ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Traffix Group Inc. v. Eduardo De Grijze, Travelers of america Case No. D2024-3448 1. The Parties The Complainant is Traffix Group Inc., Canada, represented by ZeroFox, United States of America (“United States”). The Respondent is Eduardo De Grijze, Travelers of america, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 22, 2024. On August 23, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 23, 2024, 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 (Registration Private) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on August 26, 2024, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Center verified that 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 September 3, 2024. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 23, 2024. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 24, 2024. The Center appointed Adam Taylor as the sole panelist in this matter on September 27, 2024. 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.
page 2 4. Factual Background The Complainant has offered networking, shipping, and hauling services throughout North America under the mark TRAFFIX since 1979. The Complainant owns Canadian trade mark No. TMA1099487 for TRAFFIX, filed on January 23, 2018, registered on May 4, 2021, in classes 39 and 40. The Complainant operates a website at “www.traffix.com” in association with the domain name with a registration date in 1996. The disputed domain name was registered on July 8, 2015. As of August 20, 2024, the disputed domain name resolved to a website branded with a “TRAFFIX INC” logo, including a stylised “X” similar to that used in the Complainant’s logo. The home page stated: “At Traffix Inc., we offer a variety of DOT/FMCSA compliance services to fit your specific trucking needs. As safety professionals, our goal is to assist you in streamlining operations and keeping track of drivers and equipment to keep your business running smoothly…” The home page included links to “Safety Audits”, “DOT & FMCSA”, “Taxes, Permits & Tags”, and “Factoring”, but none of the links worked except for “Factoring”, which redirected to a Brazilian logistics company. The footer comprised a Florida contact address plus a copyright notice: “2012 – 2019 Traffix Services”. MX records have been configured enabling use of the disputed domain name for email. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name. 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 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 It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant’s trade mark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7. The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trade mark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1.
page 3 The entirety of the mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. Although the addition of other terms (here, “services”) may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such term does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8. The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognised that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult 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 relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. As to paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy, and as further discussed in section 6C below, the Panel considers that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to intentionally attempt to attract, confuse, and profit from Internet users seeking the Complainant’s goods and/or services. 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 are relevant in the circumstances of this case. The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel notes that, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. In the present case, the Panel considers that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to its website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trade mark in accordance with paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. Not only does the disputed domain name include the Complainant’s distinctive mark, but the Respondent has used the disputed domain name for a website that purports to offer similar services to those of the Complainant and sets out to create the impression that it is officially associated with the Complainant including by prominent use of logo that is very similar to that of the Complainant.
page 4 Furthermore, the Complainant had provided evidence demonstrating that the website is part of a pattern of similar websites using the same Florida address and copyright notice, seemingly targeting other logistics companies. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element 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 be transferred to the Complainant. /Adam Taylor/ Adam Taylor Sole Panelist Date: October 11, 2024
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy