Complainant is Quality Carriers, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Quarles & Brady LLP, United States.
Respondent is Bests, LLC, United States, Jeff Stewart, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 8, 2021. On June 9, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On June 11, 2021, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on June 15, 2021, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on June 18, 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on June 22, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 12, 2021. The Response was filed with the Center on June 23, 2021. The Center appointed Robert A. Badgley as the sole panelist in this matter on July 28, 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 Complainant describes itself as “an industry leader for transportation services for goods and materials.” According to the Complaint, Complainant “operates the largest bulk tank trucking fleet in North America – more than 2,500 trucks and 6,400 trailers.” Complainant holds a trademark registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for QUALITY CARRIERS, USPTO Reg. No. 2,420,609, registered on January 16, 2001 in connection with “transportation of freight by truck” with a 1985 date of first use in commerce. Since 2014, Complainant has owned the domain name The Domain Name was first registered on May 2, 2004. As is noted below, Respondent claims that he first acquired it in March 2009. The Domain Name resolves to a parking page containing various hyperlinks, including “Nearby Truck Driving Jobs,” “Trucking Jobs,” and “Retail Fulfillment Center.” Another hyperlink is “Quality Carriers” – Complainant’s trademark – which link leads to further links, none of which is generated or sponsored by Complainant. One such link is “Drivers Need for Mayflower – Apply Now for Mayflower.” According to the Complaint (and not denied by Respondent), Respondent Bests, LLC was a Utah Limited Liability Company that was formed in 2008 but expired in 2013 for failure to file a renewal. The Registered Agent of Bests, LLC was an individual (hereafter “JS”). The Response in this proceeding was filed by JS. The entirety of the substantive portion of the Response states: “The domain name (qualitycarriers.com) is mine. I purchased it in March of 2009 before the complainant had any online presence. The domain is a very generic pair of words. Unfortunately the complaint is lengthy and difficult to understand. I have no lawyer to translate and respond on my behalf.” Similarly, in a prior UDRP case in which this same Respondent was found to have registered and used the subject domain name in bad faith, Respondent sent an email to the Center after receiving the complaint in that case and said: “I don’t have time to read all of that. Can you dumb it down for me?” See McKesson Corporation v. Bests, LLC¸ Case No. FA1304001496535 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 2, 2013) (transferring Respondent was found to have registered other domain names in bad faith in other UDRP cases. See Lonrho Africa (Holdings) Limited v. Bests, LLC,WIPO Case No. D2011-0925 (transferring Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the three elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the Domain Name. B. Respondent The entirety of Respondent’s substantive position is quoted verbatim above in the “Factual Background” section. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists the three elements which Complainant must satisfy with respect to the Domain Name: (i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and The Panel concludes that Complainant has rights in the trademark QUALITY CARRIERS through registration and use demonstrated in the record. The Panel also concludes that the Domain Name is identical to that mark. Complainant has established Policy paragraph 4(a)(i). B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, Respondent may establish its rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, among other circumstances, by showing any of the following elements: (i) before any notice to you [Respondent] of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Domain Name or a name corresponding to the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or The Panel concludes that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. Respondent’s sole attempt at a justification for registering the Domain Name – it is a “very generic pair of words” – is insufficient. The Domain Name may well be comprised of a pair of ordinary dictionary words, but the combination of those words – “quality carriers” – does not appear to be random. Indeed, that combination is identical to Complainant’s longstanding registered trademark. Moreover, the fact that the Domain Name resolves to a parking page with hyperlinks related to the trucking business, and even to certain competitors of Complainant (e.g., Mayflower), indicates that Respondent is not making a good faith or noncommercial use of the Domain Name. Finally, although this point is even more germane to the “bad faith” discussion below, the fact that Respondent has been found to be a cybersquatter in several previous UDRP cases undermines Respondent’s credibility in general. As such, his apparent claim to have registered the Domain Name because it is comprised of “a very generic pair of words” is not credited as plausible here. Complainant has established Policy paragraph 4(a)(ii). C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides that the following circumstances, “in particular but without limitation,” are evidence of the registration and use of the Domain Name in “bad faith”: (i) circumstances indicating that Respondent has registered or has acquired the Domain Name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the Domain Name registration to Complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of its documented out of pocket costs directly related to the Domain Name; or The Panel concludes that Respondent has registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith. The Panel incorporates its discussion above in the “rights or legitimate interests” section. From the website content (hyperlinks involving the industry in which Complainant operates under the QUALITY CARRIERS trademark), the Panel finds it more likely than not that Respondent had Complainant’s mark in mind when registering the Domain Name. With respect to bad faith use, the Panel concludes that Respondent registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith within the meaning of the above-quoted Policy paragraph 4(b)(ii). Respondent has been found to be a cybersquatter in three prior UDRP cases, which in these circumstances suffices to find Respondent to have engaged in a pattern of preclusive registrations. Complainant has established Policy paragraph 4(a)(iii). 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 Domain Name Robert A. Badgley
(ii) 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
(ii) you [Respondent] (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the Domain Name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) you [Respondent] are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
(ii) that Respondent has 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 Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) that Respondent has registered the Domain Name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) that by using the Domain Name, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on Respondent’s website or location.
Sole Panelist
Date: August 7, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy