The Complainant is DPDgroup International Services GmbH & Co. KG, Germany, represented by Fidal, France.
The Respondent is Tomi Karlson, United States of America. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 26, 2020. On March 26, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 26, 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 March 30, 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 amendment to the Complaint on March 31, 2020. 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 April 1, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 21, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 22, 2020. The Center appointed Adam Taylor as the sole panelist in this matter on May 5, 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 has provided international postal and delivery services since 1977. It currently operates some 32,000 pickup points in 230 countries. The Complainant operates a website at “www.dpd.com”. The Complainant owns many registered trade marks that include the term “DPD”, e.g., International Trade Mark Registration No. 761146 for the stylized term “DPD” plus logo, registered on May 26, 2001, in classes 36 and 39. The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on February 8, 2020. Thereafter the disputed domain name was used for website headed “DPD Escrow & Delivery Services”, which purported to offer secure payment services for use on certain online marketplaces. The website header included the Complainant’s red cube logo, replacing the term “dpdgroup” with “dpd Delivery”. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The following is a summary of the Complainant’s contentions. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark. Addition of the term “escrow” does not distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s trade mark. On the contrary, it serves to heighten the degree of Internet confusion with the Complainant and its services. The Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant has not authorised the Respondent to use its mark. The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. The Respondent does not use the sign DPD as part of a trade mark or business name. Nor is the Respondent making a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to deliberately create confusion with the Complainant’s business, including impersonation of the Complainant, indicates that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Respondent fraudulently registered and used the disputed domain name to take advantage of the Complainant’s reputation for the purposes of scams and/or phishing operations. The Respondent’s website reproduces the Complainant’s trade marks as well as its graphic layout and look and feel. The website promotes services that are complementary to those offered by the Complainant. It is obvious that the Respondent had knowledge of the Complainant and its trade mark when it registered the disputed domain name, many years after the Complainant registered its first trade mark. In any case, the disputed domain name is so obviously connected with the Complainant’s well-known name and products that its very use by someone unrelated to the Complainant suggests opportunistic bad faith, particularly given that the disputed domain name has been used in relation to the same kind of services offered by the Complainant. The Respondent’s reproduction of the Complainant’s trade mark shows that the Respondent is deliberately creating confusion with the Complainant and its trade mark for scamming purposes. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Under the Policy, the Complainant is required to prove on the balance of probabilities that: - the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights; The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s figurative trade mark, which is dominated by the word “dpd”. Section 1.10 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) states that assessment of confusing similarity involves comparing the (alpha-numeric) domain name and the textual components of the relevant mark and that design or figurative/stylised elements which are incapable of representation in domain names are largely disregarded. Further, the addition of the term “escrow” does not avert a finding of confusing similarity (see section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 ). The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has established the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests As explained in section 2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 , the consensus view is that, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If not, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. Here, the Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorised the Respondent to use its trade mark. Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy gives examples of circumstances which, if proved, suffice to demonstrate that a respondent possesses rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. As to paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy, the Panel has concluded below that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to capitalise on the Complainant’s trade mark for fraudulent purposes. Such use of the disputed domain name could not be said to be bona fide. Nor is there any evidence that paragraphs 4(c)(ii) or (iii) of the Policy apply in the circumstances of this case. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established a prima facie case of lack of rights or legitimate interests and there is no rebuttal by the Respondent. The Panel concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and that the Complainant has therefore established the second element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The disputed domain name has been used for a website impersonating the Complainant, including by use of its logo, in connection with services related to those of the Complainant. Although the exact nature of the scheme is not clear, it is obvious to this Panel that some sort of fraudulent activity is afoot. In these circumstances, the Panel readily concludes that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith by the Respondent. The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has established the third element of paragraph 4(a) 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 Adam Taylor
- the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
- the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Sole Panelist
Date: May 19, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy