WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Ares Management LLC v. Chris Klimkosky

Case No. D2020-1902

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Ares Management LLC, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Greenberg Traurig, LLP, United States.

The Respondent is Chris Klimkosky, United States.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <aresmagmt.com> is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 21, 2020. On July 22, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 23, 2020, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.

The Center verified that the 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 July 24, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 13, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 14, 2020.

The Center appointed Carol Anne Been as the sole panelist in this matter on September 4, 2020. 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 facts as presented in the Complaint are as follows. The Complainant is a subsidiary of a publicly traded global alternate asset manager based in Los Angeles, with offices across the United States, Europe, Asia, and Australia. The Complainant has used the mark ARES for investment advisory and investment management services since September 1997, and first registered the mark ARES in the United States in 2005 (e.g., United States Reg. No. 3,014,171, registered on November 8, 2005). The Complainant owns registrations of its mark ARES in the United States and 38 other countries. The Complainant has owned the domain name <aresmgmt.com> since 2002 and has offered its services at that domain name since at least 2007. The Complainant also owns the domain name <aresmanagement.com>, among other domain names that incorporate its mark ARES.

The Respondent obtained the disputed domain name <aresmagmt.com> in 2020. The Complainant has not authorized the Respondent’s use of its mark in the disputed domain name. No content is posted at the disputed domain name, which resolves to an inactive webpage stating the site cannot be reached. The disputed domain name has active mail exchange (MX) records, indicating use of the disputed domain name for email.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant alleges that its trademark ARES is registered and known worldwide, and is unique for financial services in the United States. The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name incorporates its mark in full, adding “magmt” as an abbreviation of the generic term “management” which is phonetically similar to the Complainant’s abbreviation of “management” as “mgmt” in its domain name <aresmgmt.com>. The Complainant alleges that the one letter difference between “magmt” in the disputed domain name and “mgmt” in the Complainant’s domain name is likely intended as a typo, suggesting typosquatting. Thus, the Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark and domain name.

The Complainant alleges that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and is not offering bona fide good or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use at the disputed domain name. Thus, the Complainant alleges the Respondent lacks rights to and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

The Complainant alleges that the Respondent had actual and constructive knowledge of the Complainant’s rights in its ARES mark at the time the disputed domain name was registered. The Complainant also alleges that holding of the disputed domain name without resolution to an active website is indicative of bad faith due to the strong reputation of the Complainant’s mark. The Complainant also alleges that the disputed domain name may be used to allow authorized persons to view content, and apparently is used for email due to active MX records. Thus, the Complainant alleges the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant owns rights in the ARES mark and registered its mark in the United States long prior to creation of the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not contested the Complainant’s claims that its mark is widely recognized in the United States. The disputed domain name uses the term ARES with an abbreviation for the generic term “management”. Thus, the Panel holds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ARES mark.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Respondent has not provided any basis for a claim of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and has not responded to the Complainant’s allegations of the Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interest. Thus, the Panel holds the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Under United States law, the Respondent had constructive notice of the Complainant’s federally registered rights in the ARES mark when the disputed domain name was created. Widespread recognition of the Complainant’s unique mark for financial services in the United States also suggests the Respondent had actual notice of the Complainant’s rights when the disputed domain name was registered, as does the disputed domain name differing by only one letter from a domain name owned and used by the Complainant to offer its services. While the disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website, the Complainant alleges the disputed domain name may be used to allow authorized persons to view content, and apparently is used for email due to active MX records. The Respondent has not responded to the Complainant’s allegations of bad faith use and registration of the disputed domain name. Thus, the Panel concludes that the Respondent registered and is using 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 <aresmagmt.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Carol Anne Been
Sole Panelist
Date: September 17, 2020