The Complainant is Averitt Express, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Adams and Reese LLP, United States.
The Respondent is Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC, United States / Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio Electronico, Panama. 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 April 5, 2019. On April 5, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 5, 2019, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on April 9, 2019 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on April 9, 2019.
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 April 16, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 6, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 7, 2019.
The Center appointed Tuukka Airaksinen as the sole panelist in this matter on May 15, 2019. 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 one of the leading freight transportation and supply chain management providers in the United States. It is the owner of the trademarks AVERITT and AVERITT EXPRESS, which have been used for almost 50 years. The Complainant’s trademarks have been registered in the United States, Canada and Mexico. The trademark AVERITT EXPRESS has, for example, been registered in the United States on September 10, 2002 under the number 2616865.
The Complainant and its licensees also own many domain names incorporating the Complainant’s trademark such as .
The disputed domain name was registered on February 4, 2019 and resolves to a so-called “pay-per-click” website, including links to goods or services competing with those of the Complainant. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark AVERITT EXPRESS in its entirety and adds merely a hyphen to the Complainant’s trademark. The addition of the hyphen is insufficient to distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s AVERITT EXPRESS trademark.
The Respondent is not a licensee or a franchisee of the Complainant and the Respondent has never been commonly known as AVERITT or AVERITT EXPRESS. The Respondent has never been authorized by the Complainant to register or use the Complainant’s trademarks or to apply for or use any domain name incorporating the Complainant’s trademarks. The Respondent is also not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, or in a legitimate non-commercial manner.
Given the trademark registrations of the Complainant and the extensive use and advertising of the Complainant’s trademarks, it is not plausible that the Respondent would not have been aware of the Complainant when registering the disputed domain name.
The disputed domain name is used to divert Internet users to a “pay-per-click” parking page with links to identical or related services offered under the Complainant’s trademarks. The disputed domain name is apparently used for a phishing scam because entering the website triggers an antivirus alert. The disputed domain name is also offered for sale at 500 USD. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
In order to obtain the transfer of a domain name, a complainant must prove the three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, regardless of whether the respondent files a response to the complaint. The first element is that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights. The second element a complainant must prove is that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name. The third element a complainant must establish is that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires that the Complainant establish that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. Consequently, the Complainant must prove that it has rights to a trademark, and that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to this trademark.
The disputed domain name includes the Complainant’s trademark AVERITT EXPRESS in its entirety, the only exception being that the words have been connected with a hyphen. As a domain name cannot include space, the hyphen is there for merely technical reasons. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is identical with the Complainant’s trademark AVERITT EXPRESS.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s respective trademark and hence the first element of the Policy has been fulfilled. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy requires that the Complainant establish that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests to the disputed domain name.
It is widely accepted among UDRP panels that once a complainant has made a prima facie showing indicating the absence of the respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name the burden of production shifts to the respondent to come forward with evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. If the respondent fails to do so, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element of the Policy. See, e.g., Document Technologies, Inc. v. International Electronic Communications Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2000-0270 and section 2.1 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”).
The Complainant has credibly submitted that the Respondent is neither affiliated with the Complainant in any way nor has it been authorized by the Complainant to use and register the disputed domain name, that the Respondent has no prior rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and that the Respondent has not made and is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name in accordance with paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has made a prima facie case that has not been rebutted by the Respondent. Considering the Panel’s findings below, the Panel finds that there are no other circumstances that provide the Respondent with any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that the second element of the Policy is fulfilled. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy requires that the Complainant establish that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides that the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith:
“(i) circumstances indicating that [the respondent has] registered or has acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of [the respondent’s] documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) [the respondent has] registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that [the respondent has] engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) [the respondent has] registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business or competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain name, [the respondent has] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [the respondent’s] website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [the respondent’s] website or location or of a product or service on [the respondent’s] website or location.”.
The Complainant has submitted that the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant when registering the disputed domain name. Considering that the disputed domain name is identical with the Complainant’s distinctive trademark, the Panel agrees with the Complainant.
The disputed domain name directs to a so called “pay-per-click” site, including links to goods or services competing with those of the Complainant. Clicking a link at the website presumably creates revenue for the Respondent. This means that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in order to create confusion to attract Internet users to the Respondent’s website, for commercial gain, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark.
The disputed domain name has been offered for sale at the initial asking price of 500 USD. This is also in excess of the normal costs of registering a domain name, which, according to the Complainant, are USD 17.99 per year.
Hence, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Therefore, the Panel finds that the third element of the Policy is fulfilled. 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 transferred to the Complainant.
Tuukka Airaksinen
Sole Panelist
Date: May 28, 2019
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy