United Parcel Service of America, Inc. v. Jones Kelvin / Counsuntancy / Charlotte hal / Alia Smith / Jeny Cam / Jaun Wat
Claim Number: FA2003001890111
Complainant is United Parcel Service of America, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Sabina A. Vayner of Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Georgia, USA. Respondent is Jones Kelvin / Counsuntancy / Charlotte hal / Alia Smith / Jeny Cam / Jaun Wat (“Respondent”), Florida, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <upstransportservices.com>, <upscouriermail.com>, <upsgroups.com>, <upscourierusa.com>, <upsglobaldelivery.com>, <upsusadelivery.com>, <upsusaservices.com>, <upsmailsservices.com>, <upscourierserviceusa.com>, <upsinternationalservices.com>, <upsexpressservices.com>, <upsexpressway.com>, <upstransportexpress.com>, <upsexpresservice.com>, <upslogisticsltd.com>, <upsdeliverytransportservice.com>, <upslogisticsservices.com>, <upsglobalstracking.com>, <upsexpresdelivery.com>, and <upstransportservice.com>, registered with Shinjiru Technology Sdn Bhd; Psi-Usa, Inc. Dba Domain Robot, Shinjiru Msc Sdn Bhd;.
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.
Ho Hyun Nahm, Esq. as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on March 27, 2020; the Forum received payment on March 27, 2020.
On March 27, 2020; March 30, 2020; April 8, 2020, Shinjiru Technology Sdn Bhd; Psi-Usa, Inc. Dba Domain Robot, Shinjiru Msc Sdn Bhd; confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <upstransportservices.com>, <upscouriermail.com>, <upsgroups.com>, <upscourierusa.com>, <upsglobaldelivery.com>, <upsusadelivery.com>, <upsusaservices.com>, <upsmailsservices.com>, <upscourierserviceusa.com>, <upsinternationalservices.com>, <upsexpressservices.com>, <upsexpressway.com>, <upstransportexpress.com>, <upsexpresservice.com>, <upslogisticsltd.com>, <upsdeliverytransportservice.com>, <upslogisticsservices.com>, <upsglobalstracking.com>, <upsexpresdelivery.com>, and <upstransportservice.com> domain name are registered with Shinjiru Technology Sdn Bhd; Psi-Usa, Inc. Dba Domain Robot, Shinjiru Msc Sdn Bhd; and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Shinjiru Technology Sdn Bhd; Psi-Usa, Inc. Dba Domain Robot, Shinjiru Msc Sdn Bhd; has verified that Respondent is bound by the Shinjiru Technology Sdn Bhd; Psi-Usa, Inc. Dba Domain Robot, Shinjiru Msc Sdn Bhd; 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 April 9, 2020, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 29, 2020 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@upstransportservices.com, postmaster@upscouriermail.com, postmaster@upsgroups.com, postmaster@upscourierusa.com, postmaster@upsglobaldelivery.com, postmaster@upsusadelivery.com, postmaster@upsusaservices.com, postmaster@upsmailsservices.com, postmaster@upscourierserviceusa.com, postmaster@upsinternationalservices.com, postmaster@upsexpressservices.com, postmaster@upsexpressway.com, postmaster@upstransportexpress.com, postmaster@upsexpresservice.com, postmaster@upslogisticsltd.com, postmaster@upsdeliverytransportservice.com, postmaster@upslogisticsservices.com, postmaster@upsglobalstracking.com, postmaster@upsexpresdelivery.com, postmaster@upstransportservice.com. Also on April 9, 2020, 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 May 4, 2020, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Ho Hyun Nahm, Esq. 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.
Complainant has alleged that the entities which control the domain names at issue are effectively controlled by the same person and/or entity, which is operating under several aliases. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (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.” Complainant contends that all the disputed domain names are controlled by a single entity or individual as every disputed domain name, other than <upsexpressservices.com>, <upslogisticsservices.com>, and <upsexpresdelivery.com>, uses the same registrar. The hosting company is the same as the registrar for disputed domain names. All of the disputed domain names were registered within four months of each other. All the disputed domain names resolve to similar webpages. The WHOIS information provides a Miami, Florida address and New York area code. Complainant argues that these facts show that all the disputed domain names are owned by the same individual or entity.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain names are commonly owned/controlled by a single Respondent who is using multiple aliases.
A. Complainant
i) Complainant is in the shipping business and is one of the top global brands and has 1.6 million pick-up customers and 9.9 million delivery customers in more than 220 countries and territories. Complainant has rights in the UPS mark through its registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 966,774, registered Aug. 21, 1973). The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s UPS mark. Respondent incorporates the mark in its entirety and adds the generic terms “courier,” “mail,” “service,” “delivery,” “logistics,” “USA,” “express,” “global,” “groups,” “tracking,” “international services,” or “transport” along with the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
ii) Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names nor did Complainant authorize Respondent to use the UPS mark in any way. Respondent fails to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent is promoting services that compete with Complainant. Respondent also attempts to impersonate Complainant to engage in fraudulent activities and phishing schemes. Lastly, the disputed domain names resolve to an inactive webpage that attempts to distribute malware on to Internet users’ devices.
iii) Respondent registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith as Respondent attempts to disrupt Complainant’s business by offering similar, competing services. Respondent attempts to pass off as Complainant in an attempt to confuse Internet users that Respondent is somehow affiliated with Complainant. Respondent attempts to distribute malware through its disputed domain names. Lastly, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the UPS mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding.
1. The disputed domain names were registered on the following dates:
|
<upstransportservices.com> |
March 17, 2020 |
|
<upscouriermail.com> |
November 21, 2019 |
|
<upscourierserviceusa.com> |
December 11, 2019 |
|
<upscourierusa.com> |
November 28, 2019 |
|
<upsdeliverytransportservice.com> |
February 10, 2020 |
|
<upsexpresdelivery.com> |
March 6, 2020 |
|
<upsexpresservice.com> |
January 1, 2020 |
|
<upsexpressservices.com> |
December 13, 2019 |
|
<upsexpressway.com> |
December 28, 2019 |
|
<upsglobaldelivery.com> |
November 24, 2019 |
|
<upsglobalstracking.com> |
February 24, 2020 |
|
<upsgroups.com> |
November 21, 2019 |
|
<upsinternationalservices.com> |
December 13, 2019 |
|
<upslogisticsltd.com> |
February 12, 2020 |
|
<upslogisticsservices.com> |
February 20, 2020 |
|
<upsmailservices.com> |
December 11, 2019 |
|
<upstransportexpress.com> |
January 2, 2020 |
|
<upstransportservices.com> |
November 21, 2019 |
|
<upsusadelivery.com> |
November 22, 2019 |
|
<upsusaservices.com> |
December 4, 2019 |
2. Complainant has established rights in the UPS mark through its registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 966,774, registered Aug. 21, 1973).
3. Each of the disputed domain names <upsmailsservices.com>, <upsinternationalservices.com>, <upsexpresservice.com>, <upstransportexpress.com>, <upscourierserviceusa.com>, <upsexpressway.com>, <upslogisticsltd.com>, <upslogisticsservices.com>, <upsglobalstracking.com>, <upsdeliverytransportservice.com>, <upsexpresdelivery.com>, and <upstransportservice.com> resolves to active websites, on which services identical to, and/or overlapping with, those long-offered by Complainant.
4. The resolving websites of the disputed domain names <upsexpresservice.com>, <upslogisticsltd.com>, <upslogisticsservices.com>, <upsdeliverytransportservice.com>, and <upsexpresdelivery.com> incorporate Complainant’s UPS brand indicia, including but not limited to Complainant’s UPS Shield.
5. Each of the disputed domain names <upscouriermail.com>, <upsgroups.com>, <upsglobaldelivery.com>, and <upsusadelivery.com> resolves to an error message.
6. The disputed domain names <upscourierusa.com>, <upstransportservices.com>, <upsusaservices.com>, and <upsexpressservices.com> automatically redirect Internet users to an active website that displays a message telling users that they may be the “next lucky winner”; and trigger a “security threat” block on certain computers.
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”).
Complainant claims to have rights in the UPS mark through its registration with the USPTO. Registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to establish rights in a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Liberty Global Logistics, LLC v. damilola emmanuel / tovary services limited, FA 1738536 (Forum Aug. 4, 2017) (“Registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently establishes the required rights in the mark for purposes of the Policy.”). Complainant has provided the Panel with a copy of its USPTO registration information for the UPS mark (Reg. No. 966,774, registered Aug. 21, 1973). Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has adequately established rights in a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant argues that Respondent’s <upstransportservices.com>, <upscouriermail.com>, <upsgroups.com>, <upscourierusa.com>, <upsglobaldelivery.com>, <upsusadelivery.com>, <upsusaservices.com>, <upsmailsservices.com>, <upscourierserviceusa.com>, <upsinternationalservices.com>, <upsexpressservices.com>, <upsexpressway.com>, <upstransportexpress.com>, <upsexpresservice.com>, <upslogisticsltd.com>, <upsdeliverytransportservice.com>, <upslogisticsservices.com>, <upsglobalstracking.com>, <upsexpresdelivery.com>, and <upstransportservice.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s UPS mark. Registration of a domain name that contains a mark in its entirety and adds generic terms along with a gTLD does not distinguish the domain name from the mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Wiluna Holdings, LLC v. Edna Sherman, FA 1652781 (Forum Jan. 22, 2016) (finding the addition of a generic term and gTLD is insufficient in distinguishing a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). Complainant argues that Respondent incorporates the mark in its entirety and adds the generic terms “courier,” “mail,” “service,” “delivery,” “logistics,” “USA,” “express,” “global,” “groups,” “tracking,” “international services,” or “transport” along with the “.com” gTLD. Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), then 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 argues Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain names as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names nor has Respondent been given license or consent to use the UPS mark or register domain names using Complainant’s mark. Where a response is lacking, WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. LY Ta, FA 1789106 (Forum June 21, 2018) (concluding a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name where the complainant asserted it did not authorize the respondent to use the mark, and the relevant WHOIS information indicated the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name). Additionally, lack of authorization to use a complainant’s mark may indicate that the respondent is not commonly known by the disputed 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)”). The WHOIS information for the disputed domain names lists the registrant as “Jones Kelvin Counsutancy / Charlotte Hall / Alia Smith / Jeny Cam / Juan Wat” and there is no other evidence to suggest that Respondent was authorized to use the UPS mark or was commonly known by the disputed domain names. Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Complainant argues that Respondent fails to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent is promoting services that compete with Complainant. Use of a disputed domain name to offer services that compete and disrupt a complainant’s business is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See General Motors LLC v. MIKE LEE, FA 1659965 (Forum Mar. 10, 2016) (“use of a domain to sell products and/or services that compete directly with a complainant’s business does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”). Here, Complainant has provided screenshot of the disputed domain names resolving webpages that show services and products that compete with Complainant’s business. Therefore, the Panel agrees and finds that Respondent has failed to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii)).
Next, Complainant argues that the <upscouriermail.com>, <upsgroups.com>, <upscourierusa.com>, <upsglobaldelivery.com>, and <upsusadelivery.com> domain names resolve to inactive webpages that promote malware. Using a disputed domain name to host an inactive website that redirects users to download malware is evidence of a lack of a bona fide offering or noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii)). See Coachella Music Festival, LLC v. Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico, FA 1785199 (Forum June 5, 2018) (“Respondent uses the <coechella.com> domain name to direct internet users to a website which is used to attempt to install malware on visiting devices. Using the domain name in this manner is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶4(c)(i), nor a non-commercial or fair use under Policy ¶4(c)(iii).”). Complainant provides screenshots of the disputed domain names’ resolving webpages which resolve to error messages. Complainant also provides screenshots of the webpage the disputed domain names redirect to, which alerts Internet user’s that they are the winner of some prize, a common theme among spam and/or malware promotion. Therefore, the Panel agrees and finds that Respondent has failed to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii)).
The Panel finds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case that arises from the considerations above. All of these matters go to make out the prima facie case against Respondent. As Respondent has not filed a Response or attempted by any other means to rebut the prima facie case against it, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.
Complainant argues that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith as Respondent attempts to disrupt Complainant’s business by offering similar, competing services. Use of a disputed domain name to disrupt a complainant’s business by offering competing services may be evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See ZIH Corp. v. ou yang lin q, FA1761403 (Forum Dec. 29, 2017) (finding bad faith where the respondent used the infringing domain name to disrupt the complainant’s business by diverting Internet users from the complainant’s website to the respondent’s website where it offered competing printer products). Complainant has provided screenshot of the disputed domain names’ resolving webpages that show services and products that compete with Complainant’s business, along with pictures of Complainant’s mark. The Panel notes that the relevant disputed domain names are: <upsmailsservices.com>, <upsinternationalservices.com>, <upsexpresservice.com>, <upstransportexpress.com>, <upscourierserviceusa.com>, <upsexpressway.com>, <upslogisticsltd.com>, <upslogisticsservices.com>, <upsglobalstracking.com>, <upsdeliverytransportservice.com>, <upsexpresdelivery.com>, and <upstransportservice.com>.
The Panel also notes that the resolving websites of the disputed domain names <upsexpresservice.com>, <upslogisticsltd.com>, <upslogisticsservices.com>, <upsdeliverytransportservice.com>, and <upsexpresdelivery.com> incorporate Complainant’s UPS brand indicia, including but not limited to Complainant’s UPS Shield.
The Panel further notes that the disputed domain names <upscourierusa.com>, <upstransportservices.com>, <upsusaservices.com>, and <upsexpressservices.com> automatically redirect Internet users to an active website that displays a message telling users that they may be the “next lucky winner”; and trigger a “security threat” block on certain computers.
Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and used the following disputed domain names in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii): <upstransportservices.com>, <upscourierusa.com>, <upsusaservices.com>, <upsmailsservices.com>, <upscourierserviceusa.com>, <upsinternationalservices.com>, <upsexpressservices.com>, <upsexpressway.com>, <upstransportexpress.com>, <upsexpresservice.com>, <upslogisticsltd.com>, <upsdeliverytransportservice.com>, <upslogisticsservices.com>, <upsglobalstracking.com>, <upsexpresdelivery.com>, and <upstransportservice.com>.
The Panel notes that each of the disputed domain names <upscouriermail.com>, <upsgroups.com>, <upsglobaldelivery.com>, and <upsusadelivery.com> resolves to an inactive website displaying an error message. The Complainant contends that the registration of the disputed domain names, followed by a passive holding of the disputed domain names, constitutes ‘use in bad faith.’ The Panel agrees that the passive holding of a domain name does not necessarily circumvent a finding that the domain name is being used in bad faith within the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. See Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003 (finding that in considering whether the passive holding of a domain name, following a bad faith registration of it, satisfies the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(iii), the panel must give close attention to all the circumstances of the respondent’s behavior, and a remedy can be obtained under the Policy only if those circumstances show that the respondent’s passive holding amounts to acting in bad faith.)
The particular circumstances of this case that the Panel has considered are:
i) Complainant has used continuously in U.S. commerce and in other jurisdictions in connection with a wide variety of shipping, delivery, logistics, transportation, freight, and other related services and products for decades, and some since as early as 1927; it currently has 1.6 million pick-up customers and 9.9 million delivery customers in more than 220 countries and territories; in 2019, Complainant’s worldwide revenue was $74 billion; Complainant’s UPS mark is consistently recognized as one of the top global brands by highly influential, independent entities like Interbrand, Millward Brown Optimor, and Fortune magazine; as a result of Complainant’s continuous and extensive use and advertising for nearly a century, its UPS mark has become widely known by the consuming public worldwide; it has also been recognized as a famous, widely-known mark by the Forum and various WIPO panels; and
ii) Respondent has provided no evidence whatsoever of any actual or contemplated good faith use by it of the disputed domain names.
Taking into account all of the above, the Panel concludes that Respondent’s passive holding of the disputed domain names <upscouriermail.com>, <upsgroups.com>, <upsglobaldelivery.com>, and <upsusadelivery.com> constitutes bad faith under Policy, paragraph 4(a)(iii) and that Respondent is using the disputed domain names in bad faith.
Next, Complainant argues that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the UPS mark prior to registration of the disputed domain names. Although panels have not generally regarded constructive notice to be sufficient for a finding of bad faith, actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the mark prior to registering the disputed domain name is adequate to find bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014) (“The Panel notes that although the UDRP does not recognize ‘constructive notice’ as sufficient grounds for finding Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith, the Panel here finds actual knowledge through the name used for the domain and the use made of it.”). Use of a disputed domain name that makes use of a famous mark may be evidence of actual knowledge per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Snap Inc. v. Deepika Priyadarshinie / entsl, FA 1788600 (Forum June 21, 2018) (finding the respondent had actual knowledge of the complainant and its rights in the claimed mark due to the fame of the mark, established by the complainant’s submission of numerous articles regarding the success of the complainant’s product). The Panel infers, due to the notoriety of Complainant’s mark and the manner of use of the disputed domain names that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the mark prior to registration of all the disputed domain names which constitutes bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <upstransportservices.com>, <upscouriermail.com>, <upsgroups.com>, <upscourierusa.com>, <upsglobaldelivery.com>, <upsusadelivery.com>, <upsusaservices.com>, <upsmailsservices.com>, <upscourierserviceusa.com>, <upsinternationalservices.com>, <upsexpressservices.com>, <upsexpressway.com>, <upstransportexpress.com>, <upsexpresservice.com>, <upslogisticsltd.com>, <upsdeliverytransportservice.com>, <upslogisticsservices.com>, <upsglobalstracking.com>, <upsexpresdelivery.com>, and <upstransportservice.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Ho Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist
Dated: May 6, 2020
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page