Brinkssecurityguinea.com

The timeline behind brinkssecurityguinea.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 Brink’s Network, Incorporated v. diallo mamadou mouctarou Claim Number: FA2301002028764 PARTIES Complainant is Brink’s Network, Incorporated (“Complainant”), represented by Stephanie Martinez of McGuireWoods LLP, Virginia, USA. Respondent is diallo mamadou mouctarou (“Respondent”), Guinea. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <brinkssecurityguinea.com>, registered with Ligne Web Services SARL dba LWS. 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 Forum electronically on January 24, 2023. Forum received payment on January 24, 2023. On January 25, 2023, Ligne Web Services SARL dba LWS confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <brinkssecurityguinea.com> domain name is registered with Ligne Web Services SARL dba LWS and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Ligne Web Services SARL dba LWS has verified that Respondent is bound by the Ligne Web Services SARL dba LWS registration agreement, which is in French, 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 30, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including an English and French language Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 21, 2023 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@brinkssecurityguinea.com. Also on January 30, 2023, the English and French language 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, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On February 28, 2023, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Alan L. Limbury as Panelist. Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that 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, 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 As mentioned, the Ligne Web Services SARL dba LWS registration agreement is in French. Pursuant to Rule 11(a), the language of the proceeding in relation to the <brinkssecurityguinea.com> domain name shall be French unless otherwise determined by the Panel, having regard to the circumstances of the proceeding. Complainant requests that the proceeding be conducted in English, noting that the <brinkssecurityguinea.com> domain name is in English and resolves to an English language website. In the absence of any Response, these circumstances satisfy the Panel that Respondent is likely to be proficient in English and that there would be no undue prejudice to Respondent if English were the language of the proceeding. Further, pursuant to Rule 11(a), the Panel determines that the language requirement has been satisfied through the English and French language Written Notice of the Complaint and, absent a Response, determines that the remainder of the proceedings may be conducted in English. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Established in 1859, Complainant is a global leader in, among other things, route-based secure logistics and solutions, including international transportation of cash and valuables. Complainant has rights in the BRINKS mark through registrations of the mark including with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Respondent’s <brinkssecurityguinea.com> domain name is virtually identical and confusingly similar to Complainant’s BRINKS mark. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <brinkssecurityguinea.com> domain name. Complainant has not authorized or licensed Respondent to use the BRINKS mark, nor is Respondent commonly known by the domain name. Further, Respondent is not using the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services nor any legitimate noncommercial or fair use as Respondent offers services competing with Complainant’s. Additionally, Respondent appears to use the domain name in furtherance of a phishing scheme. Respondent registered the <brinkssecurityguinea.com> domain name in bad faith with actual notice of Complainant’s rights in the BRINKS mark and uses it in bad faith to attract users for commercial gain by offering competing services. Respondent appears to engage in a phishing scheme. The combination of BRINKS with the generic term “security,” a word that describes Complainant’s services, and the geographic descriptor “Guinea” lends credibility to Respondent’s domain name in the eyes of consumers by preying on the goodwill of the BRINKS Marks to create confusion. Given that Complainant operates globally, including in Africa, Complainant’s customers could conclude that the domain name is associated with Complainant’s Guinea operations, when it is not. 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 BRINKS mark through numerous registrations of the mark including with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 2,582,146, registered on June 18, 2002). The Panel finds Respondent’s <brinkssecurityguinea.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to Complainant’s BRINKS mark, as it incorporates the mark in its entirety, only adding the generic terms “security” and “guinea”, which do not suffice to distinguish the domain name from the mark, and the inconsequential “.com” generic top-level domain (gTLD), 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 the domain name for 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. The <brinkssecurityguinea.com> domain name was registered on December 1, 2019, many years after Complainant has shown that its BRINKS mark had become very well-known. It resolves to a website offering services that compete with those of Complainant. These circumstances, together 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 <brinkssecurityguinea.com> domain name. See JUUL Labs, Inc. v. Dryx Emerson / KMF Events LTD, FA1906001849706 (Forum July 17, 2019). Respondent has made no attempt to do so. The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name. Complainant has established this element. Registration and Use 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. The circumstances set out above in relation to the second element satisfy the Panel that Respondent was fully aware of Complainant’s very well-known BRINKS mark when Respondent registered the <brinkssecurityguinea.com> domain name and that Respondent has intentionally attempted 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 of Respondent’s website and of the services promoted on that website. This demonstrates registration and use in bad faith to attract users for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). Complainant has established this element. DECISION Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <brinkssecurityguinea.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Alan L. Limbury, Panelist Dated: March 1, 2023 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.