Olddominionfreightlineinc.com

The timeline behind olddominionfreightlineinc.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 Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc. v. Quang Nguyen Thien Bang Case No. D2026-0720 1. The Parties The Complainant is Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc., United States of America (“United States” o r “US”), represented by Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, L.L.P., United States. The Respondent is Quang Nguyen Thien Bang, Viet Nam. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <olddominionfreightlineinc.com> is registered with Hostinger Operations, UAB (the “Reg istrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was f iled with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 19, 2026. On February 20, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request f or registrar verif ication in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 23, 2026, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which dif f ered f rom the named Respondent (Unkno wn) and contact inf ormation in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on February 23, 2026, 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 amended Complaint on February 23, 2026. The Center verif ied that the Complaint together with the amended 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 February 26, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date f or Response was March 18, 2026. The Respondent sent an email communication to the Center on February 27, 2026. The Center notified the Parties of the commencement of panel appointment process on March 19, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Shwetasree Majumder as the sole panelist in this matter on March 24, 2026. The Panel f inds 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, Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc., is a United States-based company founded in 1934 and is one of the largest North American less-than-truckload (LTL) motor carriers. The Complainant provides regional, inter-regional, and national freight transportation services through an extensive network across the United States. The Complainant has used the OLD DOMINION FREIGHT LINE mark since as early as 1954 and details of some of the Complainant’s trademark registrations are as below: - OLD DOMINION FREIGHT LINE - US Registration No. 4316040, registered on April 9, 2013, in International Class 39; - OLD DOMINION FREIGHT LINE - Canada Registration No. TMA874302, registered on March 27, 2014, in International Class 39; and - OLD DOMINION FREIGHT LINE - Mexico Registration No. 1354919, registered on March 15, 2013, in International Class 39. The Complainant operates through its official website at “www.odf l.com”, which was registered on July 3, 1997. The disputed domain name was registered on January 13, 2026. The disputed domain name initially resolved to an active website that impersonated the Complainant by reproducing its name, address, providing the same type of logistic services and holding itself out as the Complainant. The Respondent also conf igured email servers associated with the disputed domain name. Following a takedown request by the Complainant, the website content was removed, and the disputed domain name currently resolves to a placeholder page. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy f or a transf er of the disputed domain name. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or conf usingly similar to the Complainant’s OLD DOMINION FREIGHT LINE mark. The Complainant states that the disputed domain name incorporates the mark in its entirety, with the addition of the term “inc”, which does not prevent a f inding of conf using similarity. The Complainant asserts that it owns registered trademark rights in OLD DOMINION FREIGHT LINE, including a United States trademark registration, and that it has used the mark f or several decades in connection with its f reight transportation services. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no business or legal relationship with the Complainant and has not been authorised or licensed to use the Complainant’s trademark. The Complainant further submits that the disputed domain name was used to host a website impersonating the page 3 Complainant, reproducing its name and address, which cannot constitute a bona f ide of f ering of goods or services. The Complainant further contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad f aith. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with knowledge of the Complainant and its well-known trademark and intentionally used it to impersonate the Complainant. The Complainant further submits that the Respondent configured email servers associated with the disputed domain name, creating a risk of f raudulent communications. In light of these circumstances, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad f aith within the meaning of the Policy. B. Respondent The Respondent did not formally reply to the Complainant’s contentions. It sent an email communication on February 27, 2026 expressing its willingness to transf er the disputed domain name “in exchange f or a settlement amount of USD 1,000”. 6. Discussion and Findings 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 Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 1.7. The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. The Panel f inds that the disputed domain name wholly incorporates the Complainant’s OLD DOMINION FREIGHT LINE mark. The addition of the term “inc”, being a common corporate identifier, does not prevent a f inding of confusing similarity. The Complainant’s mark remains clearly recognisable within the disputed domain name, and such addition does not create any meaningful distinction. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.8. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. The Panel f inds that 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 rests with the Complainant, panels recognise the difficulty of proving a negative. Where a complainant establishes a prima f acie case, the burden of production shif ts to the respondent. If the respondent fails to come forward with relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisf ied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.1. The Panel f inds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has no relationship with the Complainant, is not aff iliated with its business, and has not been authorised, licensed, or otherwise permitted to use the OLD DOMINION FREIGHT LINE mark. There is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. page 4 Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established a prima facie case, which has not been rebutted by the Respondent. The Panel observes that the Respondent’s website was impersonating the Complainant, reproducing its identity and presenting itself as the Complainant. Such conduct does not constitute a bona f ide of f ering of goods or services. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.2. The Panel f urther f inds that the disputed domain name, which reproduces the Complainant’s mark in its entirety along with its corporate identifier, carries a clear risk of implied affiliation, which cannot conf er rights or legitimate interests. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.5.1. In addition, the Respondent configured email servers associated with the disputed domain name. In the absence of any legitimate purpose, and in light of the impersonation, this supports a risk of deceptive or f raudulent use. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for passing off or other illegitimate activity can never conf er rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.13.1. The Panel f inds that 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) sets out a non- exhaustive list of circumstances that may evidence bad f aith registration and use. In the present case, the Panel notes that the disputed domain name wholly incorporates the Complainant’s distinctive OLD DOMINION FREIGHT LINE mark together with the term “inc”, which corresponds to the Complainant’s corporate name. The Panel f inds that such a composition is likely to mislead Internet users into believing that the disputed domain name is connected with or af f iliated to the Complainant. The registration of a domain name that is identical or conf usingly similar to a widely-known trademark by an unrelated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad f aith registration. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.1.4. The Panel observes that the Respondent’s website actively replicated the Complainant’s identity — reproducing its name, address, and services — to attract Internet users for commercial gain. Such conduct f alls squarely within paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, which contemplates intentional use of a domain name to create a likelihood of conf usion with the Complainant’s mark. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.1.4. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides a non-exhaustive f ramework f or bad f aith, and other relevant circumstances may also be considered. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.2.1. The Panel f urther notes that the Respondent configured email servers for the disputed domain name, which supports a finding that the domain name may be used f or f raudulent communications or impersonation. Panels have consistently held that the use of a domain name to host a copycat version of the complainant’s website to send deceptive emails constitutes evidence of bad faith registration and use. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.4. The Panel also observes that the Respondent failed to submit a f ormal response. While non- participation does not by itself establish bad faith, it permits the Panel to draw adverse inf erences f rom the record and to accept the Complainant’s reasonable contentions as established. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 4.3. 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 paragraph 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name <olddominionfreightlineinc.com> be transf erred to the Complainant. /Shwetasree Majumder/ Shwetasree Majumder Sole Panelist Date: April 7, 2026

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