The Complainant is DMN Logistics Ltd, United Kingdom (“UK”), represented by Adlex Solicitors, UK.
The Respondent is Domain Admin, Privacy Protect, LLC (PrivacyProtect.org), United States of America (“United States”) / Andrey Ershov, UK. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 20, 2020. On February 20, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 21, 2020, 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 February 21, 2020, 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 February 26, 2020. 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 February 28, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 19, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any Response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 20, 2020. The Center appointed Steven A. Maier as the sole panelist in this matter on March 27, 2020. 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 was incorporated in 2010 and has since that date carried on the business of vehicle movement, inspection services and logistics labour supply in the UK under the name “DMN Logistics”. The Complainant has operated a website at “www.dmnlogistics.co.uk” since approximately 2011. The disputed domain name was registered on August 30, 2019. Between October and early November 2019, the disputed domain name resolved to a website at “www.dmnlogistics.com”, purporting to be based in the UK and to offer transport and logistics services similar to those offered by the Complainant. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant states that it operates a leading vehicle movement business with three regional offices across the UK and over 200 employees. Its turnover in 2018 was in excess of GBP 6 million. It engages in extensive promotion and marketing activities, including a presence on social media, and attracted over 60,000 unique visitors to its website between 2016 and 2019. The Complainant exhibits examples of its media advertising and of press coverage of its business. The Complainant contends that, as a result of the matters described above, it has acquired common law rights in the name and mark DMN LOGISTICS. It submits that the disputed domain name is identical to that name and mark. The Complainant submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. It states that it has never authorized the Respondent to use its name DMN LOGISTICS, that the Respondent has not been commonly known by that name, and that the Respondent is making neither bona fide commercial use nor legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. Instead, the Complainant contends that the Respondent used the disputed domain name for the purposes of a fraudulent website until the Complainant intervened. The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name was registered and has been used in bad faith. The Complainant exhibits evidence that the Respondent’s website referred to above provided a UK address and telephone number and misrepresented itself as a recruitment site for the Complainant’s company. It included a LinkedIn profile of a fictional HR manager in the United States which was linked to the Complainant’s genuine managing director in the UK on the basis that “You both work at DMN.” The Complainant provides evidence that individuals who applied for employment via the website received emails from an individual “[…]@dmnlogistics.com” pretending to make job offers and asking for documentation to be completed and returned. The Complainant contends that this was most likely a phishing scam aimed at obtaining those individuals’ bank details. The Complainant submits that it is obvious from the Respondent’s conduct that it was aware of the Complainant and its business when it registered the disputed domain name. It further contends that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name in a number of the respects contemplated by paragraph 4(b) of the Policy, including the operation of a website which was intended to confuse and profit from Internet users who were searching for the Complainant’s business. The Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name. 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 Panel accepts the Complainant’s contention that it has used the name DMN LOGISTICS in commerce since 2010. The Panel finds that name to be distinctive in nature and that the Complainant has established a significant business reputation under that name as a result of its trading and promotional activities. The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has acquired common law rights in the name and mark DMN LOGISTICS. The Panel further finds that that the disputed domain name is effectively identical to the Complainant’s mark. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests In the view of the Panel, the Complainant’s submissions set out above give rise to a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. However, the Respondent has not participated in this proceeding and has not, therefore, submitted any explanation for its registration and use of the disputed domain name, or evidence of rights or legitimate interests on its part in the disputed domain name, whether in the circumstances contemplated by paragraph 4(c) of the Policy or otherwise. There being no other evidence before the Panel of any such rights or legitimate interests, the Panel concludes 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 is satisfied, on the evidence provided by the Complainant, that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name for the purposes of a website which impersonated the Complainant’s company and sought to obtain personal information from individuals dealing with that website, presumably for financial gain. Specifically, the Panel finds that, by using the disputed domain name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website or of products or services on that website (paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy). It follows that the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant and its business when it registered the disputed domain name, and the Panel therefore concludes that the Respondent both registered and has used the disputed domain name 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 Steven A. Maier
Sole Panelist
Date: April 10, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy