BGC Group, Inc., BGC Partners, L.P., BGC Brokers L.P. v Bradwell Grove

WIPO Case No. D2025-2069

ARBITRATION

AND

MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

BGC Group, Inc., BGC Partners, L.P., BGC Brokers L.P. v. Bradwell Grove,
bradwell.grove.bgc

Case No. D2025-2069

1. The Parties

The Complainants are BGC Group, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), BGC Partners, L.P.,

United States, and BGC Brokers L.P., United Kingdom, represented by Akerman LLP, United States.

The Respondent is Bradwell Grove, bradwell.grove.bgc, Republic of Moldova.

2. The Domain Names and Registrar

The disputed domain names <bgc-brokers-lp.com>, <bgcbrokers-lp.com> and <bgcbrokers-lp.net> are
registered Atak Domain Hosting Internet ve Bilgi Teknolojileri Limited Sirketi d/b/a Atak Teknoloji (the

“Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 24, 2025. On
May 26, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in
connection with the disputed domain names. On May 28, 2025, the Registrar transmitted by email to the
Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain names,
which differed from the named Respondent (Domain Administrator) and contact information in the Complaint.
The Center sent an email communication to the Complainants on the same day, providing the registrant and
contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainants to submit an amendment to the

Complaint. The Complainants filed an amended Complaint on May 30, 2025.

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”).

page 2

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on June 3, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 23, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on June 24, 2025.

The Center appointed Edoardo Fano as the sole panelist in this matter on June 27, 2025. 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.

The Panel has not received any requests from the Complainants or the Respondent regarding further submissions, waivers or extensions of deadlines, and the Panel has not found it necessary to request any further information from the Parties.

Having reviewed the communication records in the case file provided by the Center, the Panel finds that the Center has discharged its responsibility under the Rules, paragraph 2(a), “to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to [the] Respondent”. Therefore, the Panel shall issue its Decision based upon the Complaint, the Policy, the Rules, and the Supplemental Rules and without the benefit of a response from the Respondent.

The language of the proceeding is English, being the language of the Registration Agreements, as per paragraph 11(a) of the Rules.

4. Factual Background

The Complainants are BGC Group, Inc., its affiliate BGC Partners, L.P., and BGC Brokers L.P. (hereinafter individually and collectively referred to as “Complainant”), operating in the field of global brokerage and financial technology and owning several trademark registrations for BGC, among which the following ones:

- European Union Trademark Registration No. 003812195 for BGC BROKERAGE, registered on July 20,

2005;

- United States Trademark Registration No. 3184410 for BGC, registered on December 12, 2006;

- United States Trademark Registration No. 4001347 for BGC, registered on July 26, 2011.

The Complainant operates on the Internet, being “ its official website.

The Complainant provided evidence in support of the above.

According to the WhoIs records, the disputed domain names <bgc-brokers-lp.com>, <bgcbrokers-lp.com> and <bgcbrokers-lp.net> were all registered on June 12, 2024, and the disputed domain name <bgc-brokers-lp.com> resolves to a website branded as BGC Brokers and which offers an alleged trading platform for investors with various trading account levels requiring deposits of funds in varying amounts, while the disputed domain names <bgcbrokers-lp.com> and <bgcbrokers-lp.net> are inactive, although they both use subdomain pages as login pages for alleged trading accounts.

Lastly, the Complainant provided emails of customers complaining about the fraudulent scheme on the website connected to the disputed domain name <bgcbrokers-lp.com>.

page 3

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain names.

Notably, the Complainant states that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its trademark
BGC, as they all include the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety.

Moreover, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names since it has not been authorized by the Complainant to register the disputed domain names or to use its trademark within the disputed domain names, it is not commonly known by the disputed

domain names, and it is not making either a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate
noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names. The disputed domain name <bgc-brokers-lp.com>
resolves to a website branded as BGC Brokers and which offers the same services as the Complainant’s,
claiming to have its head office located at the exact address of the Complainant’s BGC Brokers, L.P.’s office
in the United Kingdom, while the disputed domain names <bgcbrokers-lp.com> and <bgcbrokers-lp.net> are
inactive, although they both use subdomain pages as login pages for alleged trading accounts, namely the
same services as the Complainant’s.

The Complainant submits that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain names in bad faith, since the Complainant’s trademark BGC is well known in the field of brokerage and financial technology. Therefore, the Respondent targeted the Complainant’s trademark at the time of registration of the disputed domain names and the Complainant contends that the use of the disputed domain names by the Respondent to pass itself off as the Complainant for fraudulent activities and using the goodwill and reputation built by the Complainant in its trademark for the Respondent’s own profit, qualifies as bad faith registration and use.

B. Respondent

The Respondent has made no reply to the Complainant’s contentions and is in default. In reference to paragraphs 5(f) and 14 of the Rules, no exceptional circumstances explaining the default have been put forward or are apparent from the record.

A respondent is not obliged to participate in a proceeding under the Policy, but if it fails to do so, reasonable facts asserted by a complainant may be taken as true, and appropriate inferences, in accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, may be drawn. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.3.

6. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists three elements, which the Complainant must satisfy in order to succeed:

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

(ii)       the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; and

(iii)      the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain names. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.

page 4

The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy.

WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1.

The Panel finds the entirety of the mark BGC is reproduced within the disputed domain names. Accordingly,
the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO
Overview 3.0, section 1.7.

While the addition of other terms, here “brokers” and “lp” separated by hyphens, may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such terms does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain names and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8.

It is also well accepted that a generic Top-Level Domain, in this case “.com” and “.net”, is typically ignored
when assessing the similarity between a trademark and a domain name. WIPO Overview 3.0, section

1.11.1.

The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name.

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. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1.

Having reviewed the present record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise.

Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity, here impersonation/passing off, can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1.

Moreover, the Panel finds that the composition of the disputed domain names carries a risk of implied affiliation as it effectively impersonates or suggests sponsorship or endorsement by the Complainant. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1.

Based on the available record, the Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel notes that for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular but without limitation, that if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith.

page 5

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances may be relevant in assessing whether a respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1.

In the present case, regarding the registration in bad faith of the disputed domain names, the reputation of the Complainant’s trademark BGC in the field of brokerage and financial technology is clearly established and the Panel finds that the Respondent knew of the Complainant and its trademark and deliberately

registered the disputed domain names in bad faith, especially because the disputed domain name
<bgc-brokers-lp.com> resolves to a website branded as BGC Brokers, claiming to have its head office
located at the exact address of the Complainant’s BGC Brokers, L.P.’s office in the United Kingdom, and
which offers the same services as the Complainant’s, while the disputed domain names
<bgcbrokers-lp.com> and <bgcbrokers-lp.net> both use login pages for alleged trading accounts, namely the
same services as the Complainant’s.

The Panel further notes that the disputed domain names are also used in bad faith, since the Respondent is trying to impersonate the Complainant, taking into consideration the evidence of actual consumer confusion caused by the disputed domain name <bgcbrokers-lp.com> provided by the Complainant, with the purpose of intentionally attempting to create a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the

disputed domain names’ source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement, an activity clearly detrimental to the
Complainant’s business. WIPO Overview 3.0, sections 3.1.4 and 3.4.

Moreover, the Panel considers that the nature of the inherently misleading disputed domain names, which include the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety with the mere addition of the terms “brokers” (referring to the Complainant’s field of activity and very similar to the Complainant’s trademark BGC BROKERAGE) and “lp” (commonly standing for “limited partnership”), separated by hyphens, further supports a finding of bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1.

Based on the available record, the Panel finds the third element of the Policy has been established.

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 names <bgc-brokers-lp.com>, <bgcbrokers-lp.com> and

<bgcbrokers-lp.net> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Edoardo Fano/
Edoardo Fano
Sole Panelist
Date: July 10, 2025