Westmore · UDRP DecisionNttsdirectory.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <nttsdirectory.com>. It found the domain confusingly similar to the Complainant’s NTTS mark because it incorporated NTTS in full with the descriptive word “directory.” It also found no rights or legitimate interests because the Complainant had not authorized the Respondent, the website was inaccessible, and there was no evidence of a bona fide offering. Based on the Complainant’s longstanding national truck and trailer directory and the Respondent’s claimed operation of a directory in the same field, the Panel found registration and use intended to attract users for commercial gain through confusion.
The timeline behind nttsdirectory.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 nttsdirectory.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
The case illustrates how adding a term that directly describes a complainant’s established services may reinforce rather than dispel confusing similarity. It also shows the evidentiary weakness of an unsupported acronym explanation where the respondent claims activity in the same industry, the website is inaccessible, and no proof of bona fide preparations or use is supplied.
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 MiraCorp, Inc. v. Nelson Matoke Case No. D2019-1240 1. The Parties The Complainant is MiraCorp, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Law Office of Mark Brown, LLC, United States. The Respondent is Nelson Matoke, United States, self-represented. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <nttsdirectory.com> is registered with FastDomain, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 30, 2019. On May 31, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On May 31, 2019, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. On June 3, 2019, the Center sent an email communication to the Parties seeking Complainant’s confirmation of its remedy request that the disputed domain name be transferred to Complainant. On the same date, the Complainant confirmed its remedy request. On June 3, 2019, the Center received two informal email communications from Respondent, stating that he is the owner of the disputed domain name and he has not authorized anyone to transfer his domain name. 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on June 5, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 25, 2019. On June 5, 2019, the Center received another informal email communication from Respondent. On June 6, 2019, the Center received an informal email communication from Respondent stating, “I am not in a position to pay the [C]omplainant [USD] 1000 whichever way the case goes.” No Response was formally filed with the Center. On June 27, 2019, the Center informed the Parties that it would proceed to appoint the Panel. The Center appointed Lynda J. Zadra-Symes as the sole panelist in this matter on July 10, 2019. 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 owns United States Trademark Registration No. 2,988,581, registered August 30, 2005, for NTTS and Design for use in connection with “printed truck and trailer service directory” in International Class 16 and “providing a web site which features advertisements for the truck and trailer services of others on the global computer network; promoting the truck and trailer services of others through the distribution of promotional compact discs” in International Class 35 (the “581 Registration”). The 581 Registration claims a first use date of November 1989. Complainant owns NTTS, Inc., a subsidiary of Complainant, which licenses the 581 mark and uses the 581 mark in commerce. NTTS, Inc. further owns and operates the similarly-named website though the domain name <nttsbreakdown.com>. NTTS, Inc. operates a national truck and trailer services directory under the brand name NTTS which it has used since 1989. NTTS provides a comprehensive guide to semi truck repair facilities nationwide in the United States and, since 1989, has published the annual NTTS Breakdown Directory which presents truck repair information by state, city and type of repair in a reference tool for all continental United States and Canada. Respondent registered the disputed domain name on February 22, 2018. According to Complainant, the website at the disputed domain name purports to be a truck and trailer services directory, however, no evidence has been provided. On April 15, 2019, Complainant sent a letter to Respondent demanding Respondent cease use of Complainant’s mark and of the disputed domain name. In a letter dated April 25, 2019, Respondent responded that his name was “Nelson” and “NTTSDirectory” stands for “Nelson’s Truck and Trailer Service” and attached screenshots purporting to reference other similar businesses using NTTS. Respondent’s letter further stated “We can agree on a settlement if you want my company to seize [sic] operating a truck directory web service completely. My team and I have put in a lot of mental, financial resources and manly hours. All that cannot go in vain. If this is not possible, the website will remain live on the web. We will continue working on the website until further direction is issued.” On April 30, 2019, Complaint responded and observed that the majority of the screenshots were links to articles which discuss Complainant’s business, not other businesses, that Complainant was not demanding that Respondent cease offering services in the trucking industry, but only that Respondent cease using Complainant’s mark. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s NTTS trademark, that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and that the disputed domain name has been registered and used in bad faith. B. Respondent Respondent did not submit a formal response to the Complaint. 6. Discussion and Findings In order to succeed in its claim, Complainant must demonstrate that all of the elements enumerated in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and (ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs the Panel to decide a complaint “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”. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Complainant has demonstrated that it has rights in the trademark NTTS, which it has used since 1989. Complainant owns United States Trademark Registration No. 2,988,581 which it registered in 2005. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark because it includes the entire literal portion of the mark followed by the word “directory”, which is merely descriptive of Complainant’s services. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademarks. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant asserts that it has not provided authorization to Respondent to use its mark in connection with the disputed domain name. Respondent’s website is not accessible. There is no evidence in the record of Respondent’s website directory or that Respondent is using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The record indicates that NTTS is a well-known truck and trailer services directory that has been published annually since 1989. In informal correspondence, Respondent claimed to operate a truck and trailer services directory. It is reasonable to assume that at the time of registering the disputed domain name in 2018, Respondent would have been aware of Complainant’s national truck and trailer services directory using the same mark, including in its domain name. The evidence of record therefore indicates that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name to attempt to attract for commercial gain Internet users to Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s trademark and as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of Respondent’s website or services. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. 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 <nttsdirectory.com> be transferred to Complainant. Lynda J. Zadra-Symes Sole Panelist Date: July 29, 2019
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around nttsdirectory.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.