Principal Financial Services, Inc. v Clark Smith, VEMOBLI

WIPO Case No. D2025-1458

ARBITRATION

AND

MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Principal Financial Services, Inc. v. Clark Smith, VEMOBLI

Case No. D2025-1458

1. The Parties

Complainant is Principal Financial Services, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by

Neal & McDevitt, United States.

Respondent is Clark Smith, VEMOBLI, United States.

2. The Domain Names and Registrar

The disputed domain names <principal-dental.cfd>, <principal-financial.cfd>, <principal-financial-login.cfd>, and <principal-retirement.cfd> (hereinafter “Disputed Domain Names”) are registered with NameSilo, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 7, 2025. On April 9, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verif ication in connection with three of the Disputed Domain Names, namely <principal-financial.cfd>, <principal-f inancial- login.cfd>, and <principal-retirement.cfd>. On April 10, 2025, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verif ication response conf irming that Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details for these three Disputed Domain Names.

The Center verif ied that the Complaint satisf ied 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on April 23, 2025. On April 28, 2025, Complainant submitted an amended Complaint seeking to add a fourth domain name – <principal-dental.cfd> – to the ongoing case.

On May 15, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a second request for registrar verif ication in connection with the Disputed Domain Names, this time adding a request for verif ication with respect to <principal-dental.cfd>, the fourth disputed domain name that Complainant proposed to add by amendment to

page 2

the Complaint. On May 15, 2025, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verif ication response conf irming that Respondent is listed as the registrant on all four of the Disputed Domain Names, including <principal-dental.cfd>, and providing the contact details.

On May 16, 2025, the Center noted that notice had not been delivered to Respondent due to a technical issue. The Center therefore renotif ied Respondent of the Complaint on May 16, 2025, including the amended Complaint and the additional disputed domain name <principal-dental.cfd>. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 5, 2025. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notif ied Respondent’s default on June 16, 2025.

The Center appointed Lawrence K. Nodine as the sole panelist in this matter on June 19, 2025. The Panel f inds 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 publicly traded multi-national financial services institution that offers, through its licensees, member companies and affiliates, a broad range of services in the financial, insurance, investment, banking, retirement, global asset management, real estate, and healthcare sectors. Complainant uses the trademark PRINCIPAL (hereinaf ter the “Mark”) in connection with its services. Complainant owns trademark

registrations in many jurisdictions throughout the world, including:

- United States Reg. No. 1,562,541 for PRINCIPAL (registered on October 24, 1989);

- United States Reg. No. 4,483,644 for PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL GROUP (registered on February 18, 2014 ) (f inancial services, and also including “pre-paid dental Plans”); and

- United States Reg. No. 3,324,583 for PRINCIPAL (registered on October 30, 2007) (financial services, and also including “pre-paid dental plans”).

Complainant owns registrations for many domain names, including:

- <principal.com>; and

- <principalf inancial.com>.

The Disputed Domain Names were registered on the following dates:

- <principal-f inancial.cfd> (registered January 12, 2025);

- <principal-f inancial-login.cfd> (registered January 12, 2025);

- <principal-retirement.cfd> (registered February 26, 2025);

- <principal-dental.cfd> (registered April 2, 2025).

The Disputed Domain Names display pay-per-click (“PPC”) links to Complainant’s competitors:

- <principal-financial.cfd> (links to “Platforms for trading”; “Best Altcoins to Invest”; “Life Insurance Policy Buyers”; “Financial Investment”);

- <principal-f inancial-login.cfd> (links to “Platforms for Trading”; “Etrade Retirement Accounts”;

“Retirement Account”; “Financial Investment”);

- <principal-retirement-cfd> (links to “Trading platform for Stocks”); and

- <principal-dental.cfd> (links to “Dentist Dental Clinic”; “Dentistry Nearby”; “Dental Care”).

page 3

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the
Disputed Domain Names.

Notably, Complainant contends that its prominence in the financial services industry has made it a f requent target for fraudulent activity. See, e.g., Principal Financial Services, Inc. v. Aron Maxwell, WIPO Case No. D2023-0272 (phishing scheme). Complainant contends that there is a risk that Respondent will use the Disputed Domain Names in f raudulent schemes.

B. Respondent

Respondent did not respond to the Complaint.

6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

It is well accepted that the f irst element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between Complainant’s trademark and the Disputed Domain Name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on

Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7.

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 f inds the Mark is recognizable 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.

The Panel f inds the f irst 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 a respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name.

Although 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 difficult task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is of ten 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 (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisf ied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1.

Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds Complainant has established a prima facie case that rebutted 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.

page 4

“Applying UDRP paragraph 4(c), panels have found that the use of a domain name to host a parked page comprising PPC links does not represent a bona fide offering where such links compete with or capitalize on the reputation and goodwill of Complainant’s mark or otherwise mislead Internet users.” WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.9.

The Panel f inds the second element of the Policy has been established.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel f inds that Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Names in bad faith.

The Panel f inds, based on the balance of probabilities given the evidence of record, that Complainant is well known and that Respondent was aware of and targeted Complainant and its rights when he registered the Disputed Domain Names.

The Panel also finds that Respondent is using the Disputed Domain Names in bad faith. Respondent is
causing and exploiting confusion with Complainant’s well-known Mark to attract Internet users to
Respondent’s websites where there are PPC links to Complainant’s competitors. This is bad faith use.

Policy, paragraph 4(b)(iv).

The Panel f inds that 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 <principal-f inancial.cfd>, <principal-f inancial-login.cfd>,

<principal-retirement.cfd> and <principal-dental.cfd> be transferred to Complainant.

/Lawrence K. Nodine/
Lawrence K. Nodine
Sole Panelist
Date: June 27, 2025