The Complainant is Averitt Express, Inc., United States of America, represented by Adams and Reese LLP, United States of America.
The Respondent is Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot, United States of America / Administrator, Netlas LLC, 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 February 1, 2021. On February 2, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 3, 2021, 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 4, 2021 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 6, 2021. 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 15, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 7, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 9, 2021. The Center appointed William F. Hamilton as the sole panelist in this matter on March 19, 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. 4. Factual Background The Complainant has provided freight transportation and supply chain management for half a century. The Complainant operates over one hundred locations in the United States and provides freight and other transportation services to over three hundred international destinations in one hundred countries. The Complainant advertises its services through various websites, print media, and other advertising and promotional campaigns. The Complainant owns numerous registrations of the AVERITT mark (the “Mark”) in various countries including but not limited to registration No. 2619908 with the United States Patent and Trademark office obtained by the Complainant in 2002. The Complainant owns the following Internet domains: The disputed domain name was registered on January 11, 2020, and resolves to a parking website offering links to various competitive services and also products not associated with the Complainant. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant asserts the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Mark because the disputed domain name is composed of the Mark preceded by “www”. The Complainant asserts that the Complainant never authorized the Respondent to use the Mark, that the Respondent is not known by the Mark, and that the Respondent has never engaged in any bona fide commercial activity in connection with the Mark. The Complainant also asserts the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith to lure unsuspecting Internet users to the Respondent’s website for commercial gain. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, to succeed the Complainant must satisfy the Panel that: (i) the disputed 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 disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Mark. The disputed domain name is composed merely by preceding the Mark with the letters “www” which is a standard World Wide Web protocol indicator. The addition of “www” without a period may be considered a form of typosquatting. Berlitz Investment Corporation v. Host Master,Transure Enterprise Ltd,WIPO Case No. D2020-1565 (addition of the letters “www” in insufficient to distinguish the domain from complainant’s trademark); Facebook, Inc., Instagram, LLC, OculusVR, LLC v. PrivacyGuardian.org / Shi Lei,WIPO Case No. D2018-1334 (domain names incorporating the letters “www” were confusingly similar to the complainant’s Mark). Moreover, a domain name which wholly incorporates a complainant’s registered mark is sufficient to establish confusing similarity for the purposes of the Policy particularly when the mark is the dominant element of the domain as in this case. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7. Additionally, the gTLD, in this case “.com”, may be disregarded for the purposes of assessment under the first element, as it is viewed as a standard registration requirement. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.1. The Complainant has met its burden under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant has specifically disavowed providing the Respondent with permission to use the disputed domain name or the Mark. There is no evidence that the Respondent has conducted any bona fide business under the disputed domain name or is commonly known by the disputed domain name. This is sufficient to establish a prima facie case in the Complainant’s favor, which the Respondent has not rebutted. The Respondent has failed to come forth with any evidence showing any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent did not formally respond to the Complaint. The Complainant has met its burden under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel finds the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith. The Panel finds that the Respondent intentionally attempted to falsely lure and attract Internet users to the Respondent’s website for commercial gain. The Respondent’s efforts to confuse Internet users by deploying a common typosquatting technique is obvious. The confusingly similar disputed domain name resolves to a parking website offering links to various competitive products and services. Moreover, it is difficult to conceive of any use that the Respondent might make of the disputed domain name without the Complainant’s consent that would not involve bad faith. Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmellows,WIPO Case No. D2000-0003. It is abundantly clear that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith and used the disputed domain name to trade on the Complainant’s Mark. The Complainant has met its burden under paragraph 4(a)(iii) 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 William F. Hamilton
Sole Panelist
Date: April 2, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy