United Parcel Service of America, Inc. v. Rajeev Pateriya
Claim Number: FA2307002054674
Complainant is United Parcel Service of America, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Alexandra A. Holt of Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Georgia, USA. Respondent is Rajeev Pateriya (“Respondent”), India.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <coyotetransporting.com>, (‘the Domain Name’) registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
The undersigned certifies that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Dawn Osborne as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on July 25, 2023; Forum received payment on July 25, 2023.
On July 26, 2023, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <coyotetransporting.com> Domain Name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, 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 July 31, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 21, 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@coyotetransporting.com. Also on July 31, 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 August 22, 2023 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Dawn Osborne 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.
Complainant requests that the Domain Name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
The Complainant’s contentions can be summarised as follows:
The Complainant owns the trade mark COYOTE registered, inter alia, in the USA for transportation logistics services with first use recorded as 2006.
The Domain Name registered in 2023 is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark adding only the generic word ‘transporting’ and the gTLD .com which is insufficient to prevent said confusing similarity.
The Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, is not commonly known by the Domain Name and is not authorised by the Complainant.
The web site attached to the Domain Name offers competing services to the Complainant using the COYOTE mark in its masthead. This cannot be a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate non commercial or fair use.
Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith in actual knowledge of the Complainant, its business and rights, diverting Internet users for commercial gain under Policy 4(b)(iv) and disrupting the Complainant’s business under Policy 4(b)(iii). The Complainant is concerned about possible phishing.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Complainant owns the trade mark COYOTE registered, inter alia, in the USA for transportation logistics services with first use recorded as 2006.
The Domain Name registered in 2023 offers competing services to the Complainant using the COYOTE mark in its masthead.
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”).
The Domain Name consists of the Complainant's COYOTE mark (which is registered, inter alia, in the USA for transportation services with first use recorded as 2006), the generic term ‘transporting’ and the gTLD .com.
Previous panels have found confusing similarity when a respondent merely adds a generic term to a Complainant's mark. See PG&E Corp. v Anderson, D2000-1264 (WIPO Nov. 22, 2000)(finding that respondent does not by adding common descriptive or generic terms create new or different marks nor does it alter the underlying mark held by the Complainant). The addition of the generic term ‘transporting’ does not prevent confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant’s mark.
A gTLD does not serve to distinguish a domain name from a Complainant’s mark. See Red Hat Inc v Haecke FA 726010 (Forum July 24, 2006) (concluding that the redhat.org domain name is identical to the complainant's red hat mark because the mere addition of the gTLD was insufficient to differentiate the disputed domain name from the mark). The Panel holds that the addition of the gTLD .com does not prevent confusing similarity between the Complainant’s mark and the Domain Name.
Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered mark.
As such the Panel holds that Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant has not authorised the use of its mark. There is no evidence or reason to suggest the Respondent is, in fact, commonly known by the Domain Name. See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA1408001574905 (Forum September 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark). The use is commercial, so is not legitimate non commercial fair use.
The web site attached to the Domain Name used the Complainant's mark in its masthead to offer competing transportation services. It did not make it clear that there was no commercial connection with the Complainant. The Panel finds this use was confusing. As such it cannot have amounted to the bona fide offering of goods and services. (See Am. Intl Group Inc v Benjamin FA 944242 (Forum May 11, 2007) finding that the Respondent's use of a confusingly similar domain name to compete with the Complainant's business did not constitute a bona fide use of goods and services.)
The Respondent has not answered this Complaint or rebutted the prima facie case evidenced by the Complainant as presented herein.
As such the Panelist finds that the Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
In the opinion of the Panelist the use made of the Domain Name in relation to the Respondent’s site was confusing and disruptive in that visitors to the site might reasonably have believed that it was connected to or approved by the Complainant as it used the Complainant’s mark in its masthead for competing services. At the time of the registration of the Domain Name in 2023 the Complainant’s mark had an established reputation and the Panel holds in these circumstances it is more likely than not, being in the same business, the Respondent was aware of the Complainant, its rights, business and services and the Respondent has not responded to this Complaint to dispute this.
Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trade mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the web site or services on it likely to disrupt the business of the Complainant. See Asbury Auto Group Inc v Tex. Int'l Prop Assocs FA 958542 (Forum May 29, 2007) (finding that the respondent's use of the disputed domain name to compete with the complainant's business would likely lead to confusion amongst Internet users as to the sponsorship or affiliation of a competing business and was therefore evidence of bad faith and use).
As such, the Panelist believes that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith and has satisfied the third limb of the Policy under 4(b)(iii) and 4 (b)(iv).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <coyotetransporting.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Dawn Osborne, Panelist
Dated: August 23, 2023
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page