Greenbrier-europes.com

The timeline behind greenbrier-europes.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.

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION The Greenbrier Companies, Inc., Greenbrier Leasing Company LLC, and Greenbrier Europe Holdings B.V. v. afonso jide Claim Number: FA2502002138648 PARTIES Complainant is The Greenbrier Companies, Inc., Greenbrier Leasing Company LLC, and Greenbrier Europe Holdings B.V. ("Complainant"), represented by Meaghan H. Kent of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is afonso jide ("Respondent"), New York, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <greenbrier-europes.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. Alan L. Limbury, as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 4, 2025. Forum received payment on February 4, 2025. On February 4, 2025, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <greenbrier-europes.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 5, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 25, 2025 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@greenbrier-europes.com. Also on February 5, 2025, 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 February 26, 2025, 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: MULTIPLE COMPLAINANTS In the instant proceedings, there are three Complainants. Paragraph 3(a) of the Rules provides that "[a]ny person or entity may initiate an administrative proceeding by submitting a complaint." Forum's Supplemental Rule 1(e) defines "The Party Initiating a Complaint Concerning a Domain Name Registration" as a "single person or entity claiming to have rights in the domain name, or multiple persons or entities who have a sufficient nexus who can each claim to have rights to all domain names listed in the Complaint." The Greenbrier Companies, Inc. is the parent company of Greenbrier Leasing Company LLC and Greenbrier Europe Holdings B.V. The Panel accepts that the parent/subsidiary relationship between the three corporate entities and their history of use of the THE GREENBRIER COMPANIES and GREENBRIER EUROPE trademarks constitutes a sufficient nexus or link such that each may claim to have rights to the <greenbrier-europes.com> domain name listed in the Complaint and may be collectively referred to as "Complainant". PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant is a leading international supplier of equipment and services to freight rail transportation markets. Complainant has since 1986 continuously used the trademark THE GREENBRIER COMPANIES in the United States in connection with refurbishing and repairing railcars and leasing of transportation equipment, namely, railcars and intermodal trailers, and transportation fleet management services. Since 2017, Complainant has used the trademark GREENBRIER EUROPE in connection with its same railway products and services in Europe. Complainant operates the website located at <greenbrier-europe.com>. Complainant has rights in the THE GREENBRIER COMPANIES mark both at common law and through registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO"). Complainant also has common law rights in the GREENBRIER EUROPE mark. The <greenbrier-europes.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's THE GREENBRIER COMPANIES and GREENBRIER EUROPE trademarks, in which Complainant owns longstanding prior rights. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <greenbrier-europes.com> domain name. Complainant does not have a business relationship with Respondent. The domain name is not affiliated with, sponsored by, or endorsed by Complainant, nor is Respondent authorized to use Complainant's marks in any manner. The domain name is an example of typosquatting. To the best of Complainant's knowledge, Respondent has not used or engaged in any 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; is not commonly known by the domain name; and is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish Complainant's mark. Respondent registered and uses the <greenbrier-europes.com> domain name in bad faith. This is readily established by its brazen and unauthorized use of Complainant's marks in connection with impersonating Complainant and attempting to elicit confidential and financial information from its customers. One of Complainant's customers received an email purporting to be from a legitimate Complainant employee email address, notifying the customer that Complainant had changed its banking details. Accordingly, Respondent is using the domain name fraudulently to mislead the public to perpetuate fraud. It is clear that Respondent was well aware of Complainant before registering the domain name and indeed selected it for the explicit purpose of capitalizing on Complainant's goodwill and improperly to exploit the GREENBRIER EUROPE and THE GREENBRIER COMPANIES marks. Further, Respondent engaged in typosquatting by misspelling "Europe" as "Europes," with a clear objective to lead customers away from Complainant's domain name in bad faith, to Respondent's <greenbrier-europes.com> domain name. Respondent's use of a privacy protection service to register the domain name also supports a finding of bad faith. 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 and 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 acquired, through extensive use, common law rights in the GREENBRIER EUROPE mark and that Greenbrier Leasing Company LLC has rights in the THE GREENBRIER COMPANIES service mark through registration with the USPTO (Reg. No. 1,550,518, registered on August 1, 1989). 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 the Complainant's trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Overview 3.0 "), section 1.7. The Panel finds Respondent's <greenbrier-europes.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to Complainant's GREENBRIER EUROPE mark, only differing by the omission of the space between the words and the addition of the letter "s" which is insufficient to distinguish the domain name from Complainant's mark. The inconsequential ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD") may be ignored under this element. See, for example, Rollerblade, Inc. v. Chris McCrady, WIPO Case No. D2000-0429. 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 <greenbrier-europes.com> domain name was registered on January 16, 2025, many years after Complainant has shown that it had acquired common law rights in its GREENBRIER EUROPE mark and had started using its website located at <greenbrier-europe.com>. That same day, an email was sent to a customer of Complainant from <[name of an employee of Complainant]@greenbrier-europes.com> saying: "Subject: bank update Hello, I hope this message finds you well. I wanted to inform you that our business account is currently not active, and we are in the process of setting up a new account. Unfortunately, this means that we are unable to provide you with new banking details at this time. we will update you as soon as our new account is established. Thank you for your understanding and patience during this transition." The footer of the email displayed Complainant's <greenbrier-europe.com> website address. 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 <greenbrier-europes.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 The four illustrative circumstances set out in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy as evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) are not exclusive. The circumstances set out above in relation to the second element satisfy the Panel that Respondent was fully aware of Complainant's GREENBRIER EUROPE mark and its website located at <greenbrier-europe.com> when Respondent registered the <greenbrier-europes.com> domain name and that Respondent registered and is using the typosquatted domain name in bad faith for the purpose of fraudulently phishing for money from Complainant's customers. 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 <greenbrier-europes.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Alan L. Limbury, Panelist Dated: February 27, 2025 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.