Warburgpincin.com, Warburgpincin.vip

The timeline behind warburgpincin.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 Warburg Pincus & Co. v. chen cheng en / wu tai chang Claim Number: FA2601002201056 PARTIES Complainant is Warburg Pincus & Co. ("Complainant"), represented by Eric J. Shimanoff of Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C., New York, USA. Respondent is chen cheng en / wu tai chang ("Respondent"), Hong Kong. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES The domain names at issue are <warburgpincin.com> and <warburgpincin.vip>, registered with Gname.com Pte. Ltd. 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 January 22, 2026; Forum received payment on January 22, 2026. On January 23, 2026, Gname.com Pte. Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <warburgpincin.com> and <warburgpincin.vip> domain names are registered with Gname.com Pte. Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Gname.com Pte. Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Gname.com Pte. Ltd. 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 23, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 12, 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@warburgpincin.com, postmaster@warburgpincin.vip. Also on January 23, 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 13, 2026, 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: MUTLIPLE 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 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 nearly identical, incorporating Complainant's WARBURG PINCUS mark in its entirety with the same misspelling of PINCUS, distinguished only by the respective gTLDs .com and .vip. Further, both disputed domain names resolve to identical websites and were used as part of a concerted scheme to impersonate WARBURG PINCUS. Moreover, both disputed domain names were registered with the same registrar on the same day by registrants in Hong Kong listing the same postal code. Panel agrees and concludes that the disputed domain names are under common ownership or control of a single Respondent operating under multiple aliases. For purposes of this proceeding, all such aliases shall be collectively referred to as Respondent. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant i) Complainant provides financial services. For decades, Complainant has continuously used the WARBURG PINCUS name and mark. Complainant establishes rights in the WARBURG PINCUS mark, among others, through registrations with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 2,378,369, registered August 22, 2000). Complainant was founded in 1966, and as a result of Complainant's long, continuous, and widespread use of its marks, and Complainant's substantial investment of time, money, and effort in marketing and promoting the same, the WARBURG PINCUS marks have developed substantial public recognition among members of the consuming public. The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant's WARBURG PINCUS mark in that they incorporate a misspelling of Complainant's WARBURG PINCUS marks (substituting the letters "in" for "us" at the end of PINCUS) and the ".com" and ".vip" gTLDs. ii) Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names as Complainant has neither licensed nor authorized Respondent to use the WARBURG PINCUS mark, and Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names. Additionally, Respondent does not use the disputed domain names for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent uses the disputed domain names to impersonate Complainant via websites displaying the confusingly similar "WAR-BURG" mark to offer purported investment services and harvest confidential account information. Notably, the sites were promoted via WhatsApp to defraud users, with the disputed domain names resolving to the same fraudulent content. Given the fame of Complainant's marks, the plausible inference is that Respondent registered the disputed domain names to intentionally trade on Complainant's goodwill. Such conduct causes "initial interest confusion" and disrupts Complainant's business without legitimate justification. iii) Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith. Given the fame of Complainant's marks, Respondent cannot plausibly provide any legitimate explanation for registering the disputed domain names. Respondent's use of the disputed domain names for a website displaying the WARBURG PINCUS mark in a manner that impersonates Complainant demonstrates bad faith registration and use. Respondent possessed actual or constructive knowledge of Complainant's WARBURG PINCUS mark when it chose and registered the disputed domain names. Respondent's utilization of a common misspelling of Complainant's WARBURG PINCUS marks constitutes further evidence of prior knowledge of Complainant's mark and Respondent's bad faith use and registration. By causing initial interest confusion, Respondent's use and registration of the disputed domain names disrupt Complainant's business. B. Respondent Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS 1. The disputed domain names were registered on December 5, 2025. 2. Complainant demonstrates rights in the WARBURG PINCUS mark through registrations with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 2,378,369, registered August 22, 2000). 3. Respondent utilizes the disputed domain names to impersonate Complainant via websites resolving therefrom that (a) prominently display the name and mark "WAR-BURG," which is confusingly similar to Complainant's WARBURG PINCUS marks, and (b) are ostensibly used in connection with purported investment or financial trading services closely related to those offered by Complainant. 4. Respondent's websites feature a "Log In/Registration" page soliciting personal and confidential account information from users. 5. Respondent's website <https://m.warburgpincin.com/> was promoted via several WhatsApp groups offering purported investment services and claiming affiliation with "WAR-BURG" and WARBURG PINCUS. 6. Several parties reportedly made investments via Respondent's <https://m.warburgpincin.com/> website and were subsequently defrauded. 7. The disputed domain name <warburgpincin.vip> resolves to an identical site <https://m.warburgpincin.vip> and constitutes part of the same scheme. 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 WARBURG PINCUS mark, inter alia, evidenced by Complainant's registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 2,378,369, registered August 22, 2000). Registration of a mark with the USPTO suffices to demonstrate rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Since Complainant provides evidence of trademark registration, the Panel finds Complainant has established rights in the WARBURG PINCUS mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Complainant argues that the disputed domain names <warburgpincin.com> and <warburgpincin.vip> are confusingly similar to Complainant's WARBURG PINCUS mark as they incorporate a misspelling of Complainant's WARBURG PINCUS marks (substituting the letters "in" for "us" at the end of PINCUS) and the ".com" and ".vip" gTLDs. A misspelling involving letter replacement and the addition of a gTLD fails to sufficiently differentiate the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc. v. domain admin / private registrations aktien gesellschaft, FA 1626253 (Forum July 29, 2015) (finding that "Respondent has simply transposed the letters 'u' and 'r' in the term 'furniture' to complete the [<ashleyfurnitrue.com>] domain name."). Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the WARBURG PINCUS 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 names 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 contends Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names, nor has Complainant authorized or licensed Respondent to use the WARBURG PINCUS mark. Where a response is lacking, WHOIS information may be consulted to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). The unmasked WHOIS information for the disputed domain names lists the registrants as "chen cheng en / wu tai chang," and as Complainant asserts there is no other evidence to suggest that Respondent was authorized to use the WARBURG PINCUS mark, the Panel finds Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Next, Complainant argues that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use as Respondent impersonates Complainant. Under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii), panels have found that a respondent's attempts to use a disputed domain name to pass itself off as a complainant do not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See DaVita Inc. v. Cynthia Rochelo, FA 1738034 (Forum July 20, 2017) ("Passing off in furtherance of a phishing scheme is not considered a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use."). Complainant provides screenshots of Respondent's resolving websites, which offer financial services, including alleged investment services or investment information services, which are identical or closely related to the services provided by Complainant under the WARBURG PINCUS name and mark. The Panel also notes that (i) Respondent's websites feature a "Log In/Registration" page soliciting personal and confidential account information from users; (ii) Respondent's website <https://m.warburgpincin.com/> was promoted via several WhatsApp groups offering purported investment services and claiming affiliation with "WAR-BURG" and WARBURG PINCUS; (iii) several parties reportedly made investments via Respondent's <https://m.warburgpincin.com/> website and were subsequently defrauded; and (iv) the disputed domain name <warburgpincin.vip> resolves to an identical site <https://m.warburgpincin.vip> and constitutes part of the same scheme. Accordingly, the Panel finds the use of the disputed domain names to impersonate Complainant fails to constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). The Panel finds that Complainant has established a prima facie case arising from the considerations above. Since Respondent has not filed a Response or attempted by any other means to rebut the prima facie case against it, the Panel finds that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant contends Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith, as Respondent registered them to pass itself off as Complainant to confuse users into thinking that Respondent is Complainant. Registration and use of a domain name to confuse users can constitute evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum December 27, 2017) (finding bad faith per 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 in order to confuse users into believing that Respondent is Complainant, or is otherwise affiliated or associated with Complainant."); see also Nw. Airlines, Inc. v. Koch, FA 95688 (Forum Oct. 27, 2000) ("[T]he selection of a domain name [<northwest-airlines.com>] which entirely incorporates the name of the world's fourth largest airline could not have been done in good faith.") The Panel recalls Complainant provides screenshots of Respondent's resolving websites using Complainant's WARBURG PINCUS mark and its confusingly similar mark "WAR-BURG" to falsely suggest that Respondent is somehow endorsed by or affiliated with Complainant. The Panel further notes that (i) Respondent's website <https://m.warburgpincin.com/> was promoted via several WhatsApp groups offering purported investment services and claiming affiliation with "WAR-BURG" and WARBURG PINCUS; (ii) several parties reportedly made investments via Respondent's <https://m.warburgpincin.com/> website and were subsequently defrauded; and (iii) the disputed domain name <warburgpincin.vip> resolves to an identical site <https://m.warburgpincin.vip> and constitutes part of the same scheme. The Panel finds that such false association and passing off in furtherance of a phishing scheme in violation of Complainant's intellectual property rights constitutes evidence of bad faith use and registration under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). Complainant further argues Respondent registered the disputed domain names with constructive knowledge of Complainant's rights in the WARBURG PINCUS mark, based on Respondent's use of the WARBURG PINCUS mark and name to impersonate Complainant, and in light of the reputation of Complainant's mark. While constructive knowledge is insufficient for a finding of bad faith, the worldwide prominence of a mark can demonstrate actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in a mark at registration and establish bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See The Am. Auto. Assoc., Inc. v. Zag Media Corp., FA 1226952 (Forum Nov. 13, 2008) ("Mere constructive knowledge is insufficient to support a finding of bad faith."); see also AutoZone Parts, Inc. v. Ken Belden, FA 1815011 (Forum Dec. 24, 2018) ("Complainant contends that Respondent's knowledge can be presumed in light of the substantial fame and notoriety of the AUTOZONE mark, as well as the fact that Complainant is the largest retailer in the field. The Panel here finds that Respondent did have actual knowledge of Complainant's mark, demonstrating bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)."). The Panel notes that founded in 1966, Complainant has raised at least 24 funds, including 21 real estate funds, which have invested more than $120 billion in over 1,000 companies in more than 40 countries. The firm is headquartered in New York with offices in Amsterdam, Beijing, Berlin, Hong Kong, Houston, London, Luxembourg, Mauritius, Mumbai, San Francisco, São Paulo, Shanghai, and Singapore as of January 2025. As a result of Complainant's long, continuous, and widespread use of its marks, and Complainant's substantial investment of time, money, and effort in marketing and promoting the same, the WARBURG PINCUS marks have developed substantial public recognition among members of the consuming public. The Panel infers, due to the notoriety of Complainant's mark and the manner of use of the disputed domain names, in which Respondent impersonated Complainant, that Respondent registered the disputed domain names with knowledge of Complainant's rights in its mark, which constitutes bad faith registration 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 <warburgpincin.com> and <warburgpincin.vip> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist Dated: February 13, 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.