Worldexlogisticsbv.com

The timeline behind worldexlogisticsbv.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 WorldEX Logistics B.V. v. Michael Van Vert Case No. D2026-3218 1. The Parties The Complainant is WorldEX Logistics B.V., Netherlands (Kingdom of the) (“the Netherlands”), represented by LIU TAO, the Netherlands. The Respondent is Michael Van Vert, United States of America. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <worldexlogisticsbv.com> is registered with Global Domain Group LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 22, 2026. On July 22, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 23, 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 (Unobtainable) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on July 28, 2026, 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 July 30, 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 the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on August 3, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 23, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 25, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed WiIliam A. Van Caenegem as the sole panelist in this matter on August 28, 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 The Complainant is WorldEX Logistics BV, based in the Netherlands, and asserts that it has unregistered trademark rights in the terms “WorldEX Logistics”. The Complainant says that it has been operating under the trade name “WorldEX Logistics” since its incorporation on November 4, 2022. The disputed domain name was registered on August 2, 2025. It resolves to a website that is branded as the website of Worldex Logistics BV, with its address in the Netherlands. The Complainant does not claim to operate a website of its own. 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 name. Notably, the Complainant contends that it has unregistered trademark rights in the term “WorldEX Logistics”, because it has been operating under the trade name “WorldEX Logistics” since the Complainant’s incorporation on November 4, 2022, and through continuous and extensive use in the logistics industry in the Netherlands and internationally. The Complainant contends that unregistered trademark rights are sufficient to satisfy the first element, provided the complainant shows that the name has become a distinctive identifier associated with the complainant’s goods or services, and refers to WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.3 in that regard. As evidence of acquired distinctiveness the Complainant refers to: its Kamer van Koophandel (KVK; an official organization that administers a business register) registration certificate, which refers to its business name as WorldEX Logistics BV; a rental agreement for its offices in the Netherlands, which identifies the tenant as WorldEX Logistics BV; the identification of a location marked as “WorldEX Logistics BV” on a Google maps page; and a contract, substantially in Chinese, which shows “WorldEX Logistics BV” as a provider and party to the contract. The Complainant also points to what it stresses is the importance of the fact that the Respondent, on the website to which the disputed domain name resolves, displays the exact address of the Complainant’s premises. The Complainant concludes on the first element that the disputed domain name, <worldexlogisticsbv.com>, is identical to the Complainant’s trade name “WorldEX Logistics B.V.” (ignoring spaces and the generic top- level domain “.com”). In relation to rights and interests, the Complainant contends that the Respondent does not offer bona fide goods or services from the website to which the disputed domain name resolves. Rather, that website constitutes a deliberate impersonation of the Complainant. The Complainant adds that the Respondent is not known by the disputed domain name or anything similar, and that the Respondent has no trademark rights, trade name rights, or any other intellectual property rights in the name “WorldEX Logistics” or any variation thereof. The Complainant also asserts that the Respondent is not affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant in any way. Nor is the Respondent making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, the Complainant says, as the website to which the disputed domain name resolves is commercial in nature and aims to divert consumers for commercial gain. page 3 In terms of registration in bad faith, the Complainant contends that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant, which is demonstrated by the replication of the Complainant’s precise business address on the website to which the disputed domain name resolves. Further, the Complainant points to the fact that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name nearly three years after the Complainant commenced business operations. The Complainant alleges therefore that the Respondent's registration post-dates the Complainant's establishment of goodwill and reputation in the logistics industry, and that this temporal sequence supports a finding of bad faith registration. The Complainant concludes by asserting that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in bad faith to impersonate the Complainant and deceive Internet users. This is because the Respondent's website, resolving from <worldexlogisticsbv.com>, presents itself as operating from the Complainant's actual place of business, the Complainant maintains. By doing so, the Complainant says that the Respondent creates an inevitable likelihood of confusion among Internet users, suppliers, and potential customers as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website. The Complainant maintains that visitors to the Respondent's website are led to believe that they are dealing with the Complainant or an entity affiliated with the Complainant, which it says is a classic example of the bad faith conduct described in UDRP paragraph 4(b)(iv). The Complainant concludes by asserting that the Respondent is intentionally using the Complainant's goodwill to attract Internet users for commercial gain. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 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 disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 1.7. In this case the Complainant does not have registered trademark rights in the term “WorldEX Logistics”, on which its case rests. Therefore, the Complainant must advance sufficient evidence to, on the balance of probabilities, support its assertion that it has common law or unregistered trademark rights in that term. However, the Complainant tenders very little if any evidence that it has acquired sufficient trademark rights, in other words that the term “WorldEX Logistics” is distinctive and has sufficient secondary meaning. The evidence the Complainant submits relates to its business name, and not to a trademark, to trademark use or use as a ‘badge of origin’ of the term “WorldEX Logistics”, which is also in part descriptive of its services. The KVK official registration is registration of a business name and not of a trademark; the address given is that of a named business and obviously a trademark does not have an address; the single contract supplied identifies a party to the agreement as WorldEX Logistics, appearing as the name of a party as opposed to a trademark; and the alleged fact that the Respondent has targeted the Complainant’s business by adopting its name is in and of itself not sufficient to establish that the Complainant has the requisite common law rights. It might be inferred, from the inclusion on the Respondent’s website of the address of the Complainant’s business premises, that the Respondent knowingly targeted the Complainant. However, that does not confer upon the name of the business that resides at that address, as it appears on Google maps, the character of a trademark. The name there merely serves the purpose of identifying the resident at the premises, that business in this case being WorldEX Logistics. The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has not been established. page 4 In light of the Panel’s finding in relation to the first element, the second and third elements do not need to be addressed. The Panel notes for completeness that the present decision is without prejudice to a refiling should a registered trademark be obtained. 7. Decision For the foregoing reasons, the Complaint is denied. /WiIliam A. Van Caenegem/ WiIliam A. Van Caenegem Sole Panelist Date: September 11, 2026

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