The Complainant is DPDgroup International Services GmbH & Co, Germany, represented by Fidal, France.
The Respondent is Domain Administrator, See PrivacyGuardian.org, United States of America (“United States”) / Benjamin Wills, United Kingdom. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 27, 2020. On November 27, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 27, 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 December 16, 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 December 21, 2021. 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 December 23, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 12, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January 28, 2021. The Center appointed Zoltán Takács as the sole panelist in this matter on February 2, 2021. 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. The language of this administrative proceeding is English, that being the language of the registration agreement. 4. Factual Background The Complainant is one of Europe’s largest parcel delivery networks. With 77,000 delivery experts and more than 47,000 pickup points around the world, the Complainant delivers 5.3 million parcels per day. The Complainant has an extensive portfolio of trademarks consisting of or comprising the DPD trademark, including the International Trademark Registration (“IR”) No. 1217471 for the semi-figurative mark DPD registered on March 28, 2014 for services of classes 9, 16, 35, 39, and 42 of the Nice Agreement Concerning the International Classification of Good and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks. Since March 20, 1991, the Complainant owns the domain name The disputed domain name was registered on October 6, 2020, and has resolved to a website offering transportation and storage services. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its DPD trademark since it is composed of the DPD trademark and the descriptive term “transport”. The Complainant further alleges that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and is unable to rely on any of the circumstances set out in paragraphs 4(c)(i), (ii), or (iii) of the Policy. The Complainant claims that the Respondent was most likely aware of the Complainant and its activities and has registered the disputed domain name to take unfair advantage of the Complainant’s DPD trademark and reputation attached to it. The Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules requires that the Panel’s decision be made “on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable”. It has been a consensus view in UDRP decisions that a respondent’s default (i.e., failure to submit a response) would not by itself mean that the complainant is deemed to have prevailed; a respondent’s default is not necessarily an admission that the complainant’s claims are true. See section 4.3 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”). A complainant must evidence each of the three elements required by paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in order to succeed on the complaint, namely that; (i) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; (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 Under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, there are two requirements which the Complainant must establish, first that it has rights in a trademark or service mark, and second that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark or service mark. It has been a consensus view among UDRP panels that if the complainant owns a trademark, then it generally satisfies the threshold requirement of having trademark rights. The Complainant produced proper evidence of having registered rights in the DPD trademark. For the purpose of this proceeding, the Panel establishes that the IR No. 1217471 for the semi figurative mark DPD satisfies the requirement of having trademark rights for the purpose of the Policy. Having determined the presence of the Complainant’s trademark rights, the Panel next assesses whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s DPD trademark. According to section 1.7 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, the standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. This test typically involves a side-by-side comparison of the disputed domain name and the textual components of the relevant trademark to assess whether the mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name. According to section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element. According to section 1.11.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, the applicable Top-Level Domain (“TLD”) in a domain name (e.g., “.com”, “.club”, “.nyc”) is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is generally disregarded under the first element confusingly similar test. The Complainant’s DPD trademark is clearly recognizable in the disputed domain name. The only difference between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name is addition of the descriptive term “transport”, which describes the principal business of the Complainant and does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s DPD trademark and that requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Under paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, a respondent may demonstrate its rights or legitimate interests in a domain name by showing any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation: (i) its use of, or demonstrable preparation to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services; (ii) it has been commonly known by the domain name; (iii) it is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert customers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue. In the present case, the Complainant has submitted sufficient and uncontested evidence that it holds well-established rights in the DPD trademark. The Complainant has never authorized the Respondent to use its DPD trademark in any way, and its prior rights in the DPD trademark precede the date of registration of the disputed domain name. According to section 2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, while the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the often impossible task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with the relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. The Respondent failed to respond, and by doing so failed to offer the Panel any type of evidence set forth in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, or otherwise counter the Complainant’s prima facie case. The Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy lists a number of factors which, if found by the panel to be present, shall be evidence of registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. This non-exclusive list includes: (i) circumstances indicating that you have registered or you have 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 your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or (ii) you have 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 you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your 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 your website or location or of a product or service on your website or location. Search for the terms “dpd” and “transport” on Google reveals solely the Complainant and its services under the DPD trademark and the Panel considers this as evidence that the Complainant’s DPD trademark is widely known. According to section 3.1.4 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, panels have consistently found that mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar (particularly domain names comprising typos or incorporating the mark plus a descriptive term) to a famous or widely-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can itself create a presumption of bad faith. The disputed domain name resolved to a website offering services identical with or similar to those of the Complainant. The globally used DPD trademark of the Complainant is highly distinctive and widely known and in the Panel’s view the only conceivable explanation for the Respondent’s choice to register the disputed domain name that reproduces the Complainant’s trademark is to exploit the reputation behind the DPD trademark without any authorization or rights, and divert Internet users to its own website (or website under its control) for own commercial benefits. In addition, the Respondent’s lack of any rights to or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name and failure to react and respond to the compelling evidence submitted by the Complainant convince the Panel that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain Internet users to its website (or website under its control) by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of such sites or the services advertised on such sites, within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. In view of this Panel, noting the above discussed facts and circumstances, paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy is satisfied. 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 Zoltán Takács
Sole Panelist
Date: February 16, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy