Rdalio.com

The timeline behind rdalio.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 Ray Dalio v. Oluwaseun Tijani / Gem's Domain INC Claim Number: FA2606002228489 PARTIES Complainant is Ray Dalio ("Complainant"), represented by Sarah Sue Landau of Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C., New York, USA. Respondent is Oluwaseun Tijani / Gem's Domain INC ("Respondent"), Nigeria. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <rdalio.com>, registered with DropCatch.com 1255 LLC. PANEL The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Luz Helena Villamil Jimenez as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 22, 2026; Forum received payment on June 22, 2026. On June 23, 2026, DropCatch.com 1255 LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <rdalio.com> domain name is registered with DropCatch.com 1255 LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. DropCatch.com 1255 LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the DropCatch.com 1255 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 June 24, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 14, 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@rdalio.com. Also on June 24, 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. On July 9, 2026, the Respondent requested, pursuant to Rule 5(b) of the UDRP Rules and Supplemental Rule 6(a)(i), a four (4) calendar day extension to file the Response. The extended term was due on July 18, 2026, and according to the records, the Response was received on July 21, 2026. On July 21, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Luz Helena Villamil Jimenez 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. Preliminary Issue: Deficient Response The Examiner notes that the initial deadline for the Respondent to file a response to the Complaint was July 14, 2026. Having the Respondent requested a four (4) calendar day extension in accordance with the UDRP Rules, the final term to submit arguments in response to the Complaint was July 18, 2026. Since the response was submitted on July 21, 2026, the response was extemporaneous. The Panel, at its discretion, may choose whether to accept and consider this Response. See Sears Brands, LLC v. Airhart, FA 1350469 (Forum Dec. 2, 2010) ("Thus, the National Arbitration Forum does not consider the Response to be in compliance with ICANN Rule 5"). In the present case, the Panel chooses not to accept and consider the late Response received. PRELIMINARY ISSUE: ADDITIONAL SUBMISSION On July 22, 2026, the Complainant submitted an additional statement in reference to the assertions made by the Respondent in his July 21, 2026, response. Thereafter, on July 24, 2026, the Respondent submitted an opposition as well to the Complainant's additional statement. The Panel notes that since in the present case the late response submitted by the Respondent will not be considered, as established in the preliminary issue above, then all subsequent filings derived from it are automatically rendered legally invalid and will not be taken into account either. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant's assertions can be summarized as follows: Complainant Raymond "Ray" Dalio is a wealthy hedge fund manager, author, public speaker and philanthropist who founded the world-renowned investment management firm Bridgewater Associates, LP. Bridgewater is the largest hedge fund in the world by dollar investment and the fifth most important private company in the U.S. according to Fortune Magazine. Mr. Dalio also is the author of "How the Economic Machine Works," available in written and video formats, the latter narrated by Ray Dalio. Mr. Dalio also launched a popular app entitled "Principles in Action by Ray Dalio." Ray Dalio also is a world-renowned philanthropist, and both individually and through Dalio Foundation, Inc. ("Dalio Foundation"), which he founded with his wife in 2002 and funds through his own wealth, has donated hundreds of millions of dollars to various causes, ranging from Connecticut public education, ocean exploration and awareness, environmental protection, investing in technology access and education, meditation, mental health and wellness, financial inclusion, child welfare and capacity building in China, and community and the arts, among others. Thousands of articles and news stories have been written or broadcast about Ray Dalio and his investment, life and work management and philanthropic services, including without limitation in major widely distributed publications such as CNBC, Bloomberg, Business Insider, The New York Times, MarketWatch, The Los Angeles Times, Forbes, The Wall Street Journal, Economic Times, CNN, Financial Times and The Chicago Tribune. Examples of these references were submitted with the Complaint. Ray Dalio also owns United States registration No. 7411266 for the mark RAY DALIO with a filing date of September 20, 2022, and a registration date of June 11, 2024. According to Complainant, the disputed domain name, which incorporates Complainant's RAY DALIO Mark in whole, must be deemed virtually identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's registered mark. The disputed domain name abbreviates "Ray" to the initialism "R", and this does not obviate the confusing similarly as the distinctive elements of Complainant's RAY DALIO mark, namely "RDALIO" are replicated entirely in the disputed domain name. In addition, the addition of the gTLD .com and elimination of spaces fail to obviate the confusing similarity. Respondent should be considered as having no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name that is the subject of the Complaint. Respondent did not actually engage in any legitimate business or commerce under the names or marks RAY DALIO, R DALIO or the disputed domain name, and Respondent was not commonly known by either of those names. Furthermore, Respondent is not a licensee of Complainant, nor has Respondent ever been authorized by Complainant to register or use the names or mark RAY DALIO, R DALIO, or the disputed domain name. Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with the bona fide offering of goods and services, since the disputed domain name resolves to a website offering the disputed domain name for sale. Complainant also contends that the domain name should be considered as having been registered and used in bad faith, because Respondent himself contacted Complainant offering to resell the domain, which is not a legitimate or bona fide use of a domain name, but instead it is evidence of bad faith. Further, by causing initial interest confusion, Respondent's use and registration of the disputed domain name disrupt the business of Complainant, which is additional evidence of bad faith use and registration. To explain the concept of initial interest confusion Complainant quotes, among other cases, Morgan Stanley v. Patrick Kerr, DRS 5306 (Nominet Feb. 11, 2008) ("as the Complainant suggests, the reason that an internet user would arrive at the Respondent's website in the first place is likely to be that he or she was looking for the Complainant's website or for some information in connection with its Dean Witter branded products and services. Thus, they would have succumbed to what is often referred to as 'initial interest confusion.') B. Respondent Considering that the Response was not submitted within the deadline for doing so, it will not be considered in the present case. C. Additional Submissions In the present case both the Complainant and the Respondent submitted supplemental findings. However, since the Respondent's late response to the Complaint will not be considered, the parties' additional submissions cannot be considered either. FINDINGS The Panel has thoroughly reviewed the Complaint together with the evidence submitted to support the allegations, and based on all the documents, the Panel finds: - That Complainant is the exclusive owner of the trademark RAY DALIO which was registered in the United States under No. 7,411,266 on June 11, 2024. In addition, according to the information contained in the process, the trademark RAY DALIO is in commerce as of 2013. - That the disputed domain name <rdalio.com> does resolve to a website offering the disputed domain name for sale for the sum of USD 29,988. - That the domain <rdalio.com> was registered on May 25, 2026, and on May 28, 2026, Respondent contacted Complainant offering to sell the domain. 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 Complainant demonstrated with the trademark registration copy submitted with the Complaint that it is the exclusive owner of the trademark RAY DALIO registered in the United States and in force. In addition, it was demonstrated that the mark has been in use since 2013, and services under the mark RAY DALIO are widely rendered. As set forth in section 1.7 of WIPO Overview 3.0: "in cases where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark, or where at least a dominant feature of the relevant mark is recognizable in the domain name, the domain name will normally be considered confusingly similar to that mark for purposes of UDRP standing." In the case at hand the Disputed Domain Name does not contain the entirety of the RAY DALIO Trademark but does contain the name DALIO, which is indeed a dominant feature of the relevant mark. Therefore, since the portion DALIO of the registered trademark is recognizable in the disputed domain name <rdalio.com>, the latter is indeed confusingly similar to the mark RAY DALIO. Moreover, the evidence submitted with the Complaint allows concluding that the mark RAY DALIO is well known, to an extent that it would not be possible to validly argue that the existence of said mark was not known. In the present case Respondent has merely added an initial R and the <.com> gTLD to the disputed Domain Name, and as a result, the relevant portion of the disputed domain is again the dominant feature DALIO of the RAY DALIO mark, given that the initial R does not grant any distinctiveness to the disputed domain <rdalio.com>, but instead, allows associating the initial R with the name RAY. The Panel concurs and is in agreement with Complainants quote of the case Morgan Stanley v. Zhao Yun, FA 1877638 (Forum Feb. 12, 2020) (MSTANLEYGLOBAL.COM [is] confusingly similar to MORGAN STANLEY mark), and subscribes the line of reasoning therein contained. In light of the foregoing, the Panel considers that the Policy requirement in Paragraph 4(a)(i) is met as to the fact that the disputed domain name <rdalio.com> is confusingly similar to the trademark RAY DALIO owned by the Complainant. Rights or Legitimate Interests As set forth in section 2.1 of WIPO Overview 3.0: "While the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the often impossible task of 'proving a negative', requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, 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." Now, there is no indication in the record that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name, holds any trademark rights for the underlying surname, or operates a legitimate business under such denomination pursuant to Paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy. The Complainant has demonstrated that the underlying surname belongs to an extremely notorious individual, and the mark RAY DALIO and has been used in commerce since 2013, thereby enjoying well-established trademark rights prior to the domain's registration. Under consolidated UDRP jurisprudence, the use of a domain name exclusively to solicit the resale to the trademark owner does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services under Paragraph 4(c)(i). Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name according to the Policy requirement in Paragraph 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith The Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant provided uncontroverted evidence in its initial Complaint showing that, within days (three (3) days to be exact) of acquiring the domain name through the DropCatch platform, the Respondent proactively contacted the Complainant to offer the domain name for sale. Although the communication was subtly framed as an offer to 'protect' the Complainant from potential third-party misuse, UDRP panels consistently recognize such 'protection offers' as a form of constructive bad faith and commercial coercion when targeting a known brand. Adopting a totality-of-the-circumstances approach, this communication must be analyzed in conjunction with the public listing of the domain name for the speculative amount of USD $29,988. This sum vastly exceeds any documented out-of-pocket costs of registration. Given the massive prior notoriety of the surname—abundantly proven by the Complainant—it is legally inconceivable that the Respondent selected this specific domain name by mere coincidence. Instead, the record demonstrates a targeted registration aimed at exploiting the goodwill of the Complainant's mark for commercial gain. This behavior falls squarely within the bad faith scenario set forth in Paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy. Therefore, the Panel concludes that the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, according to the Policy requirement in Paragraph 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 <rdalio.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Luz Helena Villamil Jimenez, Panelist Dated: August 4, 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.