United Parcel Services of America, Inc. v. Sean Selvidge et. al.
Claim Number: FA1709001748088
Complainant is United Parcel Services of America, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Joel R. Feldman of Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Georgia, USA. Respondent is Sean Selvidge et. al. (“Respondent”), Illinois, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <upsalabamacenter.com>, <upsalaskacenter.com>, <upsarizonacenter.com>, <upsarkansascenter.com>, <upscaliforniacenter.com>, <upscoloradocenter.com>, <upsconnecticutcenter.com>, <upsdelawarecenter.com>, <upsfloridacenter.com>, <upsgeorgiacenter.com>, <upshawaiicenter.com>, <upsidahocenter.com>, <upsillinoiscenter.com>, <upsindianacenter.com>, <upsiowacenter.com>, <upskansascenter.com>, <upskentuckycenter.com>, <upslouisianacenter.com>, <upsmainecenter.com>, <upsmarylandcenter.com>, <upsmassachusettscenter.com>, <upsmichigancenter.com>, <upsminnesotacenter.com>, <upsmississippicenter.com>, <upsnorthcarolinacenter.com>, <upsnorthdakotacenter.com>, <upsohiocenter.com>, <upsoklahomacenter.com>, <upsoregoncenter.com>, <upspennsylvaniacenter.com>, <upssouthcarolinacenter.com>, <upssouthdakotacenter.com>, <upstennesseecenter.com>, <upstennesseetncenter.com>, <upstexascenter.com>, <upsutahcenter.com>, <upsvermontcenter.com>, <upsvirginiacenter.com>, <upswashingtoncenter.com>, <upswestvirginiacenter.com>, <upsdelivery3849tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3850tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3851tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3852tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3853tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3854tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3855tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3856tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3857tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3858tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3859tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3860tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3861tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3862tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3864tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3865tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3866tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3867tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3868tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3869tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3870tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3871tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3872tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3873tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3874tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3875tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3876tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3877tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3878tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3880tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3881tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3882tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3883tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3884tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3885tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3886tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3887tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3888tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3889tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3890tracking.com>, <upsshippingalabama.com>, <upsshippingalaska.com>, <upsshippingarizona.com>, <upsshippingarkansas.com>, <upsshippingcalifornia.com>, <upsshippingcolorado.com>, <upsshippingconnecticut.com>, <upsshippingdelaware.com>, <upsshippingflorida.com>, <upsshippinggeorgia.com>, <upsshippinghawaii.com>, <upsshippingidaho.com>, <upsshippingillinois.com>, <upsshippingmaine.com>, <upsshippingmaryland.com>, <upsshippingmassachusetts.com>, <upsshippingmichigan.com>, <upsshippingminnesota.com>, <upsshippingmississippi.com>, <upsshippingmissouri.com>, <upsshippingmontana.com>, <upsshippingnebraska.com>, <upsshippingnevada.com>, <upsshippingnewhampshire.com>, <upsshippingnewjersey.com>, <upsshippingnewmexico.com>, <upsshippingnewyork.com>, <upsshippingnorthcarolina.com>, <upsshippingnorthdakota.com>, <upsshippingohio.com>, <upsshippingoklahoma.com>, <upsshippingoregon.com>, <upsshippingpennsylvania.com>, <upsshippingrhodeisland.com>, <upsshippingtexas.com>, <upsshippingutah.com>, <upsshippingvermont.com>, <upsshippingvirginia.com>, <upsshippingwashington.com>, <upsshippingwestvirginia.com>, <upsshippingwisconsin.com>, and <upsshippingwyoming.com>, registered with Wild West Domains, LLC.
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.
Debrett G. Lyons as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on September 8, 2017; the Forum received payment on September 14, 2017.
On September 15, 2017, Wild West Domains, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <upsalabamacenter.com>, <upsalaskacenter.com>, <upsarizonacenter.com>, <upsarkansascenter.com>, <upscaliforniacenter.com>, <upscoloradocenter.com>, <upsconnecticutcenter.com>, <upsdelawarecenter.com>, <upsfloridacenter.com>, <upsgeorgiacenter.com>, <upshawaiicenter.com>, <upsidahocenter.com>, <upsillinoiscenter.com>, <upsindianacenter.com>, <upsiowacenter.com>, <upskansascenter.com>, <upskentuckycenter.com>, <upslouisianacenter.com>, <upsmainecenter.com>, <upsmarylandcenter.com>, <upsmassachusettscenter.com>, <upsmichigancenter.com>, <upsminnesotacenter.com>, <upsmississippicenter.com>, <upsnorthcarolinacenter.com>, <upsnorthdakotacenter.com>, <upsohiocenter.com>, <upsoklahomacenter.com>, <upsoregoncenter.com>, <upspennsylvaniacenter.com>, <upssouthcarolinacenter.com>, <upssouthdakotacenter.com>, <upstennesseecenter.com>, <upstennesseetncenter.com>, <upstexascenter.com>, <upsutahcenter.com>, <upsvermontcenter.com>, <upsvirginiacenter.com>, <upswashingtoncenter.com>, <upswestvirginiacenter.com>, <upsdelivery3849tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3850tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3851tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3852tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3853tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3854tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3855tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3856tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3857tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3858tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3859tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3860tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3861tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3862tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3864tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3865tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3866tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3867tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3868tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3869tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3870tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3871tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3872tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3873tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3874tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3875tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3876tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3877tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3878tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3880tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3881tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3882tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3883tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3884tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3885tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3886tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3887tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3888tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3889tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3890tracking.com>, <upsshippingalabama.com>, <upsshippingalaska.com>, <upsshippingarizona.com>, <upsshippingarkansas.com>, <upsshippingcalifornia.com>, <upsshippingcolorado.com>, <upsshippingconnecticut.com>, <upsshippingdelaware.com>, <upsshippingflorida.com>, <upsshippinggeorgia.com>, <upsshippinghawaii.com>, <upsshippingidaho.com>, <upsshippingillinois.com>, <upsshippingmaine.com>, <upsshippingmaryland.com>, <upsshippingmassachusetts.com>, <upsshippingmichigan.com>, <upsshippingminnesota.com>, <upsshippingmississippi.com>, <upsshippingmissouri.com>, <upsshippingmontana.com>, <upsshippingnebraska.com>, <upsshippingnevada.com>, <upsshippingnewhampshire.com>, <upsshippingnewjersey.com>, <upsshippingnewmexico.com>, <upsshippingnewyork.com>, <upsshippingnorthcarolina.com>, <upsshippingnorthdakota.com>, <upsshippingohio.com>, <upsshippingoklahoma.com>, <upsshippingoregon.com>, <upsshippingpennsylvania.com>, <upsshippingrhodeisland.com>, <upsshippingtexas.com>, <upsshippingutah.com>, <upsshippingvermont.com>, <upsshippingvirginia.com>, <upsshippingwashington.com>, <upsshippingwestvirginia.com>, <upsshippingwisconsin.com>, and <upsshippingwyoming.com> domain names are registered with Wild West Domains, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Wild West Domains, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Wild West Domains, LLC 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 September 29, 2017, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 19, 2017 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@upsalabamacenter.com, postmaster@upsalaskacenter.com, postmaster@upsarizonacenter.com, postmaster@upsarkansascenter.com, postmaster@upscaliforniacenter.com, postmaster@upscoloradocenter.com, postmaster@upsconnecticutcenter.com, postmaster@upsdelawarecenter.com, postmaster@upsfloridacenter.com, postmaster@upsgeorgiacenter.com, postmaster@upshawaiicenter.com, postmaster@upsidahocenter.com, postmaster@upsillinoiscenter.com, postmaster@upsindianacenter.com, postmaster@upsiowacenter.com, postmaster@upskansascenter.com, postmaster@upskentuckycenter.com, postmaster@upslouisianacenter.com, postmaster@upsmainecenter.com, postmaster@upsmarylandcenter.com, postmaster@upsmassachusettscenter.com, postmaster@upsmichigancenter.com, postmaster@upsminnesotacenter.com, postmaster@upsmississippicenter.com, postmaster@upsnorthcarolinacenter.com, postmaster@upsnorthdakotacenter.com, postmaster@upsohiocenter.com, postmaster@upsoklahomacenter.com, postmaster@upsoregoncenter.com, postmaster@upspennsylvaniacenter.com, postmaster@upssouthcarolinacenter.com, postmaster@upssouthdakotacenter.com, postmaster@upstennesseecenter.com, postmaster@upstennesseetncenter.com, postmaster@upstexascenter.com, postmaster@upsutahcenter.com, postmaster@upsvermontcenter.com, postmaster@upsvirginiacenter.com, postmaster@upswashingtoncenter.com, postmaster@upswestvirginiacenter.com, postmaster@upsdelivery3849tracking.com, postmaster@upsdelivery3850tracking.com, postmaster@upsdelivery3851tracking.com, postmaster@upsdelivery3852tracking.com, postmaster@upsdelivery3853tracking.com, postmaster@upsdelivery3854tracking.com, postmaster@upsdelivery3855tracking.com, postmaster@upsdelivery3856tracking.com, postmaster@upsdelivery3857tracking.com, postmaster@upsdelivery3858tracking.com, postmaster@upsdelivery3859tracking.com, postmaster@upsdelivery3860tracking.com, postmaster@upsdelivery3861tracking.com, postmaster@upsdelivery3862tracking.com, postmaster@upsdelivery3864tracking.com, postmaster@upsdelivery3865tracking.com, postmaster@upsdelivery3866tracking.com, postmaster@upsdelivery3867tracking.com, postmaster@upsdelivery3868tracking.com, postmaster@upsdelivery3869tracking.com, postmaster@upsdelivery3870tracking.com, postmaster@upsdelivery3871tracking.com, postmaster@upsdelivery3872tracking.com, postmaster@upsdelivery3873tracking.com, postmaster@upsdelivery3874tracking.com, postmaster@upsdelivery3875tracking.com, postmaster@upsdelivery3876tracking.com, postmaster@upsdelivery3877tracking.com, postmaster@upsdelivery3878tracking.com, postmaster@upsdelivery3880tracking.com, postmaster@upsdelivery3881tracking.com, postmaster@upsdelivery3882tracking.com, postmaster@upsdelivery3883tracking.com, postmaster@upsdelivery3884tracking.com, postmaster@upsdelivery3885tracking.com, postmaster@upsdelivery3886tracking.com, postmaster@upsdelivery3887tracking.com, postmaster@upsdelivery3888tracking.com, postmaster@upsdelivery3889tracking.com, postmaster@upsdelivery3890tracking.com, postmaster@upsshippingalabama.com, postmaster@upsshippingalaska.com, postmaster@upsshippingarizona.com, postmaster@upsshippingarkansas.com, postmaster@upsshippingcalifornia.com, postmaster@upsshippingcolorado.com, postmaster@upsshippingconnecticut.com, postmaster@upsshippingdelaware.com, postmaster@upsshippingflorida.com, postmaster@upsshippinggeorgia.com, postmaster@upsshippinghawaii.com, postmaster@upsshippingidaho.com, postmaster@upsshippingillinois.com, postmaster@upsshippingmaine.com, postmaster@upsshippingmaryland.com, postmaster@upsshippingmassachusetts.com, postmaster@upsshippingmichigan.com, postmaster@upsshippingminnesota.com, postmaster@upsshippingmississippi.com, postmaster@upsshippingmissouri.com, postmaster@upsshippingmontana.com, postmaster@upsshippingnebraska.com, postmaster@upsshippingnevada.com, postmaster@upsshippingnewhampshire.com, postmaster@upsshippingnewjersey.com, postmaster@upsshippingnewmexico.com, postmaster@upsshippingnewyork.com, postmaster@upsshippingnorthcarolina.com, postmaster@upsshippingnorthdakota.com, postmaster@upsshippingohio.com, postmaster@upsshippingoklahoma.com, postmaster@upsshippingoregon.com, postmaster@upsshippingpennsylvania.com, postmaster@upsshippingrhodeisland.com, postmaster@upsshippingtexas.com, postmaster@upsshippingutah.com, postmaster@upsshippingvermont.com, postmaster@upsshippingvirginia.com, postmaster@upsshippingwashington.com, postmaster@upsshippingwestvirginia.com, postmaster@upsshippingwisconsin.com, and postmaster@upsshippingwyoming.com. Also on September 29, 2017, 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, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On October 23, 2017, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Debrett G. Lyons 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant asserts trademark rights in UPS and alleges that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its trademark.
Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.
Complainant alleges that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent did not submit a Response.
The factual findings pertinent to the decision in this case are that:
1. Complainant has provided freight and shipping services since 1906 and has provided those services by reference to the trademark UPS for many decades;
2. Complainant owns United States Patent & Trademark Office (“USPTO”) trademark registration number 966,774, registered August 21, 1973 for UPS;
3. The evidence is that the UPS trademark is well known for the services;
4. all 122 of the disputed domain names were registered during October 2016;
5. all 122 of the disputed domain name resolve to an inactive webpage stating: “The page cannot be displayed”; and
6. there is no commercial agreement between the parties and Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its trademark or to register any domain name incorporating its trademark.
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 3(c) of the Rules provides that a “complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder.” The publicly listed WHOIS data identifies the disputed domain names as owned by many different registrants. Complainant contention is that all are in fact owned by one individual, “Sean Selvidge”.
In support of that claim Complainant refers to the facts that (i) all 122 domain names were registered in October 2016, (ii) all 122 names have the same registrar, Wild West Domains, LLC, (iii) all 122 names were initially registered using the same privacy service, Domains By Proxy, (iv) the email addresses listed for each of the 122 infringing domain names follow the same general format – FirstNameLastName@FirstNameLastName.onmicrosoft.com, and (v) all resolve to the same website – an inactive website displaying the same error message, “The page cannot be displayed.”
The Panel finds that there is sufficient evidence demonstrating that the listed domain name holders are aliases and that the domain names are controlled by a single person. The Panel accordingly treats them as registered by the one domain name holder which the Panel will refer to herein as “Respondent”.
Primary Issues: The Policy
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.
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires a two-fold enquiry – a threshold investigation into whether a complainant has rights in a trademark, followed by an assessment of whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark.
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy does not distinguish between registered and unregistered trademark rights. It is well established by decisions under this Policy that a trademark registered with a national authority is evidence of trademark rights. Complainant has provided evidence of its trademark registration for UPS and so has established trademark rights.
Complainant submits that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its trademark since they take the trademark and merely add the generic terms and the gTLD “.com.”
The Panel accepts that for the purposes of comparison the gTLD can in this case be disregarded. The domain names all include the trademark. Forty (40) of them add a different state name along with the word “center”; forty (40) contain the word “delivery” and “tracking” along with various sequential numbers; and the remaining forty-two (42) add the word “shipping” and a different US State name. The Panel finds the trademark to be the dominant and distinctive part of the domain name in each case and so finds all of the disputed domain names to be confusingly similar to the trademark. [i]
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy states that any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate rights or legitimate interests to a domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy:
(i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your use 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) you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trade mark or service mark at issue.
Complainant must make out a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, after which the onus shifts to Respondent to rebut that case by demonstrating those rights or interests.[ii]
The publicly available WHOIS information does not provide any prima facie evidence that Respondent might be commonly known by any of the disputed domain names. There is no other evidence of how Respondent might be commonly known. There is no evidence that Respondent has any trademark rights. There is no evidence that Complainant has authorized Respondent to use the trademark and Complainant denies any such authorization. Paragraph 4(c)(i) does not apply.
Failure to make active use of a confusingly similar domain name can evince a lack of a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. As noted above, in every case the resolving webpages lacks content. Complainant has provided screenshots showing that all of the domain names resolve to an inactive webpage displaying the message “The page cannot be displayed.” Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent has not made a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).[iii]
The Panel finds that Complainant has established a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or a legitimate interest in any of the disputed domain names. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.
Complainant must prove on the balance of probabilities both that the disputed domain names were registered in bad faith and used in bad faith. In the absence of a Response, there is no explanation as to why 122 names varying from one another in trivial ways all sought to incorporate Complainant’s well-known trademark. The Panel finds the domain names were all registered in bad faith.
Whilst it is noted that the domain names are not in “use”, it is well recognized that in certain circumstances so-called “passive holding” can amount to use in bad faith. In line with the principles first set out in the case of Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, D2000-0003 (WIPO Feb. 18, 2000) and applied consistently by UDRP panelists since, this Panel finds those defining circumstances have been met in this case and the Panel so finds use in bad faith.
It follows that Complainant has satisfied the third and final element of the Policy.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <upsalabamacenter.com>, <upsalaskacenter.com>, <upsarizonacenter.com>, <upsarkansascenter.com>, <upscaliforniacenter.com>, <upscoloradocenter.com>, <upsconnecticutcenter.com>, <upsdelawarecenter.com>, <upsfloridacenter.com>, <upsgeorgiacenter.com>, <upshawaiicenter.com>, <upsidahocenter.com>, <upsillinoiscenter.com>, <upsindianacenter.com>, <upsiowacenter.com>, <upskansascenter.com>, <upskentuckycenter.com>, <upslouisianacenter.com>, <upsmainecenter.com>, <upsmarylandcenter.com>, <upsmassachusettscenter.com>, <upsmichigancenter.com>, <upsminnesotacenter.com>, <upsmississippicenter.com>, <upsnorthcarolinacenter.com>, <upsnorthdakotacenter.com>, <upsohiocenter.com>, <upsoklahomacenter.com>, <upsoregoncenter.com>, <upspennsylvaniacenter.com>, <upssouthcarolinacenter.com>, <upssouthdakotacenter.com>, <upstennesseecenter.com>, <upstennesseetncenter.com>, <upstexascenter.com>, <upsutahcenter.com>, <upsvermontcenter.com>, <upsvirginiacenter.com>, <upswashingtoncenter.com>, <upswestvirginiacenter.com>, <upsdelivery3849tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3850tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3851tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3852tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3853tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3854tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3855tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3856tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3857tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3858tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3859tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3860tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3861tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3862tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3864tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3865tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3866tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3867tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3868tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3869tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3870tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3871tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3872tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3873tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3874tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3875tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3876tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3877tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3878tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3880tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3881tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3882tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3883tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3884tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3885tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3886tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3887tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3888tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3889tracking.com>, <upsdelivery3890tracking.com>, <upsshippingalabama.com>, <upsshippingalaska.com>, <upsshippingarizona.com>, <upsshippingarkansas.com>, <upsshippingcalifornia.com>, <upsshippingcolorado.com>, <upsshippingconnecticut.com>, <upsshippingdelaware.com>, <upsshippingflorida.com>, <upsshippinggeorgia.com>, <upsshippinghawaii.com>, <upsshippingidaho.com>, <upsshippingillinois.com>, <upsshippingmaine.com>, <upsshippingmaryland.com>, <upsshippingmassachusetts.com>, <upsshippingmichigan.com>, <upsshippingminnesota.com>, <upsshippingmississippi.com>, <upsshippingmissouri.com>, <upsshippingmontana.com>, <upsshippingnebraska.com>, <upsshippingnevada.com>, <upsshippingnewhampshire.com>, <upsshippingnewjersey.com>, <upsshippingnewmexico.com>, <upsshippingnewyork.com>, <upsshippingnorthcarolina.com>, <upsshippingnorthdakota.com>, <upsshippingohio.com>, <upsshippingoklahoma.com>, <upsshippingoregon.com>, <upsshippingpennsylvania.com>, <upsshippingrhodeisland.com>, <upsshippingtexas.com>, <upsshippingutah.com>, <upsshippingvermont.com>, <upsshippingvirginia.com>, <upsshippingwashington.com>, <upsshippingwestvirginia.com>, <upsshippingwisconsin.com>, and <upsshippingwyoming.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Debrett G. Lyons, Panelist
Dated: October 30, 2017
[i] See, for example, Rollerblade, Inc. v. McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000) finding that the top level of the domain name such as “.net” or “.com” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar; see Bond & Co. Jewelers, Inc. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 937650 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 30, 2007), finding that the elimination of spaces between terms does not generally create a new distinctive term; see Doosan Corporation v. philippe champain, FA 1636675 (FORUM Oct. 13, 2015) finding that geographic designations or terms descriptive of a complainant’s business operations do not remove a domain name from the realm of confusing similarity; see also Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation v Domain Admin / PrivacyProtect.org / Denis Ferulev, FA 1652313 (FORUM Jan. 19, 2016) (“Complainant notes that the domain name contains the recognised acronym for its FAMILY GUY mark, along with the number ‘24’ … the Panel finds that the <fg24.biz> domain name is confusingly similar to the FAMILY GUY mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”)
[ii] See, for example, Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000 0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000).
[iii] See, for example, Bloomberg L.P. v. SC Media Servs. & Info. SRL, FA 296583 (FORUM Sept. 2, 2004) (“Respondent is wholly appropriating Complainant’s mark and is not using the <bloomberg.ro> domain name in connection with an active website. The Panel finds that the [failure to make an active use] of a domain name that is identical to Complainant’s mark is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”).
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page