Netx360.pro

The timeline behind netx360.pro

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.

DECISION Pershing Investments LLC v. John Bryant Claim Number: FA2601002201565 PARTIES Complainant is Pershing Investments LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Johanna Schmitt of Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, New York, USA. Respondent is John Bryant ("Respondent"), Pennsylvania, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <netx360.pro>, registered with Eranet International Limited. 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. Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 23, 2026; Forum received payment on January 23, 2026. On February 3, 2026, Eranet International Limited confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <netx360.pro> domain name is registered with Eranet International Limited and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Eranet International Limited has verified that Respondent is bound by the Eranet International 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 February 5, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 25, 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@netx360.pro. Also on February 5, 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 26, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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 contends in part as follows: Complainant Pershing Investments LLC is a subsidiary of The Bank of New York Mellon, a well-known leading global financial services and investments company. Since at least 1958, Complainant has continuously promoted and provided a wide variety of investment and financial products and services. Complainant has an almost 70-year history of providing global financial solutions to advisors, broker-dealers, family offices, hedge and '40 Act fund managers, registered investment advisor firms and wealth managers. One of the investment products and services offered by Complainant is NetX360+, which serves as a platform that enables firms and users to execute trades, settle transactions and manage custody assets. Since at least 2009, Complainant has continuously used the trademark NETX360 in connection with the promotion and provision of investment and other financial products and services. In addition to the extensive common law rights developed through its continuous use of its NETX360 Mark, Complainant owns numerous U.S. and international trademark registrations for the NETX360 mark worldwide, including, without limitation. The <netx360.pro> domain name is confusingly similar to the NETX360 mark in which Complainant has trademark rights. Complainant has used the NETX360 mark in commerce in connection with financial and investment services since at least as early as 2009. Complainant advertises, promotes, and offers for sale its products and services through the websites www.netx360.com and redirections therefrom. Complainant owns registrations for, among other things, the NETX360 mark. The at-issue domain name contains the NETX360 mark in its entirety, which is "sufficient to establish identity or confusing similarity under the [Uniform Dispute Resolution] Policy." Further, the addition of the generic top-level domain ".pro" to the <netx360.pro> domain name is irrelevant in determining its similarity to Complainant's NETX360 mark. In this case, the at-issue <netx360.pro> domain name incorporates the entirety of, and consists only of, the NETX360 mark. Accordingly, the <netx360.pro> domain name is confusingly similar to the NETX360 mark. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. Complainant has not authorized Respondent's use of the NETX360 mark, Respondent has no rights in the NETX360 mark, and Respondent is not using the domain name in connection with an active website. Respondent has no relationship, affiliation, connection, endorsement or association with Complainant. Respondent has never requested or received any authorization, permission or license from Complainant to use the NETX360 mark in any way. There is no evidence in Respondent's WHOIS information for the at-issue domain name to suggest that Respondent is known by the name "NETX360" or has any trademark rights in the NETX360 mark, nor could there be. Respondent's registration of the <netx360.pro> domain name has been wholly in bad faith. Respondent registered the disputed domain name on January 19, 2026, but has not made use of the domain name in connection with a website. Considering Complainant's longstanding use of and substantial goodwill in the NETX360 mark, "[i]t is difficult to imagine any plausible future active use of the domain name by the Respondent that would not be illegitimate, such as being trademark infringement or an infringement of consumer protection legislation." Complainant has established that Respondent has "no rights or legitimate interest" in the <netx360.pro> domain name. Because Complainant has made a prima facie case in support of its allegations, the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does in fact have rights or legitimate interests in the at-issue domain name. Moreover, Respondent must show it has rights or a legitimate interest in the domain name at issue by "concrete evidence." Failure to produce such concrete evidence entitles a panel to conclude that the respondent has no such rights or legitimate interest. Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith. First, Respondent is deemed to have constructive knowledge of Complainant's rights in the NETX360 mark pursuant to Complainant's U.S. federal trademark registration. Second, with knowledge of Complainant's rights in the NETX360 mark, Respondent registered a confusingly similar domain name, either with the intent to illegitimately use the domain name in the future or to continue to retain the domain name in denial of Complainant's trademark rights. It is widely accepted that non-use of a domain name constitutes "use" of a domain name in bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. Additionally, Complainant has become aware that several similar, infringing domains containing the NETX360 mark have recently been registered, several of which are actively being used in connection with fraud; thus, Complainant has reason to suspect that the disputed <netx360.pro> domain name will be used for this same reason. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant has rights in the NETX360 mark. Respondent has no trademark rights in NETX360. Respondent registered the at-issue domain name after Complainant acquired rights in NETX360. Respondent holds the at-issue domain name passively. 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 at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights. Complainant shows that it registered its NETX360 trademark with the USPTO as well as with other national trademark authorities worldwide. Such registrations are each sufficient to demonstrate Complainant's rights in a mark under the Policy. See BGK Trademark Holdings, LLC & Beyoncé Giselle Knowles-Carter v. Chanphut / Beyonce Shop, FA 1626334 (Forum Aug. 3, 2015) (asserting that Complainant's registration with the USPTO (or any other governmental authority) adequately proves its rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). The at-issue domain name consists of Complainant's entire NETX360 trademark and only such mark, followed by the ".pro" top-level. The differences between the <netx360.pro> domain name and Complainant's trademark are insufficient to distinguish the domain name from Complainant's trademark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent's <netx360.pro> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's BNY mark. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Domain Administrator / Registry Services, LLC, FA 2038314 (Forum July 26, 2023)("The addition of a gTLD fails to sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).") Rights or Legitimate Interests 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. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond, Complainant's prima facie showing acts conclusively. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant's trademark in any capacity and as discussed below there are no Policy 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in respect of the at‑issue domain name. See Navistar International Corporation v. N Rahmany, FA 1620789 (Forum Jun. 8, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the at-issue domain name where the complainant had never authorized the respondent to incorporate its NAVISTAR mark into any domain name). The WHOIS information for <netx360.pro> leads to a finding that the domain name's registrant is "John Bryant" and the record before the Panel contains no evidence that tends to show that Respondent is commonly known by <netx360.pro> or any relevant variation thereof. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name) Further, given the notoriety of the NETX360 mark and Complainant's multiple registration of trademarks containing NETX360, it would be unlikely for Respondent to be able to assert any ownership of a trademark identical to NETX360. Additionally, the record does not disclose any legitimate connection between Respondent and Complainant's NETX360 mark, and Respondent has made no attempt to show that it has rights in NETX360. See Natural Life Collections, Inc. v. Cary Nedd / CaryNedd, FA 2119765 (Forum Nov. 1, 2024) (finding absent any contrary evidence that Respondent was not the owner or beneficiary of a trade or service mark that is identical to the domain name since "it is unlikely that this or any other governmental trademark agency would register a trademark identical to the domain name or any other mark identical or similar to the domain name in the name of any person other than Complainant or an affiliate, or that Respondent could be the owner or beneficiary of a valid common law trade or service mark identical to the domain name.") Notably, Respondent holds the at-issue domain name passively. Passively holding a confusingly similar at-issue domain name is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Dell Inc. v. link growth / Digital Marketing, FA 1785283 (Forum June 7, 2018) ("Respondent's domain names currently display template websites lacking any substantive content. The Panel finds that Respondent has does not have rights or legitimate interests with respect of the domain name per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).") Given the foregoing, Respondent lacks rights and lacks legitimate interests in respect of <netx360.pro>. Registration and Use in Bad Faith As discussed below being exhaustive, Respondent acted in bad faith. Respondent's at-issue domain name fails to address any substantive content and can thus be considered inactive. Respondent's passive holding of <netx360.pro> disrupts Complainant's business and demonstrates bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Regions Bank v. Darla atkins, FA 1786409 (Forum June 20, 2018) ("Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) because Respondent uses the domain name to host an inactive website."); see also, Solar Turbines v. Ogunade (Forum FA 1811640) ("...Respondent inactively holds the <solarsturbines.com> domain name, thereby supporting a finding of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).") Indeed, it is difficult to conceive of a future use of the domain name which would not transgress Complainant's rights. Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the NETX360 mark when it registered <netx360.pro> as a domain name. Respondent's prior knowledge is apparent given NETX360's notoriety and given Respondent use of NETX360 to comprise the at-issue domain name's entire second level. Respondent's actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in NETX360 further demonstrates Respondent's bad faith. See Lemon Inc. v. Sumer Singh, FA 2110519 (Forum September 5, 2024 ("registration of a disputed domain name with actual knowledge of another's trademark rights is sufficient to establish bad faith, and can be shown by the notoriety of the mark and the use the Respondent makes of the disputed domain name"); see also, Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name). 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 <netx360.pro> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist Dated: February 26, 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.