360netx.com

The timeline behind 360netx.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. Jonas Jeppesen / Munch Film A/S Claim Number: FA2601002201570 PARTIES Complainant is Pershing Investments LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Johanna Schmitt of Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, New York, USA. Respondent is Jonas Jeppesen / Munch Film A/S ("Respondent"), Denmark. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <360netx.com> ("Domain Name"), registered with Hello Internet Corp. 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. Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 23, 2026; Forum received payment on January 23, 2026. On January 30, 2026, Hello Internet Corp confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <360netx.com> domain name is registered with Hello Internet Corp and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Hello Internet Corp has verified that Respondent is bound by the Hello Internet Corp 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@360netx.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 Nicholas J.T. Smith 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 financial services entity that is a subsidiary of the well-known entity Bank of New York Mellon that provides a wide variety of financial services and investments under the NETX360 mark which it has done so since 2009. In particular Complainant offers a financial trading platform under the NETX360 mark and from its website at www.netx360.com where its customers provide their account and password details. Complainant has rights in the NETX360 mark through registration in various jurisdictions including with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (e.g. Reg. No. 3,971,044, registered May 31, 2011). Respondent's <360netx.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark as it transposes the "360" and "netx" portions of the NETX360 mark while adding the ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD"). Respondents has no rights or legitimate interests in the <360netx.com> domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name nor has Respondent been licensed, authorized, or otherwise permitted by Complainant to use Complainant's mark. Furthermore, Respondent's use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, as Respondent is merely passively holding the Domain Name, with the Domain Name resolving to an inactive site. Respondent registered and used the <360netx.com> domain name in bad faith. Specifically, Respondent is inactively holding the Domain Name. Any active use of the Domain Name is likely to cause confusion among internet users, and there is no conceivable way for Respondent to use the Domain Name without further infringement of Complainant's NETX360 mark. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant holds trademark rights for the NETX360 mark. The Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's NETX360 mark. Complainant has established that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the use of the Domain Name and that Respondent registered and has used of the Domain Name 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 Jurisprudential Overview 3.1 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 rights in the NETX360 mark based on registration with the USPTO (e.g Reg. No. 3,971,044, registered May 31, 2011). Registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently confers a complainant's rights in a mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Target Brands, Inc. v. jennifer beyer, FA 1738027 (Forum July 31, 2017) ("Complainant has rights in its TARGET service mark for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) by virtue of its registration of the mark with a national trademark authority, the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO")."). The Panel finds that the <360netx.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's NETX360 mark as simply inverts the elements "netx" and "360" of the NETX360 mark and adds the gTLD ".com". Merely inverting the elements of a Complainant's mark does not prevent confusing similarity for the purposes of the Policy; see Hourglass Angel, LLC v. Pham Dinh Nhut, FA 1556334 (Forum June 12, 2014) ("Complainant also alleges that Respondent merely transposes the words "hourglass" and "angel" in the domain name and adds the generic top-level domain ("gTLD") ".com." … Likewise, the Panel concludes that Respondent's domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's HOURGLASS ANGEL mark because it transposes the words in the mark, adds a gTLD, and eliminates the space between the words."). The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant alleges that Respondent holds no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. In order for Complainant to succeed under this element, it must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the Domain Name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006) and AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Forum Sept. 25, 2006) ("Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names."). The Panel holds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case. Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name as Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the NETX360 mark. Respondent has no relationship, affiliation, connection, endorsement or association with Complainant. WHOIS information can help support a finding that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, especially where a privacy service has been engaged. See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Dale Anderson, FA 1613011 (Forum May 21, 2015) (concluding that because the WHOIS record lists "Dale Anderson" as the registrant of the disputed domain name, the respondent was not commonly known by the <statefarmforum.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)); see also Kohler Co. v. Privacy Service, FA 1621573 (Forum July 2, 2015) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) where "Privacy Service" was listed as the registrant of the disputed domain name). The WHOIS lists "Jonas Jeppesen / Munch Film A/S" as registrant of record. Coupled with Complainant's unrebutted assertions as to absence of any affiliation or authorization between the parties, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name in accordance with Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). The Domain Name is inactive and there is no other evidence of any intention to use the Domain Name for any purpose, be it a bona fide offering or legitimate non-commercial use. In the absence of any additional evidence (none available in the present case) inactive holding of a disputed domain name is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See CrossFirst Bankshares, Inc. v Yu-Hsien Huang, FA 1785415 (Forum June 6, 2018) ("Complainant demonstrates that Respondent fails to actively use the disputed domain name as it resolves to an inactive website. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent fails to actively use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii)."). The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith The Panel finds on the balance of probabilities that, at the time of registration of the Domain Name, January 9, 2026, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's NETX360 mark. The Complainant has used the NETX360 mark since 2009 for a trading platform and has held a registered trade mark since 2011. Furthermore, there is no obvious explanation, nor has one been provided, for an entity to register a domain name that simply inverts the elements of the NETX360 mark to create a meaningless word other than to take advantage of Complainant's reputation in the NETX360 mark. In the absence of rights or legitimate interests of its own this demonstrates registration in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). The Panel notes that the actions of Respondent in this matter do not fall under the provisions set out in Policy ¶ 4(b). However, these provisions are merely illustrative rather than exclusive to support a finding of bad faith. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Domain Admin - This Domain is For Sale on GoDaddy.com / Trnames Premium Name Services, FA 1714157 (Forum Mar. 8, 2017) (determining that Policy ¶ 4(b) provisions are mere illustrative of bad faith, and that the respondent's bad faith may be demonstrated by other allegations of bad faith under the totality of the circumstances). It is well accepted that the elements of Policy ¶ 4(b) are not exclusive and that Panels may consider all of the circumstances of a given case, including passive holding, in making its bad faith analysis. See Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, Case No. D2000-0003 (WIPO Feb. 18, 2000) (after considering all the circumstances of a given case, it is possible that a "[r]espondent's passive holding amounts to bad faith."); 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."). Respondent has, without alternative explanation (or active use), registered a domain name that inverts the elements of the NET360 mark, a mark that is currently used for a webpage that allows people to log into their account. It is foreseeable that the Domain Name could be used to manipulate people into thinking that a website from the Domain Name requesting password details was a website maintained by the Complainant. Inactive holding of a domain name can be evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) and, after considering the totality of the circumstances (including the nature of the NETX360 mark and the use of the Complainant's website at www.netx360.com) and in the absence of any formal Response or other explanation for such inactivity by the Respondent, the Panel finds that this inactive holding of the Domain Name amounts to use in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied 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 <360netx.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Nicholas J.T. Smith, Panelist Dated: February 24, 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.