About Intellectual Property IP Training IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Industrial Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgements IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Industrial Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars World IP Day WIPO Magazine Raising Awareness Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Economics Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Enforcement Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions COVID-19 Support National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO ALERT Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Job Vacancies Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Federated Hermes, Inc. v. Withheld for Privacy Purposes, Privacy Service Provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf / Deluxyq Qee

Case No. D2021-3125

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Federated Hermes, Inc., United States of America (“United States), represented by SafeNames Ltd., United Kingdom.

The Respondent is Withheld for Privacy Purposes, Privacy Service Provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf. Iceland / Deluxyq Qee, United States.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <hermesinvestmentltd.com> is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 22, 2021. On September 23, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 23, 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 September 24, 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 September 27, 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 October 7, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 27, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 28, 2021.

The Center appointed Lynda Zadra-Symes as the sole panelist in this matter on December 1, 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

Complainant is a global investment and sustainability manager headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Complainant was founded in 1955 and became Federated Hermes, Inc. in February 2020, combining the brands of HERMES INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT and FEDERATED INVESTORS. Complainant serves investors around the globe in regions including London, New York, Dublin, Singapore and Sydney and has approximately USD 619.4 billion assets under management, 1.3 trillion assets under advice, and more than 1,900 employees in 12 offices in North America, Europe and Asia. Complainant is also listed on the New York Stock Exchange.

Complainant offers several financial services, including 135 different types of mutual funds. Clients of the Complainant include corporations, governed entitites, insurance companies, foundations and endowments, banks and broker/dealers.

Hermes Investment Management (“Hermes”) was originally founded in 1983, operating as the managers of pension schemes for the British Post Office and British Telecoms (“BT”). Hermes has been using the mark HERMES since 1995, officially becoming known as HERMES INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT in 2014, while maintaining the corporate name of HERMES FUND MANAGERS LIMITED. Complainant’s acquisition of Hermes achieved widespread media coverage. In 2018, the Federated Investors, Inc. paid GBP 246 million to acquire a 60% stake in Hermes. In 2020, Federated Investors Inc. incorporated HERMES into its branding. Complainant has received multiple industry awards for its services and commitments to sustainability, such as “Sustainable Investment Awards 2021,” “OpRisk Awards 2020,” the “Asset Management Awards,” among others.

Complainant, its affiliates, subsidiaries and associated companies own trademarks within numerous jurisdictions, including the following:

Federated HERMES and Design International Registration No. 1561213 registered July 9, 2020

FEDERATED HERMES International Registration No. 1545766 registered July 9, 2020

Complainant registered the domain name <hermes-investment.com> in 2000, and operates a main website at that domain name to provide information on its services. Complainant has also registered numerous country-code top-level domains, including <hermesinvestment.dk> (registered May 2013), <hermesinvestment.at> (registered November 2016), <hermesinvestment.fr> (registered November 2016) and <hermes-investments.it> (registered November 2016). Complainant also operates social media accounts https://twitter.com/federated hermes; https://www.youtube.com/federated hermesinc; https://www.linkedin.com/company/federatedhermes-international/.

Google Trends data indicates that, even after Complainant’s rebrand to FEDERATED HERMES, online users continue to search for HERMES INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT.

Complainant’s Hermes Investment Management arm of the company has, for many years, incorporated a wing logo design as part of its HERMES INVESTMENT brand.

On July 15, 2021, Complainant sent Respondent a cease and desist letter. Respondent did not respond to the letter, but edited the content of the website at the disputed domain name by removing Complainant’s winged logo from the masthead of the website and replacing it with another logo.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademarks, that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name and that the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

In order to succeed in its claim, Complainant must demonstrate that all of the elements enumerated in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied:

(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and

(ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the disputed domain name; and

(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs the 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”.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

Complainant submitted evidence indicating that Complainant and its associated companies have acquired through extensive use a strong global reputation in the HERMES and HERMES INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT trademarks in the financial and investment sectors.

The disputed domain name incorporates the dominant elements of Complainant’s HERMES and HERMES INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT marks. Respondent’s inclusion of the terms “INVESTMENT” and “LTD” in the disputed domain name does not avoid a finding of confusing similarity.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademarks.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant submits that Respondent has not registered any trademarks for the HERMES INVESTMENT or FEDERATED HERMES terms. Complainant has not licensed Respondent to use the disputed domain name or any domain name featuring the marks HERMES INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT or FEDERATED HERMES. There is no evidence in the record showing that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name.

Respondent uses the domain name to host a website that claims to allegedly offer services identical to that of Complainant. The record indicates that Respondent is using the disputed domain name to impersonate Complainant, and has also used Complainant’s distinctive logo as part of the masthead of Respondent’s website, showing an intention to target Complainant. Respondent has also carried out phishing attacks using the disputed domain name, which Complainant was alerted to when a member of the public wished to confirm whether the email genuinely emanated from Complainant. Respondent used the disputed domain name to contact customers of the Complainant, offering the opportunity to open an escrow account and make money transfers to an unverified account. Such use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services and can never confer rights or legitimate interest on a respondent.

There is no plausible reason for Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name other than to take advantage of Complainant’s goodwill and reputation in its marks.

The record is devoid of any facts that establish any rights or legitimate interests of Respondent in the disputed domain name. Instead, the record indicates that Respondent knowingly adopted Complainant’s marks in the disputed domain name in an effort to create the false impression that Respondent is associated with Complainant and is an authorized representative of Complainant to defraud unsuspecting consumers into providing their financial information, or providing payment, to Respondent for Respondent’s personal profit and gain.

The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The record indicates that the disputed domain name is being used in connection with a fraudulent scam designed to lure consumers into believing that they are being contacted by Complainant in order to defraud consumers into providing personal and financial information.

The record indicates that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in its marks prior to registering the disputed domain name and that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in connection with a fraudulent scam for Respondent’s commercial gain by intentionally creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s marks.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.

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, <hermesinvestmentltd.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Lynda Zadra-Symes
Sole Panelist
Date: December 14, 2021

https://www3.wipo.int/contact/en/area.jsp?area=arbitration https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/disclaim.html https://www.wipo.int/en/web/privacy-policy/ https://www.wipo.int/en/web/accessibility/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/sitemap.html https://www3.wipo.int/newsletters/en/ https://www.wipo.int/podcasts/en/ https://www.wipo.int/news/en/