Nelx360.com

The timeline behind nelx360.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 Pershing Investments LLC v. Kacper Miller Claim Number: FA2601002201567 PARTIES Complainant is Pershing Investments LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Johanna Schmitt of Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, New York, USA. Respondent is Kacper Miller ("Respondent"), California, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <nelx360.com>, registered with Eranet International 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. Nick Gardner as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 23, 2026; Forum received payment on January 23, 2026. On January 29, 2026, Eranet International Limited confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <nelx360.com> 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 2, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 23, 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@nelx360.com. Also on February 2, 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 24, 2026 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Nick J. Gardner 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, Pershing Investments LLC, is a subsidiary of The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation, a leading global financial services company. Since at least 1958, Complainant has continuously promoted and provided a wide variety of investment and financial products and services to advisors, broker-dealers, family offices, hedge fund and registered investment advisor firms, and wealth managers. Among the products and services offered by Complainant is NetX360+, a platform that enables firms and users to execute trades, settle transactions, and manage custody assets. Complainant has continuously used the trademark NETX360 (the "NETX360 Mark") in connection with the promotion and provision of investment and financial products and services since at least 2009. Complainant owns United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") Registration No. 3,971,044 for the NETX360 mark, registered May 31, 2011, as well as numerous additional U.S. and international trademark registrations for the NETX360 Mark. By virtue of Complainant's longstanding and continuous use and promotion of the NETX360 Mark, the mark has become well known to and widely recognized by consumers in the financial services sector. The domain name <nelx360.com> was registered on January 23, 2026 — well after Complainant's trademark registration and decades after Complainant first used the NETX360 Mark in commerce. The domain name has been used to host a website that replicates the appearance of Complainant's authentic NetX360 login page at www.netx360.com (which redirects to https://www2.netx360.com/plus/login), including the use of Complainant's NETX360 logo and branding. The website solicits users to enter their User ID and Password, thereby seeking to harvest the sensitive account credentials of Complainant's clients and customers for fraudulent purposes. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS The Panel finds the following facts established by the evidence in the record: 1. Complainant owns valid and subsisting trademark registrations for the NETX360 Mark in connection with the promotion and provision of investment and financial products and services since at least 2009. See for example USPTO Registration No. 3,971,044 for the NETX360 mark, registered May 31, 2011. 2. Complainant has used the NETX360 Mark continuously in commerce since 2009 in connection with provision of investment and financial products and services. 3. Complainant operates a commercial website at <www.netx360.com>. 4. Respondent registered the disputed domain name <nelx360.com> which is a typosquatted variation of Complainant's NETX360 mark and legitimate domain name. 5. The disputed domain name resolves to a website which contains content, design elements, branding, product images, and promotional materials that are identical or substantially similar to those appearing on Complainant's legitimate website at <netx360.com>. The website creates the false impression that it is an official website of the Complainant or is authorized by, sponsored by, or affiliated with Complainant. The website appears to be designed to fraudulently obtain personal data from Complainant's customers 6. Respondent has not been authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted by Complainant to register domain names incorporating the NEXTX360 mark or to use the mark in any manner. 7. Respondent failed to respond to the Complaint, offering no explanation for its choice of domain name or its use of Complainant's trademark and website content. 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 has established rights in the NETX360 Mark through its extensive use since 2009 and its trademark registrations. The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied the threshold requirement of demonstrating rights in the NETX360 Mark for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy – see Farmlane Brands, LLC v. Helene Isbell Biggane, FA 1996757 (Forum July 12, 2022) "Ownership of a trademark registration is generally sufficient evidence that a complainant has the requisite rights in a mark for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy." The disputed domain name incorporates the substance of Complainant's NETX360 Mark with a minor typographical variation. This is a classic typosquatting scenario where the visual similarity creates a confusingly similar domain name. See Nutramax Laboratories, Inc. v. GRUPO SA Ltd Co / Grupo S.A. Ltd. Co., FA 1985605 (Forum Mar. 30, 2022) ("Many panels have held that minor mis-spellings of complainants' marks constitute typosquatting and support a finding of confusing similarity."). Further a change of a single letter does not distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant's mark. See Victoria's Secret v. Zuccarini, FA 95762 (Forum Nov. 18, 2000) (finding that by misspelling words and adding letters to words, respondent does not create a distinct mark but nevertheless renders the domain name confusingly similar to complainant's marks); Intelius, Inc. v. Hyn, FA 703175 (Forum July 5, 2006) (finding <intellus.com> confusingly similar to complainant's INTELIUS mark because the domain name differed by one letter and was visually similar). The addition of the generic top-level domain ".com" is a technical requirement of domain name registration and does not affect the confusing similarity analysis. See Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association v. Shi Lei aka Shilei, FA 1784643 (Forum June 18, 2018) ("A TLD (whether a gTLD, sTLD or ccTLD) is disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax requires TLDs."). The Panel finds that Complainant has established Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), it is now well established that the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) and that, if the prima facie case is made out, the burden then shifts to the Respondent to show that it does have such 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)). Complainant has demonstrated that Respondent is not authorized to use the NETX360 mark and has no relationship with Complainant. The WHOIS information identifies Respondent as "Kacper Miller" which bears no resemblance to the disputed domain name. There is no evidence that Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name or has acquired any trademark rights in "NETX360" or any similar term. Accordingly, Complainant has established a prima facie case under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and the burden shifts to Respondent to demonstrate rights or legitimate interests. The Panel finds that Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). The use of a typosquatted domain name, to attract traffic to a website which masquerades as being that of the Complainant cannot establish a legitimate interest. See Yahoo Assets LLC v. Zanybh Solutions, FA 2022077 (Forum Dec. 12, 2022) ("As the Panel agrees that Respondent appears to be passing off as Complainant to draw Internet traffic, the Panel finds that Respondent lacks any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii)."). Respondent has failed to rebut Complainant's prima facie case or to demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that Complainant has established Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith Policy ¶ 4(b) sets forth four non-exclusive circumstances that constitute evidence of registration and use in bad faith. The Panel finds that Respondent's conduct falls within Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), which addresses circumstances where "by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your 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 your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location." The disputed domain name is a classic typosquatting domain‚ incorporating substantially all of Complainant's entire NETX360 mark with the addition of a typographical error. It is inconceivable that Respondent could have registered the domain name without knowledge of Complainant and its mark. Typosquatting generally is an indication of bad faith registration and use. See Wells Fargo & Company v. Ken Laidlaw, FA 1932164 (Forum Mar. 10, 2021) ("[T]he domain name shows typosquatting on its face. Typosquatting is a practice whereby a domain name registrant deliberately introduces typographical errors or misspellings into a trademark … and then registers the resulting string in a domain name. The domain name registrant hopes that internet users will: 1) inadvertently type the malformed string when searching for content related to the domain name's target trademark and/or, 2) in viewing the domain name will confuse the domain name with its target trademark. The registrant then may use the confusion to inappropriately capitalize on the target trademark's goodwill. The domain name is visually similar to Complainant's trademark and to Complainant's actual domain name and is apt to be confused with Complainant's trademark and Complainant's official website when read. Typosquatting, in itself, indicates bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)."). The use of the disputed domain name to resolve to a website which purports to be that of the Complainant also demonstrates bad faith use. Prior UDRP panels have consistently found that such activity evidences bad faith registration and use, See Brooks Sports, Inc. v. Redacted for Privacy, FA 1930066 (Forum Feb. 15, 2021) ("[T]he Panel recalls Complainant provides screenshots of Respondent's resolving webpage, in which Respondent displays the BROOKS Mark in the banner and displays images of Complainant's products offered for sale, using Complainant's trademarks, product name, and product images in the listings.... Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv)."). The totality of the circumstances compels the conclusion that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Panel finds that Complainant has established 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 <nelx360.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Nick J. Gardner 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.