Dp-world.info

The timeline behind dp-world.info

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 DP World FZE v. amanuel temesgen Case No. D2025-0456 1. The Parties The Complainant is DP World FZE, United Arab Emirates, represented by CSC Digital Brand Services Group AB, Sweden. The Respondent is amanuel temesgen, Colombia. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <dp-world.info> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 5, 2025. On February 5, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On February 2, 2025, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent (Redacted for Privacy, Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on February 6, 2025, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on February 7, 2025. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 February 10, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 2, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 3, 2025. page 2 The Center appointed Nicholas Smith as the sole panelist in this matter on March 5, 2025. 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 is a logistics company based out of the United Arab Emirates. The Complainant has a significant global presence in the field of smart logistics solutions, including in the operation of various port facilities and the provision of advice and solutions in the logistics field. The Complainant employes over 100,000 people, has revenue of over USD18 million per annum and moves 10 percent of global trade through its operations in 74 countries. The Complainant holds trademark registrations for DP WORLD (the “DP WORLD Mark”) in various jurisdictions, including in the United States of America (registration number 7,003,546, registered on March 21, 2023, for services in classes 35, 37 and 39). The Complainant also owns the domain name <dpworld.info>, registered on April 8, 2014. The Domain Name was registered on September 26, 2024, and does not resolve to a website maintained by the Respondent. Rather, the Domain Name resolves to a webpage maintained by the Registrar indicating that “Whois verification is pending”. 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 Domain Name. Notably, the Complainant contends that: a) It is the owner of the DP WORLD Mark, having registered the DP WORLD Mark in various jurisdictions including the European Union and United States of America. The Domain Name is identical to the DP WORLD Mark as it reproduces the DP WORLD Mark in its entirety and adds a generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”). b) There are no rights or legitimate interests held by the Respondent in respect of the Domain Name. The Complainant has not granted any license or authorization for the Respondent to use the DP WORLD Mark. The Respondent is not commonly known by the DP WORLD Mark, nor does it use the Domain Name for a bona fide purpose or legitimate purpose. The Domain Name does not resolve to an active webpage; rather it resolves to a webpage maintained by the Registrar. c) The Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. There is no plausible circumstance under which the Respondent could legitimately use the Domain Name, which is identical to the DP WORLD Mark, other than in bad faith. Given the global reputation of the DP WORLD Mark and the Respondent’s failure to respond to a cease-and-desist letter and provide an explanation for its use, the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant’s mark at the time of registration. In such circumstances, the Respondent’s passive holding of the Domain Name amounts to use of the Domain Name in bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. page 3 6. Discussion and Findings 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 trademark and the 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 trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 1.2.1. The entirety of the mark is reproduced within the Domain Name. Accordingly, the Domain Name is identical to the mark for the purposes of the Policy (the addition of the hyphen in the Domain Name being de minimus for the purposes of comparison). WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 1.7. 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 recognized 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 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 Domain Name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. The Panel considers that the record of this case reflects that: - before any notice to the Respondent of the dispute, the Respondent did not use, nor has it made 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. Paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy, and WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.2; - the Respondent (as an individual, business, or other organization) has not been commonly known by the Domain Name. Paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy, and WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 2.3. - the Respondent is not 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. Paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy, and WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 2.4. - the record contains no other factors demonstrating rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent in the Domain Name. There is no evidence of any demonstrable preparations to use the Domain Name at all or any other evidence that would give rise to rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. page 4 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. The Panel finds, on the balance of probabilities, that given the nature of the Domain Name, being essentially identical to the well-known DP WORLD Mark and the Complainant’s prior domain name <dpworld.info>, and the absence of any explanation for registration of a domain name corresponding with the coined DP WORLD Mark, it is most likely that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and its trademark when registering the Domain Name. Further, the Panel considers that the record of this case reflects that there is no evidence of any use or demonstrable preparations to use the Domain Name. The fact that the Domain Name resolves to a “Whois verification is pending” page maintained by the Registrar is not evidence of active use of the Domain Name. UDRP panels have found that the non-use of a domain name (including a blank or “coming soon” page) would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. While UDRP panelists will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case, factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include: (i) the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant’s mark, (ii) the failure of the respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use, (iii) the respondent’s concealing its identity or use of false contact details (noted to be in breach of its registration agreement), and (iv) the implausibility of any good faith use to which the disputed domain name may be put. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 3.3. Having reviewed the record, the Panel notes the reputation of the Complainant’s mark, the composition of the Domain Name, and the Respondent’s failure to respond to a cease-and-desist letter or to file a response in the current proceedings, and finds that in the circumstances of this case the passive holding of the Domain Name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the Policy. 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 Domain Name <dp-world.info> be transferred to the Complainant. /Nicholas Smith/ Nicholas Smith Sole Panelist Date: March 11 , 2024

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