The Complainant is DPD Dynamic Parcel Distribution GmbH & Co. KG of Aschaffenburg, Germany, represented by Inlex IP Expertise, France.
The Respondent is King John of Abia, Nigeria. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoD, LLC (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on December 14, 2016. On December 14, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 15, 2016, 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 December 20, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 9, 2017. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on January 11, 2017.
The Center appointed Steven A. Maier as the sole panelist in this matter on January 20, 2017. 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 Complainant is a company registered in Germany and is a provider of parcel delivery services. It is the owner of various registered trademarks, including the following:
- International trademark number 761146 for a figurative mark comprising the term DPD and a red and black box device, registered on May 26, 2001 in Classes 36 and 39 and designating a total of 53 territories;
- International trademark number 1271522 for a figurative mark comprising a red box device and the term DPD GROUP registered on August 25, 2015 in Class 39 and designating a total of 68 territories.
The Complainant operates a website at "" which prominently features the second of the trademarks referred to above.
The disputed domain name was registered on September 4, 2016.
The Complainant has submitted evidence by way of screenshots dated December 9, 2016 that the disputed domain name has been used for the purposes of a website at "www." which purports to be a website operated by the Complainant. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. The Complainant relies on the "DPD" element of its trademarks and contends that the addition of the generic term "service" does not distinguish the disputed domain name from those trademarks.
The Complainant submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant states that it has never granted the Respondent any rights to use its mark DPD and that the Respondent has not been commonly known by that name. The Complainant refers to the Respondent's use of the disputed domain name for the purposes of the website referred to above and submits that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name to appropriate the Complainant's identity, reproduce its trademarks and take ownership of its history and offering of services. The Complainant produces screenshots of its own website at "" and of the website to which the disputed domain name resolves.
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is in itself misleading, in that it reproduces the entirety of the Complainant's trademark DPD. The Complainant also submits that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name for the purposes of identity theft and the impersonation of the Complainant by way of the website referred to above. In addition, the Complainant exhibits a "cease and desist" email sent to the Respondent by the Complainant's representatives on October 5, 2016 and the Respondent's reply dated October 7, 2016 which states:
"i sorry I never known about this. some one hack into my gmail and my godaddy account and also my means of payment. well am a web designer if you wanna buy back the domain you are free to contact me. or give me sometime let me find someone who will buy the domain because i cant loose my money, as for cloning your website I will get ride of it soon."
The Complainant states that, despite this statement, the misleading website has not been removed.
The Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be cancelled. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
In order to succeed in the Complaint, the Complainant is required to show that all three of the elements set out under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are present. Those elements are:
(i) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
(ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established that it is the owner of trademark registrations which include the term "DPD". The Panel finds that this term represents a significant element of the Complainant's trademarks and that the Complainant has made substantial use of the mark DPD in commerce. The Panel accepts the Complainant's submission that the addition of the descriptive term "service" does not serve to distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant's trademark and concludes therefore that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
In the view of the Panel, the Complainant's submissions referred to above give rise to a prima facie case for the Respondent to answer that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. However, the Respondent has not participated in this administrative proceeding and the Panel finds that the contents of its email dated October 7, 2016 do not provide any reasonable explanation for the Respondent's registration and use of the disputed domain name, whether in accordance with any of the criteria set out in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy or otherwise. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel accepts the Complainant's submission that the disputed domain name is inherently misleading, in that it is likely to be assumed by a significant number of Internet users to resolve to a website which is owned or operated by, or is otherwise legitimately connected with, the Complainant.
The Panel also accepts the Complainant's evidence that the disputed domain name has been used for the purpose of a website which pretends to be that of the Complainant. The Panel finds that this website can have no purpose other than to mislead Internet users and to cause damage to the Complainant.
The Panel finds that the Respondent's email dated October 7, 2016 provides no credible explanation for the Respondent's registration and use of the disputed domain name and merely adds to the impression of bad faith, including an implication that the Respondent seeks to sell the disputed domain name to the Complainant or a competitor.
The Panel also notes that the Respondent failed to remove the offending website despite its representation to the Complainant that it would do so.
The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith in the circumstances contemplated by sub-paragraphs 4(b)(i) and/or 4(b)(iv) 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 name be cancelled.
Steven A. Maier
Sole Panelist
Date: January 26, 2017
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy