WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (formerly known as Goldman, Sachs & Co.) v. Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot / kumru pinar

Case No. D2021-0613

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (formerly known as Goldman, Sachs & Co.), United States of America (“United States”), represented by Jackson Walker LLP, United States.

The Respondent is Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot, United States / kumru pinar, Turkey.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <goldmansachsadvisorvantage.com> (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with Dynadot, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 27, 2021. On March 1, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On March 2, 2021, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Disputed Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on March 3, 2021 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on March 5, 2021.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 9, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 29, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 30, 2021.

The Center appointed Nick J. Gardner as the sole panelist in this matter on April 6, 2021. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.

4. Factual Background

Founded in 1869 by Marcus Goldman and Samuel Sachs, the Complainant is a subsidiary of The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., a leading global investment banking, securities and investment management firm that provides a wide range of financial services to a substantial and diversified client base that includes corporations, financial institutions, governments and individuals.

The Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations worldwide for the word trademark GOLDMAN SACHS, including for example United States Registration No. 1985196 (registered on July 9, 1996) and European Union Registration No. 002727865 (registered on December 5, 2003). These trademarks are referred to collectively in this decision as the “GOLDMAN SACHS Trademark”.

The Complainant conducts Internet activities through its websites linked to domain names including <goldmansachs.com>.

The Complainant filed an application with the United States Patent & Trademark Office on February 9, 2021, Serial Number 90521206, for the word mark: GOLDMAN SACHS ADVISOR VANTAGE (the “GOLDMAN SACHS ADVISOR VANTAGE Trademark Application”).

The Disputed Domain Name was registered on February 12, 2021. It currently resolves to a landing page offering the Disputed Domain Name for sale for USD 988.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complaint is set out in considerable detail with citation of numerous previous UDRP cases. In summary, however, the Complainant’s case is straightforward and is as follows:

The Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to its GOLDMAN SACHS Trademark, which is incorporated in its entirety in the Disputed Domain Name. It is also identical to the GOLDMAN SACHS ADVISOR VANTAGE Trademark Application.

The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name. The Respondent does not hold any proprietary rights in or to any registered trademark for “GOLDMAN SACHS ADVISOR VANTAGE” or for any other similar name, term, phrase, symbol, device, or combination of the foregoing. The Complainant has never consented to the Respondent’s use of its GOLDMAN SACHS Trademark in connection with the Disputed Domain Name, and there is no affiliation or connection between the Complainant and the Respondent; and the Respondent has never been known by the Disputed Domain Name or by any other term that incorporates or is similar to the GOLDMAN SACHS Trademark in whole or in part.

The Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith because: (i) the GOLDMAN SACHS Trademark is unique and distinctive, and not associated with anyone other than the Complainant and its affiliates; (ii) as the Complainant’s reputation is significant, and its trademark is similar to the Disputed Domain Name, the likelihood of confusion is such that bad faith may be inferred; (iii) the GOLDMAN SACHS Trademark is uniquely associated with the Complainant; (iv) it is clear that the Respondent chose the Disputed Domain Name to take advantage of the fact that the Complainant had submitted the GOLDMAN SACHS ADVISOR VANTAGE Trademark Application; and (v) the Respondent is not using the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, and did not register the Disputed Domain Name with a legitimate intent.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

Preliminary Matters

The Panel notes that no communication has been received from the Respondent. However, given the Complaint and Written Notice were sent to the relevant addresses disclosed by the Registrar, then the Panel considers that this satisfies the requirement in paragraph 2(a) of the Rules to “employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice”. Accordingly, the Panel considers it is able to proceed to determine this Complaint and to draw inferences from the Respondent’s failure to file any Response. While the Respondent’s failure to file a Response does not automatically result in a decision in favor of the Complainant, the Panel may draw appropriate inferences from the Respondent’s default (see, e.g., Verner Panton Design v. Fontana di Luce Corp, WIPO Case No. D2012-1909).

The Panel also notes this is a case where one Respondent (“Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot”) appears to be a privacy or proxy service.

The Panel in this case adopts the approach of most UDRP panels, as outlined in WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) at section 4.4.5, as follows:

“Panel discretion

In all cases involving a privacy or proxy service and irrespective of the disclosure of any underlying registrant, the appointed panel retains discretion to determine the respondent against which the case should proceed.

Depending on the facts and circumstances of a particular case, e.g., where a timely disclosure is made, and there is no indication of a relationship beyond the provision of privacy or proxy registration services, a panel may find it appropriate to apply its discretion to record only the underlying registrant as the named respondent. On the other hand, e.g., where there is no clear disclosure, or there is some indication that the privacy or proxy provider is somehow related to the underlying registrant or use of the particular domain name, a panel may find it appropriate to record both the privacy or proxy service and any nominally underlying registrant as the named respondent.”

In the present case, the Panel considers the substantive Respondent to be kumru pinar and references to the Respondent are to that person.

Substantive Matters

To succeed, in accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must satisfy the Panel that:

(1) The Disputed Domain Name is identical with or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;

(2) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name; and

(3) The Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the GOLDMAN SACHS Trademark.

The Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the GOLDMAN SACHS Trademark. Previous UDRP panels have consistently held that domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark for purposes of the Policy “when the domain name includes the trademark, or a confusingly similar approximation, regardless of the other terms in the domain name” (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Richard MacLeod d/b/a For Sale, WIPO Case No. D2000-0662). It is established that, where a mark is the distinctive part of a disputed domain name, the disputed domain name is considered to be confusingly similar to the registered mark (DHL Operations B.V. v. DHL Packers, WIPO Case No. D2008-1694).

It is also established that the addition of a descriptive term or dictionary word (such as here “advisor” and “vantage”) to a disputed domain name has little, if any, effect on a determination of confusing similarity between the domain name and the mark (Quixtar Investments, Inc. v. Dennis Hoffman, WIPO Case No. D2000-0253); furthermore, mere addition of a generic or descriptive term does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element (PRL USA Holdings, Inc. v. Spiral Matrix, WIPO Case No. D2006‑0189).

It is also well established that the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”), in this case “.com”, does not affect the Disputed Domain Name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar. See, for example, Rollerblade, Inc. v. Chris McCrady, WIPO Case No. D2000-0429.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark and hence the first condition of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been fulfilled.

In the light of the above finding, the Panel does not need to address the Complainant’s further arguments as to trademark rights in the GOLDMAN SACHS ADVISOR VANTAGE Trademark Application noting that application has not yet proceeded to registration.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances any of which is sufficient to demonstrate that the Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name:

(i) before any notice to the Respondent of the dispute, use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Disputed Domain Name or a name corresponding to the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or

(ii) the Respondent has been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name, even if the Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or

(iii) the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.

None of these apply in the present circumstances. The Complainant has not authorised, licensed, or permitted the Respondent to register or use the Disputed Domain Name or to use the GOLDMAN SACHS Trademark or the GOLDMAN SACHS ADVISOR VANTAGE Trademark Application.

The Complainant has therefore established a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name and thereby the burden of production shifts to the Respondent to produce evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name (see, for example, Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, WIPO Case No. D2000-0624; Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2003-0455).

The Panel finds that the Respondent has failed to produce any evidence to establish its rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name and the second condition of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been fulfilled.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Under paragraph 4(b) of the Policy a non-exhaustive list of factors evidencing registration and use in bad faith comprises:

(i) circumstances indicating that you have registered or you have acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or

(ii) you have registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

(iii) you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or

(iv) 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.

In the present case, the Panel concludes the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s GOLDMAN SACHS Trademark and the GOLDMAN SACHS ADVISOR VANTAGE Trademark Application when he registered the Disputed Domain Name. The Panel concludes that the Respondent deliberately selected the Disputed Domain Name because of its similarity with the Complainant’s GOLDMAN SACHS ADVISOR VANTAGE Trademark Application. It is clearly not coincidental that the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name three days after the Complainant filed the GOLDMAN SACHS ADVISOR VANTAGE Trademark Application. The Panel infers he did so hoping to sell the Disputed Domain Name to the Complainant at a profit. Clearly the Respondent has advertised the Disputed Domain Name for sale. Given that the term GOLDMAN SACHS ADVISOR VANTAGE has no other meaning, and is unlikely to be of value or interest for any legitimate purpose other than use by the Complainant the Panel infers that paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy above applies.

Further, the Panel notes the Respondent has not filed a Response and hence has not availed itself of the opportunity to present any case of legitimate use that it might have. The Panel infers that none exists.

As a result, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Accordingly, the third condition of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been fulfilled.

7. Decision

For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the Disputed Domain Name <goldmansachsadvisorvantage.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Nick J. Gardner
Sole Panelist
Date: April 20, 2021