The Complainant, the EXNESS HOLDINGS CY LIMITED, was founded as a part of the Exness Group, as an online multi-asset broker in 2008. It is established and regulated in markets around the world.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name <exnessscam.com> was registered on 28 March 2025 <\/span>and resolves to an active website. <\/p>",
"other_legal_proceedings": " The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name.<\/span><\/p>",
"no_response_filed": " CONTENTIONS OF THE COMPLAINANT <\/p>\n The Complainant puts forward that the EXNESS HOLDINGS CY LIMITED, was founded as a part of the Exness Group, an online multi-asset broker in 2008 which is active in numerous countries and growing fast in MENA, Africa, and Latin America. It is also argued that it complies with the highest regulatory standards which holds eight licenses from international regulatory bodies, including many in Europe (Cyprus and the UK) and is the holder of multiple registered word marks for the word EXNESS.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name e is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights as the disputed domain name <exnessscam.com> incorporates the Complainant's EXNESS trademark in its entirety. It is argued that the addition of the term \"scam\" does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the domain name and the Complainant's trademark as previous UDRP panels have consistently held that the addition of derogatory terms to a complainant's trademark does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element of the UDRP.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The Complainant also argues that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name as the Respondent has no connection with the Complainant and has not received any license or consent to use the EXNESS trademark in a domain name or in any other manner and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. It is argued that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name for a website that contains false and defamatory content about the Complainant in order to damage the Complainant's reputation by making numerous false claims, including allegations that the Complainant engages in fraudulent activities and market manipulation.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n As a result, the Complainant puts forward that the Respondent's use of the disputed domain name does not constitute a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. The Complainant argues that although the UDRP Policy recognizes that criticism sites may, in certain circumstances, constitute a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, the current use goes beyond legitimate criticism by including false allegations and defamatory content.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n According to the Complainant, no response was received to a prior notification which had been sent to the website's owner who is using it to target the Complainant in a defamation campaign by publishing false information on the <exnessscam.com> website including content such as a “case study\". The website is also linked to the domain name kashifmukhtar.com\/exness\/, which also contains false allegations against Exness written by the author and the Respondent. The Complainant alleges that the video evidence shown on the website connected to the disputed domain name <exnessscam.com> shows a demo account instead of an active Exness trading account.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Therefore, the Complainant argues that the Respondent's use of the disputed domain name does not qualify as a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor as a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Additionally, the Complainant submits that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith since the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's EXNESS trademark and business as illustrated by the content of the website linked to the disputed domain name <exnessscam.com>. Therefore it is argued that the Respondent was well aware of the Complainant's rights and deliberately incorporated the Complainant's trademark into the domain name with the addition of the derogatory term \"scam\" to create websites disparaging the Complainant.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Finally, it is put forward that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name to host website containing false and defamatory content about the Complainant as the website makes numerous false claims about the Complainant's business practices, including allegations that the Complainant falsely assigns fraudulent activities to Exness, harms the Complainant’s reputation in its profession, exposes the Complainant to ridicule and contempt and may manipulate and steal funds.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The Respondent’s use of a privacy service is argued to be a further indication of bad faith.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT:<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The Respondent argues that the disputed domain name <exnessscam.com> is used as a non-commercial, public-interest platform dedicated to raising consumer awareness and reporting verified grievances related to the trading platform EXNESS without promoting any competing services, running advertisements, or generating profits.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The use of the domain name is argued to be nominative and descriptive, clearly identifying the subject of criticism without misleading users or infringing on any trademark in bad faith.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The Respondent argues that the inclusion of pejorative terms (such as “scam”) in a domain name may constitute fair use when used for legitimate criticism and not commercial gain and asserts his right to freedom of expression, especially in the context of consumer protection, where such speech is protected and encouraged for public benefit.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The Respondent claims to have thoroughly documented multiple verified user complaints and regulatory submissions that demonstrate the factual basis for the website’s content. These include complaints submitted to the FSA Seychelles, FinancialCommission.org, and the IFSC Belize. Furthermore, the Respondent claims that a false DMCA complaint (#ACC-468-41437) filed by the Complainant on April 1, 2025, was successfully countered, leading to the website’s reinstatement—further proving that the Respondent’s lawful and justified use.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n According to the Respondent, the site makes it explicitly clear through disclaimers that it is not affiliated with Exness and is operated solely for educational, advocacy, and public awareness purposes. Therefore, the Respondent argues that he is acting transparently and in good faith. The Respondent further puts forward that the disputed domain name, <exnessscam.com>, is not confusingly similar to “EXNESS” alone as the addition of the word “SCAM” is an expression of opinion and transforms the disputed domain name into one of criticism and commentary, which falls under fair use and protected speech. The Respondent cites the legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, without intent for commercial gain which is claimed to apply since this is a website which is a non-commercial educational and advocacy platform for consumer protection, without profits; that this is a criticism site which serves as a platform for free speech. Finally, it is argued that the disputed domain name is used solely for educational and consumer awareness purposes, with no monetization involved and operates independently, free from any commercial intent or profit-seeking activities.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n According to the Respondent, the disputed domain name is used to host a platform for educating traders about ethical issues, documenting personal experiences, and providing evidence-based consumer protection information and has no commercial intent or profit-making activities.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Since the Respondent claims that the disputed domain name is being used for non-commercial purposes (consumer protection and public awareness), he concludes that Exness is attempting to hijack the disputed domain name under reverse domain name hijacking, as there’s no evidence of trademark infringement and the Complaint represents a case of reverse domain name hijacking.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Additionally, the Respondent puts forward that the disputed domain name <exnessscam.com> is a legitimate and non-commercial platform aimed solely at consumer protection and public awareness. It is stated that the Respondent does not seek to profit from the use of the Exness name, nor does it attempt to mislead users into believing it is affiliated with or endorsed by EXNESS, instead operating under the principles of fair use and freedom of speech, offering transparent insights into reported trader experiences and concerns, making this is a classic case of fair use under UDRP precedents and international freedom of expression principles.<\/p>",
"rights": " The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy).<\/p>",
"no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": " The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Respondent to have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy).<\/p>",
"bad_faith": " The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).<\/p>",
"procedural_factors": " The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.<\/p>",
"decision": "Accepted",
"panelists": [
"Udo Pfleghar (Presiding Panelist)"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2025-05-14 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " The Complainant is, inter alia, the owner of the following trademark registrations containing a word element \"EXNESS”:<\/p>\n EXNESS (word), International (WIPO) Trademark, registration date September 12, 2012, trademark no. 1133115, registered for services in class 36;<\/p>\n EXNESS (word), EU Trademark, registration date March 24, 2022, filing no. 018616417, registered for goods and services in classes 9, 36 and 42;<\/p>\n besides other national trademarks consisting of the “EXNESS“ denomination (collectively referred to as \"Complainant's trademarks\").<\/p>\n The Complainant‘s trademarks are registered and used internationally in connection with financial and monetary services.<\/p>\n The Complainant also operates its main website at www.exness.com and has a substantial online presence through the registration and use of over 770 domain names incorporating the EXNESS name.<\/p>\n<\/div>",
"decision_domains": {
"exnessscam.com": "TRANSFERRED"
}
}