Vanguard Group filed a UDRP against the registrant of Vanguardibank.com, arguing the name copied its VANGUARD mark and diverted users to financial services. The Complainant pointed to the Respondent’s use of a ship logo and the addition of “i” and “bank” as misleading variations on its brand.
The Respondent countered that it is a licensed Dubai company called Vanguard Immigration and Banking L.L.C-FZ, providing immigration and business consultancy services, not asset management. It submitted a business license and argued that “vanguard” is a generic term while “ibank” refers to “immigration and banking.”
The panel found the domain confusingly similar to VANGUARD but determined that the Respondent plausibly operates a business under its registered name, with no evidence of targeting the Complainant. The limited record did not establish a lack of rights or legitimate interests, making the matter more suitable for trademark litigation than UDRP.
Final decision: Deny the transfer of the domain vanguardibank.com to the Complainant.
Copyright © 2025 DomainGang.com · All Rights Reserved.The Vanguard Group, Inc. v. Mo Xu / Vanguard Immigration and Banking L.L.C-FZ
Claim Number: FA2507002167313
PARTIES
Complainant is The Vanguard Group, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Jacob Bishop of The Vanguard Group, Inc., Pennsylvania, USA. Respondent is Mo Xu / Vanguard Immigration and Banking L.L.C-FZ (“Respondent”), United Arab Emirates.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is vanguardibank.com (“Domain Name”), registered with Instra Corporation Pty Ltd.
PANEL
The undersigned certifies that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on July 23, 2025; Forum received payment on July 23, 2025.
On August 19, 2025, Instra Corporation Pty Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the vanguardibank.com domain name is registered with Instra Corporation Pty Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Instra Corporation Pty Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Instra Corporation Pty Ltd. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On August 21, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 10, 2025 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@vanguardibank.com. Also on August 21, 2025, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.
A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on August 29, 2025.
On September 2, 2025, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelist.
On September 3, 2025 the Panel issued a Panel Order under Rule 12 of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”). This order noted that the Response a) raised matters that the Complainant may not have been aware of in the preparation of the Complaint b) proposed settlement discussions and c) made assertions that the Respondent is a duly incorporated and licensed company under the Dubai Department of Economy and Tourism, operating under the approved trade name Vanguard Immigration and Banking L.L.C-FZ) but provides no documentary support for that statement. In such circumstances the Panel provided until September 9, 2025 for the Respondent to provide documentary support for its statement at (c) and Complainant to provide additional evidence and submissions in response to the Response. Under the terms of the Panel Order each party then had until September 15, 2025 to provide any further evidence and submissions that it wished to file in response to the initial round of material. The Complainant provided its initial additional material on September 9, 2025.
The Respondent provided its additional material on September 6, 2025. This consisted of a Business License issued in the name of the Government of Dubai. It then asserted that it was a confidential internal document it should not be shared with the Complainant, and the sole entity that should be entitled to review this document should be the Panel. The Complainant wrote to Forum noting that Section 5(vii) of the UDRP Rules requires Respondent to provide “a copy of the response including any annexes” to Complainant and that neither the UDRP, UDRP Rules, nor the Forum’s Supplemental Rules allow a respondent to withhold annexes or any other evidence on which it relies from a complainant.
While there are cases where it may be appropriate to limit a party’s access to evidentiary material, this is not such a case. The Business license is an official document issued by the Government of Dubai and on its face (and the Respondent has not submitted otherwise) contains no confidential information, merely noting the company name, type, address and license number. The Panel declined to make any order restricting Complainant’s access to the material provided by Respondent on September 6, 2025.
Neither party provided any material in response to the other party’s additional submissions by the deadline of September 15, 2025 so the Panel proceeded to its decision.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the “Panel”) finds that Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) “to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent” through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the Domain Name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
Complainant is one of the world’s largest investment companies, with more than 50 million investors in about 170 countries and total assets under management of approximately $10.1 trillion as of September 30 2024. Complainant has rights in the VANGUARD mark through Complainant’s registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g. Reg. No. 1,784,435, registered July 27, 1993). Respondent’s vanguardibank.com domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s VANGUARD mark since it contains the entire mark, only differing by the addition of the letter “i” (to create a minor misspelling), the term “bank” and the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the vanguardibank.com domain name as it is not commonly known by the Domain Name and has not been licensed, authorized, or otherwise permitted to use the VANGUARD mark. Additionally, Respondent does not use the Domain Name for any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor for any legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent diverts Internet traffic to a website (“Respondent’s Website”) that advertises financial services that compete with Complainant.
Respondent registered and uses the vanguardibank.com domain name in bad faith. Respondent uses the Domain Name to intentionally attract, for commercial gain, Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant and its VANGUARD mark as to the source of the Domain Name and the Respondent’s Website. Finally, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights to the VANGUARD mark prior to registering the Domain Name by virtue of the famous nature of Complainant’s mark. Furthermore the Respondent’s Website displays as its logo a ship, similar to Complainant’s former (and well-known) galleon logo.
B. Respondent
Respondent submits that it is a duly incorporated and licensed company under Dubai Department of Economy and Tourism, operating transparently in the United Arab Emirates under the approved trade name Vanguard Immigration and Banking L.L.C-FZ. It states that the Respondent offers consultancy activities in the immigration and banking sector, where it assists individuals with immigration, company setup and business advisory services in Dubai, which is entirely different from Complainant’s asset management operations.
Respondent states that the Domain Name was registered to reflect its trade name, it has never claimed association with the Complainant and its logo, being a traditional Arabic dhow silhouette in green, is very different from Complainant’s former galleon illustration. It offers very different services to the Complainant and there is no possibility of confusion between the two entities.
C. Complainant’s Supplemental Filings
Much of Complainant’s supplemental filing repeats arguments about its reputation in the VANGUARD mark. Complainant submits that the Respondent’s Website indicates that Respondent provides banking services (which are financial services), indicating a clear overlap between the services provided in this case. Complainant submits that past panels have found that the mere registration of a trade name or corporate name does not necessarily generate a legitimate right or interest in a name that is confusingly similar to a Complainant’s trademark and that it is improbable that Respondent acted absent awareness of Complainant’s rights and reputation in the VANGUARD mark.
D. Respondent’s Supplemental Filings
Respondent provides a copy of what is described as a business license issued by the Government of Dubai (the Meydan Free Zone) on 30 April 2024 to the Respondent for the purpose of carrying out activities as a banking consultant, corporate services provider and to provide immigration consultancy services.
FINDINGS
Complainant, having failed to establish that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, has not established all required elements of its claim, and thus its complaint must be denied.
DISCUSSION
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this 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.”
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:
(1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Identical and/or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has rights in the VANGUARD mark through its registration of the mark with the USPTO (e.g. Reg. No. 1,784,435, registered July 27, 1993). Registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to demonstrate rights in the mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See DIRECTV, LLC v. The Pearline Group, FA 1818749 (Forum Dec. 30, 2018) (“Complainant’s ownership of a USPTO registration for DIRECTV demonstrate its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).
The Panel finds that the vanguardibank.com domain name is confusingly similar to the VANGUARD mark as it adds the letter “i” (to create a minor misspelling), the term “bank” and the “.com” gTLD to Complainant’s wholly incorporated VANGUARD mark. The addition of a generic or descriptive term and a gTLD to a minor misspelling of a mark fails to sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) (“Where a relevant trademark is recognizable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element.”); see also Acme Lift Company, L.L.C. v. VistaPrint Technologies Ltd, FA 1607039 (Forum Apr. 11, 2015) (stating, “Where a respondent has created a domain name in an effort to visually deceive Internet users via a simple misspelling (and when such misspellings are visually similar to the mark), a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) is appropriate.”); see also Dell Inc. v. Protection of Private Person / Privacy Protection, FA 1681432 (Forum Aug. 1, 2016) (“A TLD (whether a gTLD, sTLD or ccTLD) is disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because the domain name syntax requires TLDs.”).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Rights or Legitimate Interests
Complainant alleges that Respondent holds no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. In order for Complainant to succeed under this element, it must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the Domain Name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006) and AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Forum Sept. 25, 2006) (“Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names.”).
The Panel holds that Complainant has not made out such a prima facie case. Rather, there are factual and legal issues that are unresolved by the evidence presented and the Panel is of the opinion that this case is not one that is well suited for resolution under the Policy. See, e.g., AirMax Construçoes Aeronáuticas LTDA v. Richard Rofe / seamaxamerica.com, FA 1763605 (Forum Feb. 9, 2018) (finding serious issues of fact and law that “can be resolved only by the use of forensic powers which a Panel under the UDRP does not have, such as deposition evidence by cross examination, discovery….”).
The Domain Name resolves to the Respondent’s Website which, on its face, indicates that Respondent operates a professional services consultancy in the fields of immigration, company formation and operation of bank accounts, in essence a suite of services to assist high net-worth individuals to move to Dubai and set up their businesses. It operates those services und the name “Vanguard Immigration and Banking”. This business identity is supported by the whois details for the Domain Name as well as Respondent’s company registration certificate, indicating that a company under the name Vanguard Immigration and Banking L.L.C-FZ was established and registered with the Government of Dubai on April 30, 2024, prior to any notice of the dispute. The Respondent’s Website does not either explicitly or (to the best of the Panel’s knowledge) implicitly make any reference to Complainant or otherwise suggest an affiliation (other than the shared use of the mark “VANGUARD” for financial services, which the Panel will address further below). In particular, the Panel rejects Complainant’s submission that the Respondent’s Website seeks to create confusion with the Complainant by use of a similar ship logo. I note that the Complainant no longer uses the galleon logo and Respondent’s dhow logo is quite dissimilar (and is in different colors) and Respondent has provided a coherent explanation for its adoption. There is no other aspect of the design or content of the Respondent’s Website that suggests or implies an affiliation between the Respondent and the Complainant.
The Panel also accepts that it would be plausible for a party offering services to assist immigrants to establish themselves in Dubai to use the generic term “vanguard” as part of their branding and accepts the Respondent’s submission that element “ibank” is an abbreviation for the “immigration and banking” portion of the Respondent’s name, hence there may be a reason for an entity wishing to use the “vanguardibank” element absent any desire to falsely associate themselves with the Complainant. The Panel also notes that there is no other evidence of any conduct engaged in by the Respondent that suggests the use of the Domain Name is anything other than for a bona fide offering of services, such as phishing e-mails, misleading statements, a pattern of conduct of abusive registrations or the like.
The Panel has concerns with the extent of the Respondent’s evidence of its business. The Respondent’s Website is a fairly limited website with limited functionality. In particular it contains no details of the founders, the business address (although this is established in the business licence) and contains various dead links (such as links to purported social media pages). The Respondent provides no history of the establishment of the Vanguard Immigration and Banking business, the extent of its client base and its decision to use the Vanguard name. The Panel is also concerned by the Respondent’s apparent concern that the Complainant not be given access to (and hence the ability to forensically examine) its business licence, however absent any further submissions from the Complainant on this point I have no option but to treat the licence as a legitimate business licence issued by the relevant governing authority.
A panel has to be positively satisfied that a respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests under this element of the Policy. While acknowledging the limitations of the Respondent’s evidence, in the Panel’s evaluative judgement of the evidence before it, the Panel is not satisfied that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests. The Panel considers that any questions of fact regarding the nature and legitimacy of the Respondent’s business and company registration are better resolved in a venue that has explicit forensic powers which a Panel under the Policy does not have.
Panels have recognized that “[t]he Policy’s purpose is to combat abusive domain name registrations and not to provide a prescriptive code for resolving more complex trade mark disputes”. Luvilon Industries NV v. Top Serve Tennis Pty Ltd., DAU2005-0004 (WIPO Sept. 6, 2005). See also Courtney Love v. Brooke Barnett, FA 944826 (Forum May 14, 2007) (“the purpose of the Policy is not to resolve disputes between parties who might each have legitimate rights in a domain name. The purpose of the Policy is to protect trademark owners from cybersquatters, that is, from people who abuse the domain name system in a very specific way, which specific way is outlined in Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.”). The Panel acknowledges that Respondent’s conduct may infringe Complainant’s VANGUARD mark or amount to passing off and the Panel wishes to make it clear that other remedies may be available to the Complainant in a different forum, and that nothing in this decision should be understood as providing a definitive finding on the respective mark rights of the parties, beyond the narrow question determined under this proceeding.
However, the question of trademark infringement is beyond the scope of the present proceeding, which is summary in nature and hence the limited evidence that Respondent operates or has taken demonstrable preparations to operate a consulting business known as Vanguard Immigration and Banking (including its registration of a corresponding company name prior to any notice of the present dispute) and the absence of any evidence of deliberate efforts by the Respondent to generate or exploit any confusion between the Complainant and the Respondent is a sufficient basis to find that the Complainant has failed to demonstrate that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. The Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy is designed to deal with clear cases of cybersquatting, see IAFT International LLC v. MANAGING DIRECTOR / EUTOPIAN HOLDINGS, FA 1577032 (Forum Oct. 9, 2014) (“The objectives of the Policy are limited — designed to obviate the need for time-consuming and costly litigation in relatively clear cases of cyber-squatting — and not intended to thwart every sort of questionable business practice imaginable). If the Complainant wishes to bring proceedings against the Respondent for trademark infringement or passing off, such a proceeding is more appropriately brought in a court of competent jurisdiction.
The Panel notes that in the event that further information arises that suggest that the motives of the Respondent in registering the Domain Name was anything other than the intention to use in respect of Vanguard Immigration and Banking business, there may be grounds to consider a refiled complaint, subject to the applicable criteria.
The Panel finds Complainant has not satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
In light of the Panel’s dispositive finding on the issue of rights or legitimate interests, the Panel declines to address the question of registration and use in bad faith.
DECISION
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the vanguardibank.com domain name domain name REMAIN WITH Respondent.
Nicholas J.T. Smith, Panelist
Dated: September 17, 2025
