Golding Capital Partners GmbH v KAAS Trade, ASC LLC

WIPO Case No. D2025-1243

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Golding Capital Partners GmbH v. KAAS Trade, ASC LLC

Case No. D2025-1243

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Golding Capital Partners GmbH, Germany, represented by Ampersand Partnerschaft von Rechtsanwälten mbB, Germany.

The Respondents are KAAS Trade, United States of America (“United States”), and ASC LLC, Canada

(collectively the “Respondent”).

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <goldingcapitals.com> is registered with NameSilo, LLC. The disputed domain name <goldingscapital.com> is registered with and Hostinger Operations, UAB (collectively the “Registrars”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 26, 2025. On March 27, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrars requests for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On March 27, 2025, and March 28, 2025, the Registrars transmitted by email to the Center verification responses disclosing the registrant and contact information for the disputed domain names which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on March 28, 2025, with the registrant and contact information of nominally multiple underlying registrants revealed by the Registrars, requesting Complainant to either file separate complaint(s) for the disputed domain names associated with different underlying registrants or alternatively, demonstrate that the underlying registrants are in fact the same entity and/or that all domain names are under common control. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on April 2, 2025.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with 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 April 8, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 28, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 1, 2025.

page 2

The Center appointed David Taylor as the sole panelist in this matter on May 13, 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.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is an independent asset management firm based in Munich, Germany, specializing in alternative investments. Founded in 2000, the Complainant focuses on private equity, private debt, and infrastructure investments.

The Complainant is the owner of a number of trademarks for GOLDING, including:

-	European Union Trade Mark No. 018249729, GOLDING, registered on October 30, 2020;
-	Swiss Trademark Registration No. 769969, GOLDING, registered on September 28, 2021; and
-	United Kingdom Trademark Registration No. UK00918249729, GOLDING, registered on October 30,
2020.

The Complainant is also the registrant of the domain name <goldingcapital.com>, which it uses for its official website.

The disputed domain name <goldingcapitals.com> was registered on November 28, 2024. The disputed domain name <goldingscapital.com> was registered on February 16, 2025.

The disputed domain name <goldingscapital.com> has been used to create email addresses that have been under the Respondent’s control) with a view to obtaining money transfers. According to the Complainant, the disputed domain name <goldingcapitals.com> has been used for similar purposes.

used to impersonate employees of the Complainant as part of a phishing scheme targeting the
At the time of submission of the Complaint to the Center, the disputed domain names resolved to
registrar-provided parking pages. At the time of this decision, the disputed domain name

<goldingscapital.com> no longer resolves to an active web page.

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 name.

The Complainant asserts rights in the GOLDING trademark. The Complainant submits that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its trademark.

The Complainant submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names. The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain names have been used in the furtherance of a fraudulent email scheme aimed at impersonating the Complainant in order to obtain payments from the targets of the Respondent’s phishing attempts.

The Complainant submits that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. The Complainant submits that the Respondent’s fraudulent use of the disputed domain names amounts to bad faith.

page 3

The Complainant requests transfer of the disputed domain names.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

6.1. Consolidation: Multiple Respondents

The amended Complaint was filed in relation to nominally different domain name registrants. The Complainant alleges that the domain name registrants are the same entity or mere alter egos of each other, or under common control. The Complainant requests the consolidation of the Complaint against the multiple disputed domain name registrants pursuant to paragraph 10(e) of the Rules.

The disputed domain name registrants did not comment on the Complainant’s request.

Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules states that a complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder.

In addressing the Complainant’s request, the Panel will consider whether (i) the disputed domain names or
corresponding websites are subject to common control; and (ii) the consolidation would be fair and equitable
to all Parties. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition
(“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.11.2.

As regards common control, the Panel notes that the disputed domain names follow a highly similar naming pattern whereby the Complainant’s GOLDING trademark has been included in each disputed domain name, followed by the term “capital”, together with an additional letter “s” either immediately after the Complainant’s trademark or after the term “capital”, under the generic Top-Level Domain “.com”. The Panel further notes

that the disputed domain names appear to have both been used to create email addresses aimed at
impersonating the same employees of the Complainant.

As regards fairness and equity, the Panel sees no reason why consolidation of the disputes would be unfair or inequitable to any Party.

Accordingly, the Panel decides to consolidate the disputes regarding the nominally different disputed domain name registrants (referred to as the “Respondent”) in a single proceeding.

6.2. Substantive Matters

In order to prevail, the Complainant must demonstrate on the balance of probabilities that it has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy:

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

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

(iii)      the disputed domain names were 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 name. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.

page 4

The Panel finds that the Complainant has established rights in the GOLDING trademark, the registration details of which are provided in the factual background section above. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1. The disputed domain names comprise the Complainant’s GOLDING trademark in its entirety. In the case of the disputed domain name <goldingcapitals.com>, the Complainant’s trademark is followed by the term “capitals”. In the case of the disputed domain name <goldingscapital.com>, the Complainant’s trademark is followed by the letter “s” and the term “capital”. The Panel finds that such additions do not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain names and the Complainant’s trademark, which remains clearly recognizable in the disputed domain names. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8. See also Golding Capital Partners GmbH v. Mike ELi, WIPO Case No. D2025-1235 (<goldingcapital.org>).

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

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

As noted above, the Complainant has provided clear evidence showing that the disputed domain name been used for similar purposes. The Respondent has not disputed these claims.

<goldingscapital.com> has been used in the furtherance of a fraudulent email scheme targeting the

Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity such as phishing, impersonation/passing off, or other types of fraud can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1.

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

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

It is clear from the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names as described above that the Respondent knew of the Complainant and its prior trademark rights when registering the disputed domain names. The Panel finds that the Respondent registered the disputed domain names with a view to engaging in activity designed to impersonate the Complainant in the furtherance of a fraudulent email scheme, in bad faith.

Panels have held that the use of a domain name for phishing, impersonation/passing off, or other types of fraud constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain names constitutes bad faith under the Policy.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy.

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 <goldingcapitals.com> and <goldingscapital.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

/David Taylor/ David Taylor Sole Panelist Date: June 2, 2025