Aitlogistic.com

The timeline behind aitlogistic.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.

DECISION AIT Worldwide Logistics, Inc. v. Time Talks Claim Number: FA2011001919787 PARTIES Complainant is AIT Worldwide Logistics, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Minnie Kim of Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP, North Carolina, USA. Respondent is Time Talks (“Respondent”), Turkey. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <aitlogistic.com>, registered with Reg2C.com Inc. PANEL The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Alan L. Limbury, as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on November 6, 2020. The Forum received payment on November 6, 2020. On January 22, 2021, Reg2C.com Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <aitlogistic.com> domain name is registered with Reg2C.com Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Reg2C.com Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Reg2C.com Inc. registration agreement, which is in the Turkish language, and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”). On January 28, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 17, 2021 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@aitlogistic.com. Also on January 28, 2021, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts. Having received no response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On February 24, 2021, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Alan L. Limbury as Panelist. Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PRELIMINARY ISSUE: LANGUAGE OF PROCEEDING Although the registration agreement is in Turkish, the domain name and the website to which it resolves are in English. Pursuant to Rule 11(a), the Panel finds that it is therefore likely that the Respondent is proficient in English. After considering the circumstances of the present case, the Panel decides that there would be no undue prejudice to Respondent if English were the language of the proceeding and that the proceeding shall be in English. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant, AIT Worldwide Logistics Inc., operates worldwide in the business of supply chain transportation management services. Complainant has rights in the AIT WORLDWIDE LOGISTICS mark through Complainant’s registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). Respondent’s <aitlogistic.com> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s AIT WORLDWIDE LOGISTICS mark. Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <aitlogistic.com> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name nor has Respondent been authorized by Complainant to use the AIT WORLDWIDE LOGISTICS mark. Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services as Respondent uses the disputed domain name to pass itself off as Complainant. Respondent registered and uses the <aitlogistic.com> domain name in bad faith to pass itself off as Complainant. Based on Respondent’s use of Complainant’s mark, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights to the AIT WORLDWIDE LOGISTICS mark prior to registering the disputed domain name and did so using a privacy service. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant has established all the elements entitling it to relief. DISCUSSION Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable." Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred: (1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and (2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (“Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint”). Identical and/or Confusingly Similar Complainant has shown that it has rights in the AIT WORLDWIDE LOGISTICS mark through Complainant’s registration of the mark with the USPTO (e.g. Reg. No. 3,200,736, registered January 23, 2007, claiming a 1999 date of first use in commerce). Complainant is also the registrant with the USPTO of a logo mark, Reg. No. 3,484,200, registered August 12, 2008. The Panel finds Respondent’s <aitlogistic.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to Complainant’s AIT WORLDWIDE LOGISTICS mark as it merely removes the term “worldwide” and the letter “s” from Complainant’s mark and adds the inconsequential gTLD “.com”, which may be ignored. Complainant has established this element. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy sets out three illustrative circumstances as examples which, if established by Respondent, shall demonstrate rights to or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, i.e. (i) before any notice to Respondent of the dispute, the use by Respondent of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or (ii) Respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert customers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue. Complainant registered the domain name <aitworldwide.com> in 1999 and promotes its services on the website to which it resolves. Respondent’s <aitlogistic.com> domain name was registered on July 14, 2020. It resolves to a website which displays Complainant’s logo mark and is virtually indistinguishable from Complainant’s website. Respondent’s website also elicits personal, commercial, and/or financial information from Internet users and displays a notice: “©Copyright 2020 AIT Worldwide Logistics, Inc. All Rights Reserved”. These circumstances, coupled with Complainant’s assertions, are sufficient to constitute a prima facie showing of absence of rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name on the part of Respondent. The evidentiary burden therefore shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. See Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014). Respondent has made no attempt to do so. In the circumstances of this case, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. Complainant has established this element. Registration and Use in Bad Faith This element requires Complainant to establish, on the balance of probability, that Respondent both registered the disputed domain name in bad faith and is using it in bad faith. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out four illustrative circumstances, which, though not exclusive, shall be evidence of the registration and use of the domain name in bad faith for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, including: (iv) by using the domain name, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on its website or location. In light of the circumstances set out above in relation to the second element, the Panel finds that Respondent clearly knew of Complainant’s AIT WORLDWIDE LOGISTICS mark when registering the domain name <aitlogistic.com> and that, by using it for a website virtually identical to Complainant’s website that purports to offer competing services, Respondent is masquerading as Complainant so as intentionally to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Complainant has established this element. DECISION Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <aitlogistic.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Alan L. Limbury, Panelist Dated: March 1, 2021 Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page. Click Here to return to our Home Page

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