Logistics Plus, Inc. v. SANDRA JONES / logisticssplus
Claim Number: FA2103001936640
Complainant is Logistics Plus, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Michael D. Lazzara of Leech Tishman Fuscaldo & Lampl LLC, Pennsylvania, USA. Respondent is SANDRA JONES / logisticssplus ("Respondent"), New Jersey, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <logisticssplus.com>, registered with NameCheap, Inc.
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.
David E. Sorkin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on March 15, 2021; the Forum received payment on March 15, 2021.
On March 16, 2021, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by email to the Forum that the <logisticssplus.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 March 16, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 5, 2021 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@logisticssplus.com. Also on March 16, 2021, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email 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 April 9, 2021, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed David E. Sorkin 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.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant is a worldwide provider of transportation, warehousing, fulfillment, global logistics, business intelligence, technology, and supply chain solutions, with annual sales of over $300 million and 450 employees located in 28 countries around the world. Complainant has used LOGISTICS PLUS and LOGISTICS + in connection with this business since at least as early as 1997, and owns corresponding United States trademark registrations in standard character form and stylized form.
Respondent registered the disputed domain name <logisticssplus.com> in February 2021. The domain name currently resolves to a parked page generated by the registrar. Complainant alleges that Respondent has used the domain name in email messages in connection with an elaborate scheme to obtain sensitive and confidential personal information from job applicants. Complainant states that Respondent has created fake profiles in Complainant's name on third-party job websites in order to reach prospective applicants, and has affirmatively contacted individuals who have posted resumes on such websites, in both instances using the disputed domain name and Complainant's marks to create a false appearance of legitimacy. Complainant supports its allegations with examples of email correspondence, text messages, and other documents, including fake checks appearing to be drawn on Complainant's bank account. Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and has not been licensed or authorized to use Complainant's marks.
Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <logisticssplus.com> is confusingly similar to its LOGISTICS PLUS and LOGISTICS + marks; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
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 Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, § 4.3 (3d ed. 2017), available at http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (dismissing complaint where complainant failed to "produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations").
The disputed domain name <logisticssplus.com> incorporates Complainant's registered LOGISTICS PLUS trademark, omitting the space and inserting an additional letter "S," and appending the ".com" top-level domain. These alterations do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., CrossFirst Bankshares, Inc. v. Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico, FA 1912678 (Forum Oct. 28, 2020) (finding <crosssfirstbank.com> confusingly similar to CROSSFIRST BANK); Anytime Fitness, LLC v. Internet Services / ICS Inc., FA 1802079 (Forum Sept. 25, 2018) (finding <anytimefitnesss.com> confusingly similar to ANYTIME FITNESS). The Panel considers the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights.
Under the Policy, the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc. v. Entertainment Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).
The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's registered mark without authorization, and it is being used to impersonate Complainant in connection with a fraudulent scheme aimed at prospective job applicants. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., Phillips 66 Co. v. Vanshita Sharma / Ms, FA 1896941 (Forum June 14, 2020) (finding lack of rights or interests in similar circumstances); Bechtel Group, Inc. v. Macy Adams, FA 1534002 (Forum Jan. 3, 2014) (same); Agilent Technologies, Inc. v. Billy Milholland, FA 1517433 (Forum Oct. 11, 2013) (same).
Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of such rights or interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered the disputed domain name "primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor." Under paragraph 4(b)(iv), bad faith may be shown by evidence that "by using the domain name, [Respondent] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent's] web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [Respondent's] web site or location or of a product or service on [Respondent's] web site or location."
Respondent registered a domain name corresponding to Complainant's registered mark without authorization, and is using it to impersonate Complainant in connection with a fraudulent scheme aimed at prospective job applicants. Such conduct is indicative of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See, e.g., Phillips 66 Co. v. Vanshita Sharma / Ms, supra (finding bad faith in similar circumstances); Bechtel Group, Inc. v. Macy Adams, supra (same); Agilent Technologies, Inc. v. Billy Milholland, supra (same). The Panel so finds.
Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <logisticssplus.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: April 12, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page