Westmore · UDRP DecisionCevacargotrans.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <cevacargotrans.com>. It found the domain confusingly similar to the Complainant’s CEVA trademark because CEVA remained clearly recognizable and the added terms “cargo” and “trans” described the Complainant’s services. The Respondent did not rebut the Complainant’s prima facie case on rights or legitimate interests. Bad faith was found based on the domain’s use for a website displaying the CEVA mark and purportedly offering the same type of logistics services, together with the unrebutted allegations concerning fraudulent activity.
The timeline behind cevacargotrans.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 cevacargotrans.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
The case illustrates a straightforward trademark-targeting pattern in which a registered mark is combined with terms describing the trademark owner’s industry and then used for a website displaying the mark and purportedly offering related services. It also shows the importance of the burden-of-production framework where a complainant establishes a prima facie case and the respondent defaults.
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 CEVA Logistics Headoffice B.V. v. Tsi Nkwenti Collins Case No. D2021-4133 1. The Parties Complainant is CEVA Logistics Headoffice B.V., Netherlands (hereinafter, “Complainant”), represented by NLO Shieldmark B.V., Netherlands. Respondent is Tsi Nkwenti Collins, Cameroon (hereinafter, “Respondent”). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <cevacargotrans.com> is registered with Domain.com, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 9, 2021. On December 10, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On the same day, 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 Complainant on December 13, 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 December 16, 2021. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint (hereinafter, 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 December 22, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 11, 2022. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on January 13, 2022. The Center appointed M. Scott Donahey as the sole panelist in this matter on February 3, 2022. 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 is the registrant of numerous trademarks consisting of or including the mark CEVA in jurisdictions including the European Union, the Benelux countries, and numerous other jurisdictions. All of these trademark registrations predate the registration of the disputed domain name. For example, International Trademark Registration No. 925318 for CEVA, registered on February 19, 2007. Amended Complaint, Annexes IV and VI. Majority of the trademarks were intended for services in the field of transportation and logistics, the general service area in which Complainant provided its services. Respondent registered the disputed domain name on April 22, 2021. The disputed domain name resolves to a website displaying the Complainant’s registered CEVA mark and purportedly offering services in the field of logistics. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered CEVA trademarks, since “ceva” is the essential “label” in the disputed domain name and the words “cargo” and “trans” are merely descriptive of services, such as those offered in logistics. Complainant alleges that the company described on the website to which the disputed domain name resolves, Ceva Cargo Transport, gives an address in Kiev, Ukraine. However, Complainant contends that this company is not registered in that country, and does not exist officially. Complainant asserts that this company was previously named, Fleet GCL Maritime Logistics, using the same address as is listed on the website at the disputed domain name. The company was engaged in fraudulent activity in the past and has been blacklisted. See , e.g. , (1) “https://dirtyscam.com/report/fleet-gcl-maritime-logistics-company-agent-mr-alex-volodimiri-k/”; (2) “https://dirtyscam.com/report/krovita-kyt-co-ltd”; and (3) “https://work-info.name/chernyl-spisok-kompanii/73451-fleet-gcl-maritime-logistics-company” , a site which reviews frauds. Complainant alleges that Respondent committed frauds, including issuance of fake shipment documents, the receipt of partial prepayment and then the rendering of no services. In sum, Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CEVA trademarks. Complainant argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. Complainant contends that Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings “A Panel shall 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.” Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules. Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that the complainant must prove each of the following: (i) that the domain name registered by the respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and, (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. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The disputed domain name consists of Complainant’s CEVA trademark and the English words “cargo” and “trans.” The English words are descriptive of services offered by Complainant under its CEVA mark. The CEVA trademark is clearly recognizable in the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests While the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, UDRP panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the almost impossible 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. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“ WIPO Overview 3.0 ”), section 2.1. In the present case, Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and Respondent has failed to assert any such rights. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The disputed domain name is being used to purportedly offer the same types of services as those offered by Complainant under the trademarked CEVA name that was registered by Complainant long before Respondent registered the disputed domain name. Complainant asserts that the company on the website at the disputed domain name, Ceva Cargo Transport, does not exist and its address in fact matches with a company named, Fleet GCL Maritime Logistics, which has been known for its fraudulent activities. Complainant further asserts that Respondent registered the disputed domain name similar to the Complainant’s CEVA trademark to obtain fraudulently money for services Respondent never intended to perform and never did perform. Respondent has not responded to Complainant’s attentions. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent has registered and is using 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, <cevacargotrans.com>, be transferred to Complainant. M. Scott Donahey Sole Panelist Date: February 17, 2022
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around cevacargotrans.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.