The Complainant is DPDgroup International Services GmbH & Co. KG., Germany, represented by Fidal, France.
The Respondent is Oneandone Private Registration, United States of America (the “United States”) / Melissa Mercado, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with 1&1 IONOS Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 4, 2019. On July 5, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 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 July 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 amendment to the Complaint on July 10, 2019.
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to 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 July 16, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 5, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 7, 2019.
The Center appointed Andrew F. Christie as the sole panelist in this matter on August 13, 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 Complaint provides no information about the business of the Complainant, other than that it is a German company. The Panel, from its own researches, has established that the Complainant is the parcel delivery network of GeoPost, a holding company owned by the French postal company Le Groupe La Poste.
The Complainant is the owner of numerous trademark registrations in various countries that contain representations of the letters “DPD”, including International trademark registration no. 1217471 (registered on March 28, 2014) for a device/design mark representing the lowercase letters “dpd” in a particular manner (the “DPD trademark”). The Complainant is also the owner of International trademark registration no. 1214203 (registered on March 12, 2014) for a device/design mark of a stylized cube (the “cube trademark”). The Complainant also owns numerous domain names that contain the character string “dpd”, including , , , and .
The disputed domain name was registered on April 4, 2019. It resolves to a website at the top of which is the Complainant’s DPD trademark adjacent to the Complainant’s cube trademark. The Home Page contains the text “GET YOUR PACKAGES FROM A TO B IN NO TIME. DPD Courier and Delivery Service”. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to “the trademark DPD” (without specifying any one trademark in particular) because it has been wholly incorporated into the disputed domain name and is combined with the descriptive term “couriers”. The addition of the word “couriers” enhances the degree of confusion as it makes reference to the Complainant and its parcel and postal delivery services.
The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because: (i) the Respondent is not commonly known by the name “” and is not offering a bona fide product or service; (ii) the Respondent does not make any use of a business name which includes “the sign DPD” and has no rights in any trademark composed of this sign; (iii) the Complainant has not authorized, licensed, permitted or otherwise consented to the Respondent’s use of the trademark DPD in the disputed domain name, and has no association with the Respondent; (iv) the Respondent is deliberately creating confusion with the Complainant’s business by using the Complainant’s identity, reproducing (without any prior authorization) the Complainant’s trademark, and taking ownership of the Complainant’s services; and (v) the Respondent has not replied to emails from the Complainant concerning the fraudulent use of the disputed domain name.
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith because: (i) the homepage resolving from the disputed domain name reproduces, without any authorization, the Complainant’s trademarks as well as its graphic layout of red and grey colors and square block forms; (ii) the Respondent has built a very confusing imitation of the Complainant’s corporate website by the language used in advertising parcel and cargo delivery on the website resolving from the disputed domain name, and (iii) the Respondent is deliberately using “the identity of DPD”, and aims to create confusion with the Complainant in order to give credibility to its scams and phishing. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Although the Complainant’s DPD trademark is a device/design mark (in that the letters “dpd” are represented in a particular stylised form), the dominant and distinctive component of that trademark is the combination of letters “dpd”. The disputed domain name incorporates the whole of that dominant component and adds the word “couriers”. The addition of the descriptive term “couriers” does not avoid confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s DPD trademark. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent is not a licensee of, or otherwise affiliated with, the Complainant, and has not been authorized by the Complainant to use its DPD trademark. The Respondent has not provided any evidence that it has been commonly known by, or has made a bona fide use of, the disputed domain name, or that it has, for any other reason, rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name consists of the dominant and distinctive component of the Complainant’s DPD trademark with the addition of the word “couriers”, which in this case carries a risk of implied affiliation, given that the Complainant offers courier services under its DPD trademark. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 2.5.1. The evidence provided by the Complainant shows that the disputed domain name has been used to resolve to a website purporting to offer services of the same description as those offered by the Complainant. According to the present record, therefore, the disputed domain name is not being used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The disputed domain name was registered some five years after the Complainant first registered its DPD trademark. The evidence on the record provided by the Complainant with respect to the use of its DPD trademark, combined with the absence of any evidence provided by the Respondent to the contrary, is sufficient to satisfy the Panel that, at the time of registration of the disputed domain name, the Respondent knew of the Complainant’s DPD trademark and knew that it had no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Furthermore, the evidence on the record provided by the Complainant with respect to the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name indicates that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to a website by creating confusion in the minds of the public as to an association between the website and the Complainant. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed 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 disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant.
Andrew F. Christie
Sole Panelist
Date: August 27, 2019
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy