Odfl-global.com

The timeline behind odfl-global.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 Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc. v. zeng shuyu Case No. D2026-1244 1. The Parties Complainant is Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc., United States of America, represented by Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP, United States of America. Respondent is zeng shuyu, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <odfl-global.com> is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 23, 2026. On March 24, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 24, 2026, 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 (Unknown) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on March 25, 2026, 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 March 25, 2026. 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 30, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 19, 2026. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on April 20, 2026. The Center appointed Marina Perraki as the sole panelist in this matter on April 24, 2026. 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, in acronym form ODFL, was founded in 1934 and is a North American, less-than truckload (“LTL”) motor carrier providing regional, inter-regional and national LTL services. Since at least as early as 1998, Complainant has been using the mark ODFL in connection with its services. Complainant operates its primary website at <odfl.com> and <odflglobal.com>. Complainant owns trademark registrations for ODFL, including the United States of America trademark registration No. 4268384, ODFL (word), filed on August 20, 2012, and registered on January 1, 2013, for services in International class 39. Respondent registered the disputed domain name on January 19, 2026. At the time of filing of the Complaint, the disputed domain name at times redirected to a website at “dot-store.org” consisting of an article on art which featured pay-per-click sponsored ads and at times it resolved to an error website. Currently, it redirects to the former website and in particular to “https://www.dot- guide.org/articles/contemporary-art-local-roots-global-reach.html?psystem=PW&domain=odfl- global.com&oref=https%3A%2F%2Fodfl -global.com%2F&trafficTarget=gd”. Respondent has associated email servers to the disputed domain name. Complainant sent a cease and desist email to Respondent on February 18, 2026, to which Respondent did not reply. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed 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 which Complainant must satisfy with respect to the disputed domain name: (i) the disputed 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 disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. 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 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. 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. page 3 The entirety of the mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. Although the addition of other terms here, the word “global” and a hyphen, may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such term does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.8. 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 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 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 that 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 3.1, section 2.1. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds Complainant has established a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent has not rebutted Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. On the contrary, the disputed domain name was used to host a parked page with pay-per-click (“PPC”) links. The Panel finds that it is not unlikely that Respondent received PPC fees from the linked websites and used the disputed domain name for its own commercial gain. The use of a domain name to host a parked page comprising PPC links does not represent a bona fide offering where such links mislead Internet users and trade off Complainant’s trademark (Virgin Enterprises Limited v. LINYANXIAO aka lin yanxiao, WIPO Case No. D2016-2302; WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.9). Furthermore, there is no evidence on record giving rise to any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name on the part of Respondent within the meaning of paragraphs 4(c)(ii) and 4(c)(iii) of the Policy. In addition, the nature of the disputed domain name, consisting of Complainant’s trademark and being confusingly similar to the Complainant’s domain name <odflglobal.com> carries a risk of implied affiliation (WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.5.1). The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. page 4 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. 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 faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.2.1. Because the ODFL mark had been widely used and registered before the disputed domain name registration, the Panel finds it more likely than not that Respondent had Complainant’s mark in mind when registering the disputed domain name. Moreover, the similarity of the disputed domain name to Complainant’s mark, which is an acronym derived from Complainant’s corporate name, as well as the practical identity of the disputed domain name to Complainant’s domain name <odflglobal.com> under which it operates its main website, reinforce the notion that Respondent was aware of and intentionally targeted Complainant in an attempt to confuse Internet users who were expecting to find Complainant’s website. As regards bad faith use, the disputed domain name directs Internet users to a website displaying links to third-party sites, which suggests that, presumably, Respondent received PPC fees from the linked websites that were listed thereon. It has been recognized that such use of another’s trademark to generate revenue from Internet advertising can constitute registration and use in bad faith (McDonald’s Corporation v. ZusCom, WIPO Case No. D2007-1353; Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft v. Robert Brodi, WIPO Case No. D2015-0299; SAP SE v. Domains by Proxy, LLC / Kamal Karmakar, WIPO Case No. D2016-2497; WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.5). This, in view of the finding that Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and in the circumstances of the case, affirms the bad faith (Aygaz Anonim Şirketi v. Arthur Cain, WIPO Case No. D2014-1206; WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.1). Under these circumstances and on this record, the Panel finds that Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Panel finds that 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 disputed domain name <odfl-global.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Marina Perraki/ Marina Perraki Sole Panelist Date: May 8, 2026

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