Transporte-jas.com

The timeline behind transporte-jas.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 AN D MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION JAS Worldwide Management, Inc. v. Martin Moro, Hosting Bahia Case No. D2025-2066 1. The Parties The Complainant is JAS Worldwide Management, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Arnall Golden Gregory LLP, United States. The Respondent is Martin Moro, Hosting Bahia, Argentina. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <transp o rte-jas.com> is registered with eNom, LLC (the “Reg istrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 24, 2025. On May 26, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request f or registrar verif ication in connection with the disputed domain name. On May 27, 2025, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verif ication response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent (Redacted Registrant) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on May 28, 2025, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant f iled an amendment to the Complaint on June 4, 2025. The Center verif ied that the Complaint together with the amendment to the Complaint satisf ied the f ormal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules f or Unif orm Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules f or Unif orm Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”). In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center f ormally notif ied the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on June 6, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 26, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notif ied the Respondent’s def ault on The Center appointed Wilson Pinheiro Jabur as the sole panelist in this matter on July 2, 2025. The Panel f inds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration page 2 of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background According to the Complainant’s of f icial website, the Complainant was f ounded in 1978 in Italy, initially f ocusing on the Europe/Far East trade, later expanding its activities to a global scale and changing its headquarters to the United States. 1 The Complainant is the owner of the following trademark registration f or JAS in Argentina (Annex 3 to the Complaint): - No. 3.219.881 for , filed on November 7, 2019 and registered on October 5, 2021, in class 35; - No. 3.219.882 for , filed on November 7, 2019 and registered on October 5, 2021, in class 36; - No. 3.219.883 for , filed on November 7, 2019 and registered on October 5, 2021, in class 42; and - No. 3.245.726 for , filed on November 7, 2019 and registered on December 27, 2021, in class 39. The disputed domain name was registered on February 4, 2021, and presently resolves to an active webpage of f ering logistic services displaying a similar logo to that of the Complainant. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant, in its succinct complaint, contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy f or a transf er of the disputed domain name. Notably, the Complainant contends that it holds several trademark registrations for JAS around the world and that the disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety with the simple addition of the descriptive term “transporte” (which translates to “transportation” in English) thus deliberately conf usingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks. As to the lack of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, the Complainant asserts that: i. the Respondent has no good faith basis to use the disputed domain name given that it ref ers to the Complainant’s well-known business operating under the JAS trademark; ii. the mere addition of a term to a trademark does not create a new or dif f erent mark in which the Respondent has legitimate rights; iii. the Respondent is not an authorized licensee of the Complainant; iv. the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name tarnishes the Complainant’s brand by trading on its goodwill; v. the Respondent is not using the disputed domain in connection with a bona fide of f ering of goods or services, given the very high probability that the Respondent was trying to confuse Internet users as to its source and af f iliation; and vi. the Respondent had both constructive and actual notice of the Complainant’s rights by virtue of the Complainant’s trademark registrations all over the world and the considerable use, promotion, and reputation of the Complainant’s trad emark. 1 The Panel visited https://www.jas.com/company-profile on July 17, 2025. page 3 The Complainant further asserts that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad f aith and continues to use it in bad faith given that the Complainant’s JAS trademark is unique and is not a typical mark used to describe the specific logistics and transportation services the Complainant provides, rather having the Respondent chosen to use the exact same trademark for its competing business, also adopting a logo that is extremely similar to that of the Complainant so as to divert potential customers f rom the Complainant’s business to the website under the disputed domain name by attracting Internet users who mistakenly believe that the disputed domain name is af f iliated to the Complainant, when it is not. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy sets forth three requirements, which have to be met f or this Panel to order the transf er of the disputed domain name to the Complainant: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad f aith. The Complainant must prove in this administrative proceeding that each of the af oresaid three elements is present in order to obtain the transf er of the disputed domain name. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well accepted that the f irst element f unctions 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 disputed 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 disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark f or the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 1.7. Although the addition of other terms (the term “transp o rtes” – “transportation” in English – and a hyphen) may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel f inds the addition of such elements does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark f or the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 1.8. The Panel f inds the f irst 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 of ten 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 page 4 legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come f orward 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 f ails to come f orward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisf ied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 2.1. In that sense, and according to the evidence submitted, the Complainant has made a prima f acie case against the Respondent who has not been authorized, licensed, or been allowed to use the Complainant’s trademark, whether in the disputed domain name, or in any other way. Also, the lack of evidence as to any trademarks registered by the Respondent corresponding to the disputed domain name, corroborates the indication of an absence of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Furthermore, panels have held that the use of a domain name f or illegal activity such as impersonation/passing of f , or other types of f raud can never conf er rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 2.13.1. The Panel notes the composition of the disputed domain name, its use, and particularly the similarity between the logo displayed on the Respondent’s website compared to the Complainant’s JAS trademark. In these circumstances, Panel considers that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name to take an unf air advantage of the similarities with the Complainant’s JAS trademark. The Panel f inds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances may be relevant in assessing whether a respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad f aith. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 3.2.1. This case presents the following circumstances which indicate under the balance of probabilities bad f aith registration and use of the disputed domain name: a) the composition of the disputed domain name reproducing the J AS trademark, with the addition of a term that ref ers to the Complainant’s well-known business, (previous UDRP panels have consistently f ound that the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a f amous or widely-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith. See WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 3.1.4); b) the Respondent has been using the disputed domain name in connection with a website of f ering competing services with a similar logo to that of the Complainant, thus creating a high degree of likelihood of conf usion; c) the Respondent has not responded to this procedure; and d) at the time of this decision, the Panel notes that the Respondent has updated his website contact f orm adding a new email address (“[...]@transportes-jal.com.ar”). The Respondent appears to have registered, upon receipt of this procedure, a new domain name similar to the disputed domain name (ie <transportes-jal.com.ar>, registered on June 13, 2025), which implies that the Respondent was aware of the present dispute. The Panel f inds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy. page 5 7. Decision For the f oregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name <transp o rte-jas.com> be transf erred to the Complainant. /Wilson Pinheiro Jabur/ Wilson Pinheiro Jabur Sole Panelist Date: July 16, 2025

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