G4scourierservice.com

The timeline behind g4scourierservice.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION G4S Limited v. Chukwuma Maduabuchi Case No. D2022-2874 1. The Parties Complainant is G4S Limited, United Kingdom, represented by SafeNames Ltd., United Kingdom. Respondent is Chukwuma Maduabuchi, Nigeria. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <g4scourierservice.com> (“Domain Name”) is registered with OwnRegistrar, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 4, 2022. On August 4, 2022, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On August 5, 2022, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on August 12, 2022. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 1, 2022. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on September 2, 2022. The Center appointed Marina Perraki as the sole panelist in this matter on September 12, 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. page 2 4. Factual Background Complainant is a London-based global security company which provides security and facility services in more than 80 countries across the world. Initially founded in 1901, Complainant has been operating under its current name G4S since 2004. Complainant has a network of more than 800,000 employees globally and per Complaint enjoys international goodwill. Complainant operates its main website at “www.g4s.com”, the domain name for which was registered on December 1, 1999. Complainant has trademark registrations for G4S including International trademark registration no 885912, G4S (word), registered on October 11, 2005 for goods and services in classes 1, 5, 6, 9, 16, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41, 42, 44, and 45 and the European Union trademark registration no 015268113, G4S (word), filed on March 23, 2016 and registered on September 20, 2016 for goods and services in classes 6, 36, and 37. The Domain Name was registered on February 9, 2022 and leads to an inactive page. Complainant sent a cease and desist letter to Respondent in March 2022 to which Respondent did not reply. Prior to Complainant’s sending of cease and desist correspondence to Respondent, the Domain Name resolved to a site which used and prominently displayed Complainant’s G4S mark and purported to offer courier-related services. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant asserts that it has established all three elements required under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy for a transfer of the Domain Name. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists the three elements that 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 (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 The Domain Name incorporates Complainant’s G4S trademark in its entirety. This is sufficient to establish confusing similarity (Magnum Piering, Inc. v. The Mudjackers and Garwood S. Wilson, Sr., WIPO Case No. D2000-1525 ). The addition of the words “courier” and “service” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity as the G4S trademark remains clearly recognizable (WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0 ”), section 1.8). page 3 The generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” is disregarded, as gTLDs typically do not form part of the comparison on the grounds that they are required for technical reasons (Rexel Developpements SAS v. Zhan Yequn, WIPO Case No. D2017-0275 ; Hay & Robertson International Licensing AG v. C. J. Lovik, WIPO Case No. D2002-0122). The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s G4S trademark. 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 Respondent of the dispute, 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 (ii) 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) Respondent is 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 Panel concludes that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. Respondent has not submitted any response and has not claimed any such rights or legitimate interests with respect to the Domain Name. As per Complainant, Respondent was not authorized to register the Domain Name. Respondent has not demonstrated any preparations to use, or has not used the Domain Name or a trademark corresponding to the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. On the contrary, as Complainant demonstrated, the Domain Name resolves to an inactive website. Prior to Complainant’s sending of cease and desist correspondence to Respondent, the Domain Name resolved to a site which branded Complainant’s G4S mark and purported to offer courier-related services. Per Complainant, Respondent is not an affiliated entity or an authorised distributor or partner of Complainant and no agreement, express or otherwise, existed allowing the use of Complainant’s trademarks on the website of Respondent. The Panel finds that these circumstances do not confer upon Respondent any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name, and that Complainant’s prima facie case remains unrebutted. 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 page 4 in excess of its documented out of pocket costs directly related to the Domain Name; or (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. The Panel concludes that Respondent has registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith. Because the G4S mark had been widely used and registered by Complainant long before the Domain Name registration, the Panel finds it more likely than not that Respondent had Complainant’s mark in mind when registering the Domain Name (Tudor Games, Inc. v. Domain Hostmaster, Customer ID No. 09382953107339 dba Whois Privacy Services Pty Ltd / Domain Administrator, Vertical Axis Inc., WIPO Case No. D2014-1754 ; Parfums Christian Dior v. Javier Garcia Quintas and Christiandior.net, WIPO Case No. D2000-0226). Prior to Complainant’s sending of cease and desist correspondence to Respondent, the Domain Name resolved to a site which branded the Complainant’s G4S mark and purported to offer courier-related services. The Domain Name was therefore operated by intentionally, for commercial gain, creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s trademarks and business as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the website it resolved to, within the sense of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. This can be used in support of bad faith registration and use (WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 3.1.3). The current non-use of the Domain Name does not change the Panel’s findings above under the circumstances of this proceeding (See Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003; WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3). Under these circumstances and on this record, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith. 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 disputed domain name <g4scourierservice.com> be transferred to Complainant. /Marina Perraki/ Marina Perraki Sole Panelist Date: September 26, 2022

Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.