Wsgrllp-global.com

The timeline behind wsgrllp-global.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 Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, Professional Corporation v. andrew joneess Claim Number: FA2508002172188 PARTIES Complainant is Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, Professional Corporation ("Complainant"), United States, represented by Aaron D. Hendelman of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, United States. Respondent is andrew joneess ("Respondent"), United States. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <wsgrllp-global.com>, registered with NameSilo, LLC. 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 August 18, 2025; Forum received payment on August 18, 2025. On August 19, 2025, NameSilo, LLC confirmed by email to Forum that the <wsgrllp-global.com> domain name is registered with NameSilo, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. NameSilo, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameSilo, 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 August 19, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 8, 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@wsgrllp-global.com. Also on August 19, 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 September 9, 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 prominent international law firm headquartered in California. Complainant employs more than one thousand attorneys and nearly two thousand legal staff in offices located in major cities throughout the United States and other countries. Complainant has used WSGR, shorthand for its full name Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, to promote its legal services for more than four decades. Complainant uses the domain name <wsgr.com> for its primary website and employee email addresses. The WSGR mark also appears prominently in Complainant's marketing and advertising. Complainant owns various trademark registrations for WSGR and WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, including a Philippines registration for WSGR in standard character form issued in 2022. Respondent registered the disputed domain name <wsgrllp-global.com> in May 2025. The domain name does not resolve to a website. Complainant alleges, with supporting evidence, that the domain name is being used to impersonate Complainant and one of its partners in email messages attempting to obtain payments from third parties under false pretenses. Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name and is not licensed or otherwise permitted to use Complainant's marks. Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <wsgrllp-global.com> is confusingly similar to its WSGR 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 June 2, 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 <wsgrllp-global.com> incorporates Complainant's registered WSGR trademark, adding the generic terms "LLP" and "global," a hyphen, and the ".com" top-level domain. These additions do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., Fenwick & West LLP v. andrew jones, D2025-2562 (WIPO Aug. 18, 2025) (finding <us-fenwickllp.com> confusingly similar to FENWICK); Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati P.C. v. peter jonans, FA 2062865 (Forum Oct. 20, 2023) (finding <us-wsgrllp.com> confusingly similar to WSGR); Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati v. Angel Ubide, FA 2057697 (Forum Sept. 13, 2023) (finding <wsgr-llp.com> confusingly similar to WSGR); Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati v. matthew Jonas, FA 2060818 (Forum Oct. 3, 2023) (finding <wsgrllp-us.com> and <wsgr-uk.com> confusingly similar to WSGR); Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati v. matthew jonas / andrew jonnes, FA 2056444 (Forum Aug. 30, 2023) (finding <us-wsgr.com> confusingly similar to WSGR); McGuireWoods LLP v. Jennifer Crenshaw, FA 2019347 (Forum Dec. 2, 2022) (finding <mcguirewoodsllp-us.com> confusingly similar to MCGUIREWOODS); Lonza Ltd. v. cooky22 / cooky22 Godfrey, FA 1839216 (Forum May 10, 2019) (finding <lonza-global.com> confusingly similar to LONZA). 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 to impersonate Complainant in support of a fraudulent phishing scheme. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., Fenwick & West LLP v. andrew jones, supra (finding lack of rights or interests in similar circumstances); McGuireWoods LLP v. Jennifer Crenshaw, supra (same); Lonza Ltd. v. cooky22 / cooky22 Godfrey, supra (same). 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 what appears to the Panel to be at least partially fictitious underlying registration information to register a domain name incorporating Complainant's registered mark, and is using the domain name to impersonate Complainant in support of a fraudulent phishing scheme. Such circumstances are indicative of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See, e.g., Fenwick & West LLP v. andrew jones, supra (finding bad faith registration and use in similar circumstances); McGuireWoods LLP v. Jennifer Crenshaw, supra (same); Lonza Ltd. v. cooky22 / cooky22 Godfrey, 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 <wsgrllp-global.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. David E. Sorkin, Panelist Dated: September 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.