affiliated companies operating across sectors such as real estate, capital markets, trading, and technology. It is used in connection with the company's legitimate business and branding activities, not to exploit or target the Complainant's mark. Iconiq One's legal and commercial identity exists independently of the Complainant's claims, and the Disputed Domain Name accurately reflects that identity. Therefore, the Respondent has demonstrated a legitimate right and interest in the Disputed Domain Name. The Panel notes that both the Complainant and the Respondent's group operate in the financial services industry, and that the Complainant began using the ICONIQ brand more than a decade before the Respondent. Although the Complainant does not have a local presence in Respondent's jurisdiction, the Respondent, as a software and website developer, should have conducted internet searches regarding the ICONIQ brand prior to registering the Disputed Domain Name. The use of the website on the subdomain "capital.iconiqone.com" further increases the likelihood of confusion among Internet users. Moreover, the Respondent has not provided any supporting evidence that it used, or was preparing to use, the domain name for a legitimate business prior to receiving notice of the dispute; that it is commonly known by the domain name despite lacking trademark rights; or that it is making a fair, noncommercial use of the domain name without intent to mislead or exploit the Complainant's trademark. The Panel also emphasizes that the mere existence of a business registration or a trademark held by the Respondent does not, by itself, automatically confer rights or legitimate interests upon the Respondent. See Paragraph 2.12.2 of the WIPO Overview 3.0. The Panel finds that the Respondent failed to prove that it has rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name under Paragraph 4(c) and the Complainant has satisfied Paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. Registration and Use in Bad Faith To satisfy the third element under Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, a complainant must prove both the registration and use of the domain name are in bad faith. Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy listed some common circumstances that shall be evidence of the registration or use of a domain name in bad faith: (i) [Respondent has] registered or [Respondent has] acquired the Domain Name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the Domain Name registration to the Complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the Domain Name; or (ii) [Respondent has] registered the Domain Name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding Domain Name, provided that respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) [Respondent has] registered the Domain Name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) by using the Domain Name, [Respondent has] 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'] web site or location. (v) [Respondent has] provided false contact details to us. The Complainant reiterates the strong reputation of its ICONIQ trademark in the financial services industry. It asserts that the Respondent has intentionally used the Disputed Domain Name to attract Internet users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the ICONIQ trademarks regarding the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website and the goods and services offered thereon. The Complainant further contends that the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name primarily to disrupt ICONIQ's business by misleading customers into believing that the domain is operated by ICONIQ itself. The prominent use of the ICONIQ trademarks in the Disputed Domain Name, including the full use of the term "ICONIQ CAPITAL" suggests a deliberate attempt to mislead consumers into believing the Respondent is officially connected or affiliated with ICONIQ. This clear effort to divert Internet traffic to a commercial website by exploiting confusion with the ICONIQ trademarks constitutes a textbook example of bad faith registration and use. The Respondent contends that it registered the Disputed Domain Name solely on behalf of its parent company, Iconiq One Holdings (Pvt) Ltd, for legitimate corporate purposes. At no point has the Respondent offered to sell, rent, or otherwise transfer the Disputed Domain Name to the Complainant or any third party for valuable consideration. The Disputed Domain Name reflects a genuine business interest, as it corresponds directly to the name under which Iconiq One Holdings (Pvt) Ltd operates. The inclusion of the term "one" further distinguishes the Disputed Domain Name and supports a claim of fair use. The Disputed Domain Name has been used exclusively in connection with legitimate business activities and not with the intent to mislead or divert consumers from the Complainant. Having reviewed the content of the website resolved through the disputed domain name, including the subdomain "capital.iconiqone.com," and considering the Respondent's failure to provide evidence of its own reputation, the Panel finds that the Respondent has created a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's ICONIQ and ICONIQ CAPITAL trademarks. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Abdul Faride Adio TOGBE / Freelance Tache, FA 2147803 (Forum Apr. 23, 2025) ("The Panel has already found confusing similarity between the domain name and the trademark. That confusion attracts Internet users to an online location intended for commercial gain. Paragraph 4(b)(iv) has direct application and, in spite of Complainant having done little to assist itself, the Panel finds that the third and final element of the Policy is satisfied (see, for example, Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Bonds, FA 873143 (Forum Feb. 16, 2007) ("The Panel finds such use to constitute bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), because [r]espondent is taking advantage of the confusing similarity between the <metropolitanlife.us> domain name and Complainant's METLIFE mark in order to profit from the goodwill associated with the mark."). See also Morgan Stanley v. ggggggccgggcccc / ss ss, FA 2097661 (Forum June 6, 2024) ("The Panel infers, due to the notoriety of Complainant's mark and Respondent's manner of use of the disputed domain names that Respondent registered the disputed domain names with knowledge of Complainant's rights in MORGAN STANLEY mark, which supports a finding of bad faith registration per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)."). For the foregoing reasons, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name with bad faith under Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, and the Complainant has satisfied Paragraph 4(a)(iii) 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 <iconiqone.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Paddy Tam, Panelist Dated: July 2, 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.