Dxfreightshippers.com, Dxfreightshippers.net

The timeline behind dxfreightshippers.com

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

How each disputed name was decided in this proceeding.

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 DX Network Services Limited v. Dx freightshippers, Dxfreightshippers.net, Evans Depot Case No. D2026-2250 1. The Parties The Complainant is DX Network Services Limited, United Kingdom, represented by Howes Percival LLP, United Kingdom. The Respondents are Dx freightshippers, Dxfreightshippers.net, United States of America (“United States”), and Evans Depot, United States. 2. The Domain Names and Registrars The disputed domain name <dxfreightshippers.com> is registered with Cosmotown, Inc. The disputed domain name <dxfreightshippers.net> is registered with Porkbun LLC (the “Registrars”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was initially filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 26, 2026, for the disputed domain name <dxfreightshippers.net>. On May 26, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar Porkbun LLC a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name <dxfreightshippers.net>. On the same date, the Registrar Porkbun LLC transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name <dxfreightshippers.net> which differed from the named Respondent (Whois Privacy, Private by Design, LLC) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on May 29, 2026, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar Porkbun LLC, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on June 3, 2026. The Complainant requested on June 3, 2026, the addition of the disputed domain name <dxfreightshippers.com> to the proceeding. On June 5, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar Cosmotown, Inc. a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name <dxfreightshippers.com>. On June 16, 2026, the Registrar Cosmotown, Inc. transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name <dxfreightshippers.com> which differed from the named Respondent. page 2 The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on June 16, 2026, with the registrant and contact information of nominally multiple underlying registrants revealed by the Registrars, requesting the Complainant to either file separate complaint(s) for the disputed domain names associated with different underlying registrants or alternatively, demonstrate that the underlying registrants are in fact the same entity and/or that all domain names are under common control. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on June 19, 2026. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaints 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 Respondents of the Complaint, and the proceeding commenced on June 24, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 14, 2026. The Respondents did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondents’ default on July 22, 2026. The Center appointed Sebastian M.W. Hughes as the sole panelist in this matter on July 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. 4. Factual Background A. Complainant The Complainant is a company headquartered in the United Kingdom and a leading provider of parcel exchange and delivery services to customers in jurisdictions worldwide under the word and logo trade mark DX (the “Trade Mark”). The Complainant and its predecessors have operated its business under the Trade Mark since the mid-1970s. The Complainant is the owner of United Kingdom registration No. 00001493040 for the Trade Mark, with a registration date of August 20, 1993; and European Union registration No. 000151928 for the Trade Mark, with a registration date of May 25, 1999. B. Respondents The Respondents are reportedly entities located in the United States. C. The Disputed Domain Names The disputed domain name <dxfreightshippers.net> was registered on March 22, 2026. The disputed domain name <dxfreightshippers.com> was registered on May 14, 2026. D. Use of the Disputed Domain Names The disputed domain names have both previously been used in respect of the same English language website, prominently featuring the logo version of the Trade Mark and the Complainant’s corporate livery copied from the Complainant’s website, containing the copyright notice “Copyright 2026 © DX FREIGHT SHIPPERS”, purportedly offering the Complainant’s parcel exchange and delivery services, and inviting Internet users to enter their personal contact details, including phone numbers and email addresses (the “Website”). A customer of the Complainant received an email concerning the disputed domain name <dxfreightshippers.net>, stating that a parcel was available for collection upon payment. page 3 As of the date of this Decision, the disputed domain names no longer resolve to active websites. 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 disputed domain names. Notably, the Complainant contends that the Respondents have used the disputed domain names illegally in respect of the Website, in order to impersonate the Complainant, and in order to scam Internet users by sending fake emails to Internet users, asking them to make payments to collect non-existent parcels. The Complainant relies in this regard on evidence of a scam email communication provided to it by a customer. B. Respondents The Respondents did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1 Consolidation: Multiple Respondents The amended Complaint was filed in relation to nominally different domain name registrants. The Complainant alleges that the domain name registrants are the same entity or mere alter egos of each other, or under common control. The Complainant requests the consolidation of the Complaint against the multiple disputed domain name registrants pursuant to paragraph 10(e) of the Rules. The disputed domain name registrants did not comment on the Complainant’s request. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules states that a complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder. In addressing the Complainant’s request, the Panel will consider whether (i) the disputed domain names or corresponding websites are subject to common control; and (ii) the consolidation would be fair and equitable to all Parties. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 4.11.2. As regards common control, the Panel notes that the Registrant information for both of the disputed domain names shares common address details; and that the disputed domain names have been used in the same manner in respect of the same Website. As regards fairness and equity, the Panel sees no reason why consolidation of the disputes would be unfair or inequitable to any Party. Accordingly, the Panel decides to consolidate the disputes regarding the nominally different disputed domain name registrants (referred to below as “the Respondent”) in a single proceeding. page 4 6.2 Substantive Issues 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 trade mark and the disputed domain names. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trade mark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. The Panel finds the mark is recognizable within the disputed domain names. Accordingly, the disputed domain names are 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, “freight” and “shippers”) may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such terms does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain names and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.8. 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 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 the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. 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 disputed domain names such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity (as applicable to this case: phishing, passing off, or other types of fraud) can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.13.1. 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. page 5 Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity (as applicable to this case: phishing, passing off, or other types of fraud) constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.4. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain names constitutes bad faith under the Policy. The fact that the disputed domain names no longer resolve to active websites does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the circumstances of this case. 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 disputed domain names <dxfreightshippers.com> and <dxfreightshippers.net> be transferred to the Complainant. /Sebastian M.W. Hughes/ Sebastian M.W. Hughes Sole Panelist Date: August 7, 2026

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