Westmore · UDRP DecisionAllieduniversalaus.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <allieduniversalaus.com>. It found the domain confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered ALLIED UNIVERSAL mark because it incorporated the mark in its entirety and added “aus,” an abbreviation used by the Complainant for its corporate website. The Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests because it was neither authorized nor commonly known by the domain and used it for a parking page with pay-per-click links relating to competing security services. The same composition and use supported findings that the Respondent knew of the Complainant when registering the domain and intentionally attracted Internet users for commercial gain through confusion.
The timeline behind allieduniversalaus.com
Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.
Westmore reconstructs the full history behind allieduniversalaus.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
The decision illustrates how a domain combining an entire trademark with an abbreviation independently associated with the complainant can strengthen both confusing-similarity and targeting findings. The security-related pay-per-click links connected the domain’s composition to the Complainant’s business and supported the conclusions that the use was not bona fide and was intended to profit from confusion.
Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Universal Services of America, LP d/b/a Allied Universal v. Cybernet Systech Private Limited Case No. D2018-1544 1. The Parties The Complainant is Universal Services of America, LP d/b/a Allied Universal of Santa Ana, California, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Cozen O’Connor, United States. The Respondent is Cybernet Systech Private Limited of Mumbai, India. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <allieduniversalaus.com> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 10, 2018. On July 11, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On July 12, 2018, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. 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 July 19, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 8, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 13, 2018. The Center appointed Nicholas Smith as the sole panelist in this matter on August 17, 2018. 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, which trades under the name “Allied Universal” is a security services company that trades in North America, with over 150,000 employees. The Complainant maintains a website, located at “www.aus.com”, “aus” being an abbreviation of “Allied Universal Services”. The Complainant holds a registered trademark in the United States for the word mark ALLIED UNIVERSAL (“ALLIED Mark”), which was filed on May 6, 2016 and registered on February 7, 2017. The ALLIED Mark is registered for various services in classes 31, 41, 42, and 45 that relate to the Complainant’s security services. The Domain Name was registered by the Respondent on February 26, 2018. It redirects to a website (the “Respondent’s Website”) that contains what are described as Sponsored Listings (also known as pay-per-click links) purporting to relate to security services and potentially the Complainant itself (“Allied Security” and “Allied Security Jobs”). 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant makes the following contentions: (i) that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ALLIED Mark; (ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and (iii) that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant is the owner of the ALLIED Mark, having registered the ALLIED Mark in the United States. The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the ALLIED Mark, containing the ALLIED Mark in its entirety and the abbreviation “aus”, which is used by the Complainant as its website (“www.aus.com”) and as an abbreviation of its name. There are no rights or legitimate interests held by the Respondent in respect of the Domain Name. The Respondent is not commonly known as the Domain Name nor has the Complainant provided a licence or authorization to register the Domain Name or any domain name incorporating the ALLIED Mark. There is no evidence, since the Respondent registered the Domain Name, of the Respondent’s 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 for a legitimate noncommercial purpose. The Domain Name resolves to a link farm: a page with links to businesses that will cause confusion for the Complainant’s customers. This does not provide the Respondent with rights or legitimate interests. The Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Given the use of the Respondent’s Website to provide links to services identical to those offered by the Complainant, Respondent had knowledge of the ALLIED Mark at the time of registration. Such knowledge is an indication of bad faith registration. The Respondent is using the Domain Name for a pay-per-click site which amounts to bad faith use under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar To prove this element the Complainant must have trade or service mark rights and the Domain Name must be identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade or service mark. The Complainant is the owner of the ALLIED Mark, having registrations for the ALLIED Mark as a trade mark in the United States. The Domain Name consists of the ALLIED Mark ( i.e. , ALLIED UNIVERSAL) in its entirety and the abbreviation “aus” which is an abbreviation used by the Complainant for its corporate website at “www.aus.com”. The Panel finds the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ALLIED Mark. Consequently the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests To succeed on this element, a complainant must make out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If such a prima facie case is made out, then the burden of production shifts to the respondent to demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy enumerates several ways in which a respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a domain name: “Any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate your rights or legitimate interests to the domain name for purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(ii): (i) before any notice to you 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 (ii) you (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 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.” The Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant in any way. The Respondent has not been authorized by the Complainant to register or use the Domain Name or to seek the registration of any domain name incorporating the ALLIED Mark or a mark similar to the ALLIED Mark. There is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the Domain Name or any similar name. There is no evidence that the Respondent has used or made demonstrable preparations to use the Domain Name in connection with a legitimate non-commercial fair use or a bona fide offering of goods and services; the use of the Domain Name for what appears to be a parking page with pay-per-click links for services in direct competition to the services offered by the Complainant does not amount to use for a bona fide offering of goods and services. The Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. The Respondent has failed to rebut that prima facie case and establish that it has rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name under the Policy. The Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith For the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith: (i) circumstances indicating that the Respondent has registered or has 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 trade mark or service mark or to a competitor of the Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of its documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the Domain Name; or (ii) the Respondent has registered the Domain Name in order to prevent the owner of the trade mark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) the Respondent has registered the Domain Name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) by using the Domain Name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its 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 the Respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on the Respondent’s website or location. (Policy, paragraph 4(b)). The Panel finds that the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant and its reputation in the ALLIED Mark at the time the Respondent registered the Domain Name. The Respondent’s Website contains links that potentially refer to the Complainant (“Allied Security”) or services that are offered in direct competition to the Complainant (“Security Service”). The Respondent has provided no explanation, and none is immediately obvious, why an entity would register a domain name containing “allied”, “universal” and “aus” (an abbreviation used by the Complainant) and redirect the domain name containing links relating to security services, unless there was an awareness of and an intention to create a likelihood of confusion with and the Complainant and its ALLIED Mark. In these circumstances, the Respondent’s conduct in registering the Domain Name when it was aware of the Complainant’s rights and lacked rights or legitimate interests of its own amounts to registration in bad faith. The Respondent’s Website offers what appear to be pay-per-click links that either directly refer to the Complainant or relate to services offered by competitors of the Complainant. In these circumstances where the Respondent has offered no explanation for the registration of the Domain Name the Panel finds that that the Respondent is using the Domain Name to intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the ALLIED Mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s Website. As such the Panel finds that the Domain Name is being used in bad faith. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith 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 Domain Name, <allieduniversalaus.com>, be transferred to the Complainant. Nicholas Smith Sole Panelist Date: August 19, 2018
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around allieduniversalaus.com
The decision is only the record. Westmore connects it to the cases, authorities, panelists, parties and domain evidence surrounding it.
A short, grounded explanation drawn only from this decision's record — not legal advice or a prediction.
Grounded in the Westmore record for this decision. Research/informational only — not legal advice or a prediction of any outcome.
The decision is only the beginning.
You've seen what happened. Now discover the deeper intelligence behind the case, the panelist, the parties and the authorities that matter.
Go beyond the public record: see how this case has been cited, find comparable decisions, analyze the panelist and apply the relevant authorities to your Matter.
Westmore Professional · $395/month
Research with UDRP IntelligenceWestmore AI drafts an attorney-review-ready UDRP response from your facts, grounded in the exact panel and closest precedent.
$895 one-time per matter · no subscription required. Self-help drafting aid — not legal advice.
Build your responseWestmore UDRP records draw on WIPO-indexed decisions and are provided for research and informational purposes only. Not legal advice, a clearance opinion, or a prediction of any outcome.