Xpologisticmails.com

The timeline behind xpologisticmails.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 XPO Logistics, Inc. v. blackish kuskish Claim Number: FA2306002049490 PARTIES Complainant is XPO Logistics, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Georges Nahitchevansky of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, New York, USA. Respondent is blackish kuskish (“Respondent”), California, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <xpologisticmails.com>, registered with NameCheap, Inc. PANEL The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 18, 2023; Forum received payment on June 18, 2023. On June 19, 2023, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <xpologisticmails.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 June 19, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 10, 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@xpologisticmails.com. Also on June 19, 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 July 14, 2023, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin 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 1. Respondent’s <xpologisticmails.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s XPO LOGISTICS mark. 2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <xpologisticmails.com> domain name. 3. Respondent registered and uses the <xpologisticmails.com> domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent did not file a Response. FINDINGS Complainant is a global provider of transportation and logistics solutions. Complainant holds a registration for the XPO LOGISTICS mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 4,175,359, registered on July 17, 2012). Respondent registered the <xpologisticmails.com> domain name on March 10, 2023, and uses it to pass off as and compete with Complainant. 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 Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the XPO LOGISTICS mark through registration with the USPTO. See DIRECTV, LLC v. The Pearline Group, FA 1818749 (Forum Dec. 30, 2018) (“Complainant’s ownership of a USPTO registration for DIRECTV demonstrate its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”) Respondent’s <xpologisticmails.com> domain name uses the XPO LOGISTICS mark, without the “s”, and simply adds the generic word “mails” and the “.com” gTLD. These changes fail to sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) (“Where a relevant trademark is recognisable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element.”). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <xpologisticmails.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s XPO LOGISTICS mark. The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Once Complainant makes a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) (“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”). Complainant contends that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <xpologisticmails.com> domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and Complainant has not authorized or licensed to Respondent any rights in the XPO LOGISTICS mark. The WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as “blackish kuskish”. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and thus has no rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Suzen Khan / Nancy Jain / Andrew Stanzy, FA 1741129 (Forum Aug. 16, 2017) (finding that respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names when the identifying information provided by WHOIS was unrelated to the domain names or respondent’s use of the same); see also 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)”). Complainant argues that Respondent fails to use the <xpologisticmails.com> domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use as Respondent uses it to pass off as Complainant and compete with Complainant. Using a disputed domain name to pass off as a complainant is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Suzen Khan / Nancy Jain / Andrew Stanzy, FA 1741129 (Forum Aug. 16, 2017) (finding that respondent lacked rights and legitimate interests in a domain name with which it conducted a phishing scheme to procure “Internet users’ personal information”); see also Vanguard Trademark Holdings USA LLC v. Dan Stanley Saturne, FA 1785085 (Forum June 8, 2018) (“Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use” where “Respondent is apparently using the disputed domain name to offer for sale competing services.”). Complainant provides screenshots of Respondent’s resolving website featuring Complainant’s logo and offers the same services that Complainant provides. Complainant also demonstrates that Respondent solicits tracking information from Complainant’s users. The Panel finds that neither of these uses constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, and thus Respondent has no rights under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant contends that Respondent registered and uses the <xpologisticmails.com> domain name in bad faith as Respondent lost a prior UDRP proceeding to Complainant. A pattern of bad faith registration may evince bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See Fandango, LLC v. 21562719 Ont Ltd, FA1209001464081 (Forum Nov. 2, 2012) (“Respondent’s past conduct and UDRP history establishes a pattern of registered domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).”) Complainant demonstrates that Respondent lost a prior UDRP case involving <xpologisticmail.com>. Therefore, the Panel finds bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). Complainant argues that Respondent registered and uses the <xpologisticmails.com> domain name in bad faith as Respondent registered the disputed domain name to pass off as Complainant and confuse users for Respondent’s financial gain. Registering a confusingly similar domain name with the intent to disrupt business by passing off as a complainant constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum December 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.”). Accordingly, the Panel finds bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). Complainant also argues that Respondent registered the <xpologisticmails.com> domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the XPO LOGISTICS mark based on Respondent’s use of the XPO LOGISTICS mark, Respondent’s resolving website copying Complainant’s logo, and Complainant’s prior prevailing UDRP case against Respondent. The Panel agrees and finds further bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See iFinex Inc. v. xu shuaiwei, FA 1760249 (Forum January 1, 2018) (“Respondent’s prior knowledge is evident from the notoriety of Complainant’s BITFINEX trademark as well as from Respondent’s use of its trademark laden domain name to direct internet traffic to a website which is a direct competitor of Complainant”). The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). 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 <xpologisticmails.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist Dated: July 16, 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.