The Complainant is Trasporti Internazionali Agenzia Marittima Savino del bene S.p.A. of Florence, Italy, represented by Colin & Partners S.r.l., Italy.
The Respondent is Laurentiu Cristinel of Giurgiu, Romania. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Tucows Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 20, 2017. On September 20, 2017, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On September 20, 2017, 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 September 25, 2017. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for a Response was October 15, 2017. An email was received from the Respondent on September 25, 2017. No further communication was received from the Respondent during the proceedings. The Center accordingly proceeded with the panel appointment process on October 18, 2017.
The Center appointed Ian Lowe as the sole panelist in this matter on October 25, 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 global logistics provider with a worldwide network, specialized in supply chain management, offering services for sea, air and surface transportation. It has over 3,200 employees, 148 branches and 67 subsidiary offices. It was founded at the beginning of the twentieth Century.
The Complainant is the owner of numerous registered trademarks around the world in respect of SAVINO DEL BENE, including International Trademark number 805451 registered on May 29, 2003 (designating a number of territories including Romania) and European Union trademark number 770867 registered on June 16, 1999. It promotes its services through a website at “”.
The Domain Name was registered on June 26, 2017. It resolves to a website whose strapline is
“SAVINO-DELBENE
TRANSPORT SHIPPING LOGISTICS”
but which promotes what purports to be an escrow payment protection service. The “International Phone Lines” provided as Contact information are what appear to be three UK based mobile phone numbers. The Complainant asserts that the given postal address in London is in fact an empty building. The fax number given is 004123456789 which the Complainant states is obviously false.
In the course of email correspondence following a cease and desist request sent to the Respondent by the Complainant’s representative, the Respondent stated that “I do know about the civil rights and trademarks, and other than the name, there is nothing similar to your client activity.” The Respondent offered to “shut everything down for 9,999 Euro.” 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is identical to its SAVINO DEL BENE trademarks (the “Mark”), that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name, and that the Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. In its email to the Center on September 25, 2017, the Respondent stated that “There is no law/domain/intellectual property theft here, there are 2 different domains, 2 different businesses, 2 different countries involved. The request of the other company to sell them the domain for 100 EURO is just ABSURD.” 6. Discussion and Findings A. Complainant
For this Complaint to succeed in relation to the Domain Name the Complainant must prove that:
(i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and
(iii) the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has uncontested rights in the Mark, both by virtue of its numerous trademark registrations around the world and as a result of the goodwill and reputation acquired through its widespread use of the mark over very many years. Ignoring the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”, the Domain Name differs from the Mark only by the addition of a hyphen. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is identical to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant has made out a strong prima facie case that the Respondent could have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. The Panel considers that the clear inference from the use of the otherwise irrelevant words “TRANSPORT SHIPPING LOGISTICS”, in the strapline of the Respondent’s website, is that the Respondent knowingly took the Complainant’s trademark, aware of the services offered by the Complainant, rather than the Respondent having any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. In light of the distinctive nature of the Domain Name, it is difficult for the Panel to conceive of any legitimate use to which the Respondent could put the Domain Name. The Panel also considers that the use only of mobile telephone numbers and an apparently false fax number as contacts on the Respondent’s website raises doubts as to the nature of what purports to be a UK based business where the Domain Name is registered to an individual in Romania. The Respondent has chosen not to respond to the Complaint to explain its use of the Domain Name or to take any other steps to counter the prima facie case established by the Complainant. In the circumstances, the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
In light of the nature of the Domain Name, the Panel is in no doubt that the Respondent had the Complainant and its rights in the Mark in mind when it registered the Domain Name. As noted above, the Panel cannot conceive of any legitimate use to which the Respondent could put the Domain Name. The obvious inference in any event is that the Respondent registered the Domain Name for commercial gain with a view to taking unfair advantage of the Complainant’s rights in the Mark, by confusing Internet users into believing that the Domain Name was being operated by or authorized by the Complainant for legitimate purposes related to the Complainant’s activities. The Panel is in no doubt that this amounts to paradigm bad faith registration and use for the purposes of the Policy.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used 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 Domain Name be transferred to the Complainant.
Ian Lowe
Sole Panelist
Date: November 7, 2017
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy