Expeditors-international.com

The timeline behind expeditors-international.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 Expeditors International of Washington, Inc. v. Giles Morgan Claim Number: FA2302002030752 PARTIES Complainant is Expeditors International of Washington, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Annie Allison of Haynes and Boone, LLP, New York, USA. Respondent is Giles Morgan (“Respondent”), California, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <expeditors-international.com>, registered with NameCheap, 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. Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 6, 2023; Forum received payment on February 6, 2023. On February 7, 2023, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <expeditors-international.com> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, Inc. registration agreement 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 February 13, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 6, 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@expeditors-international.com. Also on February 13, 2023, 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, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On March 11, 2023, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant contends as follows: Complainant, Expeditors International of Washington, Inc., is a global transportation and supply chain logistics company. Complainant has rights in the EXPEDITORS and related marks, including the EXPEDITORS INTERNATIONAL mark, through numerous trademark registrations (e.g., EXPEDITORS United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) and EXPEDITORS INTERNATIONAL Canadian Intellectual Property Office (“CIPO”)). Respondent’s <expeditors-international.com> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the EXPEDITORS marks as the entire EXPEDITORS INTERNATIONAL mark is included with the mere addition of a hyphen and generic top-level domain (“gTLD”). Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <expeditors-international.com> domain name since Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant’s EXPEDITORS marks and is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name. Additionally, Respondent did not use the at-issue domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent took advantage of the EXPEDITORS marks to confuse and divert internet traffic, seeking to pass off as Complainant. Further, Respondent was operating a phishing scheme. Respondent registered and used the <expeditors-international.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent disrupted Complainant’s business by confusing customers as to the source or affiliation of the domain name and passing off as Complainant. Respondent was also scamming users for personal information and had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the EXPEDITORS mark. Finally, it is irrelevant that the site is not currently active, as Respondent may choose to resume infringing activities. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant has rights in the EXPEDITORS and EXPEDITORS INTERNATIONAL marks. Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and has not been authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity. Respondent registered the at‑issue domain name after Complainant acquired rights in the EXPEDITORS and EXPEDITORS INTERNATIONAL trademarks. Respondent used the at-issue domain name to pass itself off as Complainant and facilitate fraud. 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 The at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights. Complainant’s USPTO trademark registration, or any other national trademark registration (e.g., CIPO), for its EXPEDITORS and/or EXPEDITORS INTERNATIONAL marks is sufficient to demonstrate Complainant’s rights in such marks for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Complainant shows evidence of multiple national registrations for its relevant marks worldwide. See Teleflex Incorporated v. Leisa Idalski, FA 1794131 (Forum July 31, 2018) (“Registration of a mark with governmental trademark agencies is sufficient to establish rights in that mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”). Respondent’s at-issue domain name contains Complainant’s EXPEDITORS INTERNATIONAL trademark with a hyphen inserted between its first and second term and with all followed by the “.com” top level domain name. The differences between Respondent’s <expeditors-international.com> domain name and Complainant’s EXPEDITORS INTERNATIONAL trademark are insufficient to distinguish the at-issue domain name from Complainant’s trademark for the purposes of the Policy. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <expeditors-international.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s EXPEDITORS INTERNATIONAL trademark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Innomed Techs., Inc. v. DRP Servs., FA 221171 (Forum Feb. 18, 2004) (finding that hyphens and top-level domains are irrelevant for purposes of the Policy). The Panel acknowledges that Complainant’s EXPEDITORS trademark may also be considered confusingly similar to the at-issue domain name, however such mark need not be additionally discussed in support of the Panel’s conclusions regarding Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) given the Panel’s finding regarding EXPEDITORS INTERNATIONAL. Rights or Legitimate Interests Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond, Complainant’s prima facie showing acts conclusively. Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s trademarks in any capacity and as discussed below there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of the at‑issue domain name. See Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) (“lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant’s mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)”) WHOIS information for the at-issue domain name identifies the domain name’s registrant as “Giles Morgan” and the record before the Panel contains no evidence that otherwise tends to prove that Respondent is commonly known by the <expeditors-international.com> domain name. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name). Respondent’s confusingly similar domain name has addressed a website that mimicked Complainant’ genuine website. There, Respondent displayed Complainant’s trademark and stylized mark, slogan, presented a layout similar to Complainant’s website and what appeared to be images directly copied from Complainant’s website. Respondent was intent on posing as Complainant through the at-issue domain name and its associated website so that it might defraud third-parties. The website was used to facilitate Respondent’s phishing for the personal information of website visitors that mistakenly believed, because of the confusion created by Respondent, that they were dealing with Complainant. Respondent’s prior use and thus Respondent’s likely future use of the domain name constitutes neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Ripple Labs Inc. v. NGYEN NGOC PHUONG THAO, FA 1741737 (Forum Aug. 21, 2017) (“Respondent uses the [disputed] domain name to divert Internet users to Respondent’s website… confusing them into believing that some sort of affiliation exists between it and Complainant… [which] is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”) Given the forgoing, Complainant satisfies its initial burden and demonstrates Respondent’s lack of rights and lack of legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith Respondent’s <expeditors-international.com> domain name was registered and used in bad faith. As discussed below without being exhaustive, bad faith circumstances are present that allow the Panel to conclude that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. First as mentioned above regarding rights and legitimate interests, Respondent has used the at-issue domain name to address a website mimicking Complainant’s genuine website so as to pose as Complainant and thereby facilitate fraud. Respondent’s use of the domain name was disruptive to Complainant’s business; capitalized on the confusion Respondent created between the at-issue domain name and Complainant’s marks; and sought to misappropriate personal information from site visitors that Respondent deceived into believing they were dealing with Complainant. Respondent’s use of <expeditors-international.com> demonstrates Respondent’s bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Morgan Stanley v. Bruce Pu, FA 1764120 (Forum Feb. 2, 2018) (“[T]he screenshot of the resolving webpage allows users to input their name and email address, which Complainant claims Respondent uses that to fraudulently phish for information. Thus, the Panel agrees that Respondent phishes for information and finds that Respondent does so in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”); see also, Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum Dec. 27, 2017) (finding bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where “Respondent registered and uses the <lbittrex.com> domain name in bad faith by directing Internet users to a website that mimics Complainant’s own website in order to confuse users into believing that Respondent is Complainant, or is otherwise affiliated or associated with Complainant.”). Moreover, Respondent registered its <expeditors-international.com> domain name knowing that Complainant had trademark rights in EXPEDITORS INTERNATIONAL. Respondent’s actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in EXPEDITORS INTERNATIONAL is evident from the notoriety of Complainant’s trademark and from Respondent’s use of the domain name to address a website dressed to appear as if it were Complainant’s genuine website. Respondent’s prior knowledge of Complainant's EXPEDITORS INTERNATIONAL trademark further establishes Respondent’s bad faith under the Policy. See Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had "actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed the disputed domain name”). 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 <expeditors-international.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist Dated: March 13, 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.