Vixcentral.com

The timeline behind vixcentral.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 Cboe Exchange, Inc. v. Eliezer Mintz Claim Number: FA2602002207640 PARTIES Complainant is Cboe Exchange, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Kevin M. Bovard of Baker & Hostetler LLP, Pennsylvania, USA. Respondent is Eliezer Mintz ("Respondent"), New Jersey, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <vixcentral.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC. 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. Paddy Tam as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 26, 2026; Forum received payment on February 26, 2026. On February 27, 2026, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <vixcentral.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, LLC 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 March 9, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 30, 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@vixcentral.com. Also on March 9, 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. A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on March 23, 2026. On March 24, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Paddy Tam 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. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant The Complainant argues that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to its VIX trademark, in which it has established rights through registration with the USPTO and other authorities, as well as longstanding use since at least 1993. The Disputed Domain Name incorporates the VIX mark in its entirety and merely adds the descriptive term "central" which does not meaningfully distinguish it. Under the UDRP precedent, the addition of generic terms or a top-level domain such as ".com" does not avoid a finding of confusing similarity. Accordingly, the Complainant satisfies the first element of the UDRP. The Complainant further contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. The Respondent is not affiliated with, authorized by, or commonly known by the VIX mark, and initially concealed its identity through WHOIS privacy services. The Disputed Domain Name resolves to a website that references the Complainant and its VIX mark while displaying pay-per-click advertisements and links to competing financial content for commercial gain. Such use is not considered a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Therefore, the Respondent cannot establish rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. Finally, the Complainant asserts that the Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Respondent had both constructive and actual knowledge of the Complainant's well-known VIX mark, as evidenced by its notoriety and the Respondent's explicit references to the Complainant and its services on the website. The Respondent uses the Disputed Domain Name to attract internet users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion as to source, affiliation, or endorsement, while also offering competing or related services. Additional indicators of bad faith include the use of advertising revenue models and the concealment of identity. Taken together, these circumstances demonstrate bad faith registration and use under the UDRP. B. Respondent The Respondent argues that this case is not cybersquatting but concerns a long-running, legitimate website. It states that it registered the Disputed Domain Name in 2012 and has continuously operated it as a genuine analytics platform for VIX futures data, including term structure, contango, and backwardation. The site was built and maintained by itself, and initially operated for several years without any advertising, serving as an educational and analytical tool. It emphasizes that the site has a specialized, sophisticated audience, significant direct traffic, and has been publicly recognized and used within the financial community, including by individuals associated with the Complainant. The Respondent also contends that its longstanding use of the Disputed Domain Name for a bona fide product satisfies paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. It argues that it is commonly associated with VIXCentral through public sources such as social media, articles, and videos, and that the website is not a parked page but a functional analytics tool. Any advertising that appears is incidental and not the primary purpose of the site. It further disputes the Complainant's claim of "competing services" noting that he does not operate an exchange or sell VIX products but merely provides independent analytical tools that may even support understanding of the Complainant's own products. The Respondent further argues that the Disputed Domain Name was registered and used in good faith to develop a legitimate product, rather than to exploit the Complainant's trademark. The Respondent contends that the website was active immediately following registration, was never offered for sale, and did not display advertising for several years, circumstances which, in its view, are inconsistent with an intent to profit from confusion. It also submits that mere awareness of the VIX mark does not, in itself, establish bad faith, particularly where the use is descriptive of the subject matter. In addition, the Respondent notes that the Complainant was aware of, and interacted with, the website for a number of years prior to filing the Complaint, which the Respondent argues undermines any allegation of abusive intent. Finally, the Respondent asserts that the Complaint constitutes Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH). The Respondent argues that the Complainant has ignored key facts, including the website's long history, its bona fide use, and prior public interactions with it, and has instead presented an incomplete and misleading case. In light of the more than 13 year delay, the Respondent's alleged substantial reliance and investment, and the asserted lack of compelling evidence of bad faith, the Respondent contends that the Complainant should have known it could not succeed under the Policy. Accordingly, the Respondent requests that the Panel deny the Complaint, permit the Respondent to retain the disputed domain name, and make a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking. FINDINGS The Disputed Domain Name was registered on May 21, 2012. The Complainant is an operator of securities and derivatives exchanges with activities spanning multiple asset classes, including options, futures, equities, exchange traded products, and foreign exchange. The Complainant states that it and its affiliated entities have used the VIX Marks in connection with financial services relating to market volatility since at least as early as 1993. The first US trademark registration for VIX was obtained in 2002, and it holds trademark registrations in the European Union and other jurisdictions, including Canada, Japan, China, and Mexico. The Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name in May 2012 and has created and coded the website since its launch in June 2012. 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. Identical and/or Confusingly Similar To satisfy the first element under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, a complainant needs to prove its rights in a trademark and the domain name is identical and/or confusingly similar to the trademark. The Complainant claims rights in the VIX trademark through its trademark registrations in multiple jurisdictions, including the United States, where the Respondent is domiciled. By virtue of its trademark registrations, the Complainant has demonstrated that it holds rights in the VIX trademark under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. See United Way of America v. Alex Zingaus, FA 1036202 (Forum Aug. 30, 2007) ("Panels have long recognized Complainant's registration of a mark with a trademark authority is sufficient to confer rights in the mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)"). The Complainant further asserts that the Respondent uses Complainant's VIX mark in the Disputed Domain Name and merely adds the descriptive term "central" which does not sufficiently distinguish the Disputed Domain Name. The addition of a generic top-level domain (gTLD) is not a distinguishing feature and does not affect the likelihood of confusion. Upon conducting a side-by-side comparison, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's VIX and that the inclusion of the .com top-level domain (TLD) does not distinguish the Disputed Domain Name from the Complainant's mark. For the foregoing reasons, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights and the Complainant has satisfied Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. Rights or Legitimate Interests To satisfy the second element under Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must first establish a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. The burden of proof then shifts to the Respondent to demonstrate that it does possess such rights or legitimate interests. See Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) ("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."). The Complainant claims that it has not licensed, authorized, or endorsed the Respondent's use of the VIX mark. The Complainant is unaware of any legitimate business in its industry operating under a similar name, and the Respondent is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name. The Complainant also provides evidence that the Disputed Domain Name resolves to a website prominently referencing the Complainant and its VIX trademark, accompanied by advertising links. Panels have consistently held that the use of a complainant's mark to attract Internet users to a website displaying pay-per-click or other advertising links does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services under paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy, nor a legitimate non-commercial or fair use under paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy. The Panel sees no basis to depart from that reasoning here. Having considered the overall circumstances, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. The burden of proof has shifted to the Respondent to demonstrate that it has rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. The Respondent rebuts that the website provides analytical tools relating to VIX futures, the Panel finds that the Respondent's use of the Complainant's distinctive VIX mark in the Disputed Domain Name creates a misleading impression of affiliation or endorsement. Even if the site contains some analytical content, the Respondent has chosen to incorporate the Complainant's mark in its entirety and to use that mark to attract users for commercial gain. Panels have repeatedly held that such use does not confer rights or legitimate interests, particularly where the domain name itself suggests sponsorship by the trademark owner. See Hubei Ji Su Kan Dian Technology Co., Ltd. and Beijing Zitiao Network Technology Co., LTD. v. HuanCheng Bai, FA 2170801 (Forum Sept. 16, 2025). See also Nasdaq, Inc. v. wang wen ge / shang hai jian xi cai wu zi xun zhong xin ( you xian he huo ), FA 1950533 (Forum July 27, 2021). The Respondent's reliance on the longevity of the website does not alter this conclusion. Longstanding use does not create legitimacy where the use itself is predicated on appropriating another party's trademark. Nor does the presence of generic advertising diminish the fact that the Respondent is deriving commercial benefit from a domain name that trades on the Complainant's goodwill. The Respondent has provided no evidence of independent trademark rights, descriptive use, or any other basis that would justify its adoption of a domain name incorporating the Complainant's well-known VIX mark. The Respondent further argues that certain Complainant personnel and an official account publicly referenced or interacted with the VIXCentral website in prior years, and that such interactions undermine the Complainant's assertion that the Respondent lacked any bona fide basis for its use of the Disputed Domain Name. The Panel does not accept this argument. Panels have consistently held that informal references, incidental interactions, or educational citations by individual employees do not constitute authorization, endorsement, acquiescence, or any grant of rights under the Policy. In addition, the Respondent has not accurately and prominently disclosed the registrant's relationship with trademark holder which failed the Oki Data Test outlined under paragraph 2.8 of WIPO Overview 3.1. The Panel finds that the Respondent failed to prove that it has rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name under Paragraph 4(c). For the foregoing reasons, the Panel finds the Complainant has satisfied Paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. Registration and Use in Bad Faith To satisfy the third element under Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, a complainant must prove both the registration and use of the domain name are in bad faith. The Complainant contends that the global notoriety of the VIX mark, together with the Respondent's specific reference to Cboe on the associated website, demonstrates actual knowledge of the Complainant's rights. The Respondent asserts that the Disputed Domain Name was registered for use as a bona fide educational tool relating to market concepts. The Panel notes that the Disputed Domain Name was registered ten years after the Complainant registered its first VIX trademark and finds that the Respondent had actual knowledge of the Complainant's world renowned VIX mark at the time of registration. In light of the website's focus on VIX futures and its explicit reference to Cboe, the Panel concludes that the Respondent's awareness of the Complainant's rights is evident. Something like "Mintz Central" may make more sense for the Respondent's long-term development of the website. The registration of a domain name incorporating a well-known mark, in order to target the Complainant's specific sector, constitutes bad faith. The Complainant further alleges that the Respondent intentionally attracts Internet users for commercial gain through advertising. The Respondent counters that the website operated on a non-commercial basis during its first three years, which, it argues, negates any initial intent to profit from confusion. The Panel is not persuaded. The evidence demonstrates that the Respondent's current use includes active monetization through third party advertising and the display of VIX quotes alongside the Cboe name, thereby exploiting the Complainant's goodwill. Under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, such conduct creates a likelihood of confusion as to source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement. By diverting Internet users seeking official Cboe data to a commercialized website, the Respondent engages in impermissible initial interest confusion, which is not cured by any prior period of non-commercial use. Having considered the overall circumstances, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name with bad faith under Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. For the foregoing reasons, the Panel finds the Complainant has satisfied Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy PRELIMINARY ISSUE 1: LACHES The Respondent notes that the Complainant was aware of, and interacted with, the website for a number of years prior to filing the Complaint, which the Respondent argues undermines any allegation of abusive intent. The Panel finds that the doctrine of laches does not apply as a defense or that the application of the defense does not substantially aid Respondent under the facts of the case. See G.O. Corporation I, Inc. v. Damon DoRemus / JD Young, FA 1695886 (Forum Nov. 30, 2016) ("To the extent that there might be said to have been some sort of delay, it was not delay which then made Respondent's use bona fide, or which permitted Respondent to build up legitimate interests in the domain name, bearing in mind what the Panel has already found."); See also Frontier Distribution LLC v. Shannon Hamilton, FA 1611518 (Forum May 12, 2015) ("Given that Respondent has not acquired rights or legitimate interests by using the Domain Name and has registered the Domain Name in bad faith, the Panel finds that the delay in filing the present proceeding does not affect the outcome."). PRELIMINARY ISSUE 2: REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKING Pursuant to paragraph 1 of the Rules, Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH) is defined as using the Policy in bad faith to attempt to deprive a registered domain name holder of a domain name. In the present case, the Complainant satisfies all the three elements under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Panel finds that the Complainant has not engaged in reverse domain name hijacking. See Sub-Zero, Inc. v. Ross Lavnikevich / iGenii Inc, FA 2014879 (Forum Nov. 14, 2022) ("Since Complainant has satisfied all three elements required by Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the reverse domain name hijacking is not founded."); See also The Barack Obama Foundation v. michael board / Championshipblackjack, Inc, FA 1954598 (Forum Sept. 7, 2021) ("Since the Panel found that Complainant has satisfied all of the elements of Policy ¶ 4(a), it finds that Complainant has not engaged in reverse domain name hijacking."). 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 <vixcentral.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Paddy Tam, Panelist Dated: March 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.