Pacificorexport.com

The timeline behind pacificorexport.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 Kalama Export Company LLC d/b/a Pacificor, LLC v. lindi muslio Case No. D2026-3810 1. The Parties Complainant is Kalama Export Company LLC d/b/a Pacificor, LLC, United States of America (“United States” or “U.S.”), represented by Thompson Coburn LLP, United States. Respondent is lindi muslio, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <pacificorexport.com> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Hostinger Operations, UAB (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 25, 2026. On August 26, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On August 27, 2026, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on September 3, 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 September 8, 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 September 9, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 29, 2026. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on September 30, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Harrie R. Samaras as the sole panelist in this matter on October 6, 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 Complainant supplies export agency and transportation and storage services. It provides information about its business on LinkedIn. Complainant owns U.S. Registration No. 5,027,003 for the PACIFICOR, LLC Mark (or the “Mark”), registered on August 23, 2016 (first use November 10, 2014). It also owns U.S. Registration No. 5,027,033, registered on August 23, 2016, for the PACIFICOR, LLC word-and-design mark (the “Composite Mark”). The Domain Name was registered on June 22, 2026. It resolved to a website (the “Website”) as of August 20, 2026, that prominently displayed the PACIFICOR Mark (without the “LLC”) as well as the Composite Mark repeatedly on the Website. Also, the Mark was used in the copyright notice (© 2026 Pacificor, LLC. All rights reserved.). The Website used Complainant’s principal place of business as its own. It used statements that Complainant might use on a website of its own, for example: “Partner with Pacificor to simplify your supply chain and access international markets with confidence” and “[C]onnecting businesses to worldwide markets with precision logistics, expert customs handling, and uncompromising reliability since our inception.” There were forms for “Import inquiry”, for importing goods, and “Export inquiry” for exporting goods. Those forms requested commercial information from the public, including company name, email address, telephone number, product type/details, quantity, and country of origin/destination. And there was a small form to “Track your order” by entering a tracking number. Complainant tested the “Track Order” portal with multiple tracking number formats and observed that every input returned an identical generic error (“Failed to retrieve order information. Please try again later.”). According to Complainant, that portal provided no service although it presented the appearance of a legitimate logistics operation. Currently, the Domain Name does not resolve to any website. Complainant attempted to contact the Registrar about the Domain Name and other infringement of Complainant’s intellectual property rights, yet it received what appears to be a form response that did not address the infringement and asked for evidence that had already been provided. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the Domain Name. Notably, Complainant contends that PACIFICOR is the dominant term in the Mark given that “LLC” simply refers to an entity type (i.e., a limited liability company). With the aforementioned trademark registration, Complainant has provided evidence demonstrating trademark rights in the Mark. The Domain Name appends the generic term “export” and the generic top-level domain “.com,” and removes “LLC”. The Panel should not consider the .com portion of the Domain Name in the analysis. Considering that the Domain Name incorporates the dominant element of the Mark in its entirety, the removal and addition of the generic terms “LLC” and “EXPORT” respectively, does not eliminate the confusing similarity between the Mark and the Domain Name. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. Complainant has not authorized or permitted Respondent to register or use the Mark, it is not affiliated or associated with Respondent, and it has not endorsed or sponsored Respondent. The Domain Name utilizes the identical term in the Mark and the Website uses the Mark (including the accompanying logo) and Business Address, thereby adding to the page 3 confusion. Respondent registered the Domain Name knowing that it is confusingly similar to the Mark to lure users into providing personal information on a site impersonating Complainant’s business, when Respondent does not (to Complainant’s knowledge) provide actual import, export, logistical, or customs services. It is unclear whether Respondent monitors inquiries made on the Website. Also, it appears that Respondent is gathering personal and business information of others. Respondent registered the Domain Name to intentionally attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to their website, as it registered and used the Domain Name to engage in an improper scheme to collect the personal information of legitimate consumers seeking the services of Complainant. Respondent thus appears to have received financial benefit from prospective consumers that entered their information with the intent to purchase services thought to be from Complainant. Personal data has a commercial value specifically in the ability of the possessor to sell this data or target these consumers for scams—e.g., by offering to provide export, transportation or storage services, collecting payment, and then not providing such services. Respondent received a commercial benefit to which it was not entitled, by impersonating Complainant and listing services that appeared to be listed by Complainant. Respondent registered the Domain Name on June 22, 2026, long after Complainant’s first use of the Mark on November 10, 2014. Respondent’s continued use of the Domain Name is for the purpose of disrupting the business of Complainant. Although Respondent is not a competitor in the traditional sense that they are not (to Complainant’s knowledge) a regular merchant of export, storage or transportation services, “competitor” and “business” should be construed liberally insofar as Respondent acted in opposition to Complainant in misleading prospective consumers into believing they are communicating with Complainant and drawing traffic away from Complainant’s actual business. Complainant is concerned that Respondent is doing this as part of a scam, as it cannot conceive of any legitimate reason for Respondent to use its Mark and log on a website purporting to offer services closely related to those of Complainant. Additionally, customers and prospective consumers who attempt to contact Complainant by way of the contact information on the Website will be diverted elsewhere, given that the Website features an email address and phone number that are not owned/operated by Complainant. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to 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 Complainant’s Mark and the 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. The Panel finds the Mark is recognizable within the Domain Name. Accordingly, the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. Removing the “LLC” does not affect the confusing similarity insofar as the prominent portion of the Mark – PACIFICOR – is recognizable in the Domain Name. Although the addition of other terms, here “export,” 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 Domain Name and the Mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.8. page 4 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 Complainant has established a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the 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 Domain Name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity here, claimed as passing off or impersonation, can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.13.1. Respondent went to the trouble of registering a Domain Name that incorporates the prominent portion of a mark in which it has no rights along with the term “export” that describes Complainant’s services. It then used the Domain Name in conjunction with the Website which impersonates Complainant and its business. In doing so, the Website collected valuable information from legitimate consumers seeking the services of Complainant. Although it’s not clear what Respondent intended to do with that information the totality of Respondent’s conduct does not support a bona fide use of the Domain Name. 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. In the present case, the Panel notes that Respondent: (1) registered a Domain Name using the prominent portion of a registered trademark that has been used for many years before the Domain Name was registered; (2) registered the Domain Name without having any rights or legitimate interests in it; (3) omitted the “LLC” from the Domain Name but kept the prominent part of the Mark (i.e., PACIFICOR); (4) used the Domain Name in conjunction with a website that uses the Mark and the Composite Mark prominently and the Website passes itself off as doing the same business as Complainant; and (5) added the term “export” to the Domain Name which describes Complainant’s business. On the basis of these undisputed facts the Panel concludes that it is more likely than not that Respondent knew of Complainant and of its rights in the Mark before registering the Domain Name. Panels have found that the non-use of a domain name (including a blank page) would not by itself prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. To the contrary, in looking at the totality of circumstances in each case, panels have found that the registration and non-use of a domain name can still constitute bad faith for purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.3. Having reviewed the page 5 available record, the Panel notes the distinctiveness of Complainant’s Mark, and the composition of the Domain Name, and finds that in the circumstances of this case the current passive holding of the Domain Name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the Policy. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity here, claimed as passing off or impersonation constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.4. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds Respondent’s registration and use of the Domain Name constitutes bad faith under the Policy. Respondent’s conduct not only had the potential to cause confusion with customers and potential customers seeking Complainant’s services that could lead to lost business for Complainant, it also had the potential in collecting valuable information to target those customers with fraud and scams. 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 Domain Name <pacificorexport.com> be transferred to Complainant. /Harrie R. Samaras/ Harrie R. Samaras Sole Panelist Date: October 11, 2026

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