Bbh-uk.com

The timeline behind bbh-uk.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 Brown Brothers Harriman & Co. v. simon jones Claim Number: FA2601002199274 PARTIES Complainant is Brown Brothers Harriman & Co. ("Complainant"), represented by Allen J. Baden of Baden Law Firm PC, Texas, USA. Respondent is simon jones ("Respondent"), Seychelles. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <bbh-uk.com> ('the Domain Name'), registered with NICENIC INTERNATIONAL GROUP CO., LIMITED. 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 January 12, 2026; Forum received payment on January 12, 2026. On January 13, 2026, NICENIC INTERNATIONAL GROUP CO., LIMITED confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <bbh-uk.com> Domain Name is registered with NICENIC INTERNATIONAL GROUP CO., LIMITED and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NICENIC INTERNATIONAL GROUP CO., LIMITED has verified that Respondent is bound by the NICENIC INTERNATIONAL GROUP CO., LIMITED 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 January 14, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 3, 2026 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@bbh-uk.com. Also on January 14, 2026, 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 4, 2026 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Dawn Osborne 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 The Complainant is the owner of the mark BBH registered, inter alia, in the UK for financial services since 1992. The Domain Name registered in 2026 is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade mark for the purposes of the Policy including it in its entirety and adding the letters 'uk' an abbreviation for United Kingdom, a hyphen and the gTLD .com. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, is not commonly known by it and is not authorised by the Complainant. The Domain Name points to a cloned version of the Complainant's web site which is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial fair use. It is registration and use in opportunistic bad faith for fraudulent reasons. The Respondent has used a false address for the domain name registration details of the Domain Name. The Respondent has been the subject of an earlier adverse decision under the UDRP for registration of a domain name containing the Complainant's mark which pointed to the Complainant's web site and was connected to fraudulent documentation. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS The Complainant is the owner of the mark BBH registered, inter alia, in the UK for financial services since 1992. The Domain Name registered in 2026 points to a cloned version of the Complainant's web site. The Respondent has used a false address for the domain name registration details of the Domain Name. The Respondent has been the subject of an earlier adverse decision under the UDRP for registration of a domain name containing the Complainant's mark which pointed to the Complainant's web site and was connected to fraudulent documentation. 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 Name consists of the Complainant's BBH mark (registered, inter alia, in the UK for financial services since 1992), the letters 'uk', a hyphen and the gTLD .com. Previous panels have found confusing similarity when a respondent merely adds a generic term 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). Nor does the addition of a hyphen. 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)"). Accordingly the Panel agrees that the addition of the generic term 'uk' with a hyphen to the Complainant's mark does not prevent confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant's trade mark pursuant to the Policy. The gTLD .com does not serve to distinguish the Domain Name from the 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 Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's registered 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 to suggest the Respondent is commonly known by the Domain Name. See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA 1574905 (Forum Sept. 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS details and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark). The Domain Name points to a cloned version of the Complainant's site impersonating the Complainant which is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial fair use. See iFinex Inc. v Yuri Heifetz/Genie-Solution, FA 1789385 (Forum July 9, 2018) (holding that the respondent's mimicking the complainant's web site in order to cause existing or potential customers of the Complainant's to believe they are dealing with the complainant is prima facie evidence of the respondent's lack of rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name). The Respondent has not answered this Complaint or rebutted the prima facie case evidenced by the Complainant as set out above. As such the Panelist finds that the Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy. Registration and Use in Bad Faith The Panel also notes the adverse decision against the Respondent in another case involving the Complainant's mark indicating a pattern of activity. See Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation v. oranges arecool XD / orangesarecool.com, FA 1558045 (Forum July 10, 2014) (finding that the respondent's registration of multiple domain names in the instant proceeding and prior adverse UDRP history was evidence of bad faith registration and use of the domain names under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii)). In that prior UDRP case deceptive documents headed with the Complainant's name and logo were used in a fraudulent scheme by the Respondent showing the Respondent is associated with phishing activity. Phishing is evidence of bad faith registration and use per se within the Policy 4 (a)(iii) See Klabzuba Oil & Gas, Inc v LAKHPAT SINGH BHANDARI, FA 1625750 (Forum July 17, 2015). Further, in the opinion of the panelist the use made of the Domain Name in relation to the Respondent's site is confusing and disruptive in that visitors to the site might reasonably believe it is connected to or approved by the Complainant as it is pointed to a clone of the Complainant's site to represent falsely that the site attached to the Domain Name is an site connected to the Complainant. Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to his website by creating a likelihood of confusion, inter alia, with the Complainant's trade mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the web site and services on it likely to disrupt the business of the Complainant. (See Asbury Auto Group Inc v Tex. Int'l Prop Assocs, FA 958542 (Forum May 29, 2007) finding that the respondent's use of the disputed domain name would likely lead to confusion amongst Internet users as to the sponsorship or affiliation of a competing business and was therefore evidence of bad faith and use). The Respondent has also used false address details for the Domain Name database details. 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, FA 1618704 (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). Here in the context of phishing providing false address details seems clearly in bad faith. As such, the Panelist believes that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith and has satisfied the third limb of the Policy under Paragraphs 4(b)(ii), (iii) and (iv). 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 <bbh-uk.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Dawn Osborne, Panelist Dated: February 5, 2026 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.