The Complainant is Across Logistics S.L of Barcelona, Spain, represented by March & Asociados, Spain.
The Respondent is Domain ID Shield Service Co. Limited. of Hong Kong, China / Fedoryaka Dmitrij of Ukraine. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the "Domain Name") is registered with OnlineNic, Inc. d/b/a China-C (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on November 18, 2015, identifying the Respondent as Domain ID Shield Service Co. Ltd. The Center transmitted its request for registrar verification to the Registrar on November 18, 2015. The Registrar replied on November 19, 2015, confirming that the Domain Name was registered with it, but identifying the registrant as Fedoryaka Dmitrij following the removal of the privacy registration service.
The Registrar stated that the Domain Name was registered or acquired by the Respondent on November 12, 2014 and that the date of expiry was November 12, 2015. The Registrar confirmed by email of November 23, 2015 that the Domain Name would remain on Lock status after lapse of the expiry date until the conclusion of this proceeding.
By email of November 25, 2015 the Center invited the Complainant to amend the Complaint in the light of the information received from the Registrar identifying the registrant of the Domain Name. The Complainant submitted an amended Complaint, adding Fedoryaka Dmitrij as Respondent, on November 27, 2015. "Respondent" in this decision hereinafter refers to Fedoryaka Dmitrij.
A person claiming to represent "Across Logistic Italy" contacted the Center on receipt of a copy of the Center's invitation to the Complainant to amend the Complaint and on receipt of the Notification of Complaint, but did not take any further part in the proceeding.
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the 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 paragraphs 2 and 4 of the Rules, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on December 1, 2015. In accordance with paragraph 5 of the Rules, the due date for Response was December 21, 2015. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center sent a procedural update on December 22, 2015, stating that it would proceed to appoint the Panel.
The Center appointed Jonathan Turner as the sole panelist in this matter on December 29, 2015. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with paragraph 7 of the Rules. Having reviewed the file, the Panel is satisfied that the Complaint complies with applicable formal requirements, was duly notified to the Respondent and has been submitted to a properly constituted Panel in accordance with the UDRP, the Rules and the Supplemental Rules. 4. Factual Background
The Complainant is a Spanish company providing transport and other logistic services. It has operated under its name Across Logistics S.L since its formation in 2007. It has maintained a website at "" since 2007 and has registered a logo containing the words "ACROSS LOGISTICS" as a Community (EU) trademark as of November 11, 2009. The Complainant also uses the handle "@acrosslogistics" in social media.
The Domain Name was registered by the Respondent under a privacy service on November 12, 2014, and was directed to a website appearing to promote transport services and indicating a street address in Italy and an email address belonging to Across Logistic Italy. The Complainant sent a cease and desist letter dated September 29, 2015, to Across Logistic Italy by physical post and email to these addresses, and a reminder by email on October 6, 2015. The Complainant received a reply by email on October 6, 2015, stating simply "we do not understand what it was about", to which the Complainant responded by email on October 7, 2015. Delivery of the letter sent to the street address was refused on October 7, 2015. The Domain Name has since been directed to a holding page. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that it has rights in the mark ACROSS LOGISTICS by virtue of the registration and use summarized above. The Complainant submits that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to this mark from which it differs only in the removal of the letter "s" at the end of the name.
The Complainant further contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name or any corresponding name. The Complainant refers to searches of trademark databases which do not identify any registrations or applications on the part of the Respondent and states that it has not authorized the Respondent to use the name. The Complainant adverts to decisions under the UDRP which indicate that once a complainant has established a prima facie case that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests, the burden shifts to the respondent. The Complainant also refers to the registration under a privacy service and the lack of general information on the Respondent's webpage.
The Complainant alleges that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant submits that by using such a similar domain name for similar services the Respondent must have intended to disrupt the Complainant's business and to profit from confusion with the Complainant's established business. The Complainant also refers to the Respondent's registration of the Domain Name under a privacy service and its failure to respond substantively to the Complainant's cease and desist letter registration as evidence of bad faith.
The Complainant requests a decision that the Domain Name be transferred to the Complainant. B. Respondent
As stated above, the Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the UDRP, in order to succeed in this proceeding, the Complainant must prove (i) that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which it has rights; (ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and (iii) that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. It is appropriate to consider each of these requirements in turn.
In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences as it considers appropriate from the Respondent's default in failing to file a response. This includes the acceptance of plausible evidence of the Complainant which has not been disputed. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds on the undisputed evidence that the Complainant has a registered right in its logo containing the words "ACROSS LOGISTICS" and rights in the word mark ACROSS LOGISTICS by virtue of its use of the mark.
The Panel is also satisfied that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to these marks. Although the word "logistics" is wholly descriptive of the Complainant's business and the word "across" has some descriptive connotation, the Panel is satisfied that the combination of these words is likely to be understood by customers and potential customers as the name of the Complainant's business, and that such persons are liable to be confused by the Domain Name, which differs from this name only in the omission of the plural "s".
The first requirement of the UDRP is satisfied. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
In all the circumstances, the Panel finds that the Respondent's use of the Domain Name prior to notice of the dispute did not constitute a bona fide offering of goods and services. The material in the file, including the registration under a privacy service, the rudimentary nature of the Respondent's website, the absence of any other registration of the name by the Respondent, the lack of any substantive response to the Complainant's cease and desist letter or to the Complaint, and the fact that the Domain Name has now been redirected to a holding page, all indicate that the Respondent was not carrying on any real, bona fide business.
The Panel accepts the evidence provided by the Complainant that the Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name and has not been authorized by the Complainant to use this name. It is also evident that the Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name.
On the material in the file, there appears to be no other basis on which the Respondent could claim any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. The Panel accordingly finds that the Respondent has no such rights or legitimate interests.
The second requirement of the UDRP is satisfied. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel finds on the undisputed evidence that the Respondent registered the Domain Name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the Complainant's business or alternatively in order to attract Internet users to its website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark.
In line with paragraphs 4(b)(iii) and (iv) of the UDRP, these circumstances constitute evidence of registration and use of the Domain Name in bad faith. In the absence of any countervailing evidence, the Panel finds that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
All three requirements of the UDRP are satisfied and it is appropriate to order that the Domain Name be transferred to the Complainant. 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 Domain Name be transferred to the Complainant.
Jonathan Turner
Sole Panelist
Date: January 12, 2016
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy