Hammel Companies, Inc. d/b/a Pitt Ohio and Pitt Ohio Express v. Ranaz / Rana Ahmad
Claim Number: FA2111001974757
Complainant is Hammel Companies, Inc. d/b/a Pitt Ohio and Pitt Ohio Express (“Complainant”), represented by Sherry Flax of Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr, LLP, Maryland, USA. Respondent is Ranaz / Rana Ahmad (“Respondent”), Pakistan.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <pittohiotracking.com>, registered with NameSilo, 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.
Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on November 29, 2021; the Forum received payment on November 29, 2021.
On November 29, 2021, NameSilo, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <pittohiotracking.com> domain name is registered with NameSilo, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameSilo, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameSilo, 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 December 7, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 27, 2021 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@pittohiotracking.com. Also on December 7, 2021, 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 January 4, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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 contends as follows:
Complainant, Hammel Companies, Inc. d/b/a Pitt Ohio and Pitt Ohio Express, provides interstate transportation of goods.
Complainant has rights in the PITT OHIO mark based upon registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).
The <pittohiotracking.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark because Respondent has incorporated the entire mark, eliminated spacing, and added the descriptive word “tracking” and the “.com” generic top level domain (“gTLD”) to form a domain name.
Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <pittohiotracking.com> domain because Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name. Additionally, Respondent fails to use the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use because the at-issue domain name addresses a webpage where Respondent attempts to pass itself off as affiliated with Complainant.
Respondent has registered and uses the <pittohiotracking.com> domain name in bad faith because Respondent offers the at-issue domain name for sale in excess of its out-of-pocket costs. Further, Respondent registered and uses the domain name in bad faith as the domain name attracts internet users to Respondent’s website for commercial gain by creating confusion regarding the sponsorship of the domain name and website.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has rights in the PITT OHIO trademark.
Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and had not been authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity.
Respondent registered the at‑issue domain name after Complainant acquired rights in the PITT OHIO trademark.
Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to pass itself off as Complainant and to address a website mimicking Complainant’s official website. Respondent attempted to sell the at-issue domain name to Complainant.
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 shows that it has a USPTO registration for its PITT OHIO trademark. Such registration is sufficient to demonstrate Complainant’s rights in the PITT OHIO mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Microsoft Corp. v. Burkes, FA 652743 (Forum Apr. 17, 2006) (“Complainant has established rights in the MICROSOFT mark through registration of the mark with the USPTO.”).
Respondent’s <pittohiotracking.com> domain name contains Complainant’s PITT OHIO trademark less its domain name impermissible space followed by the suggestive term “tracking” and with all followed by the top-level domain name, “.com.” The differences between Respondent’s domain name and Complainant’s trademark are insufficient to distinguish Respondent’s <pittohiotracking.com> domain name from the PITT OHIO trademark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent’s <pittohiotracking.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s PITT OHIO trademark. See Rockwell Automation v. Zhao Ke, FA 1760051 (Forum Jan. 2, 2018) (“The disputed domain name <rockwellautomation.co> corresponds to Complainant's registered ROCKWELL AUTOMATION mark, with the space omitted and the ".co" top-level domain appended thereto. These alterations do not distinguish the domain name from Complainant's mark for purposes of the Policy.”); see also, Ant Small and Micro Financial Services Group Co., Ltd. v. Ant Fin, FA 1759326 (Forum Jan. 2, 2018) (“Respondent’s <antfinancial-investorrelations.com> Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ANT FINANCIAL mark. It incorporates the mark entirely. It adds a hyphen, the descriptive terms “investor relations,” and the “.com” gTLD, but these additions are insufficient to distinguish the Domain name from complainant’s mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).
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. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).
Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of the at‑issue 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 <pittohiotracking.com> identifies the domain name’s registrant as “Ranaz / Rana Ahmad” and the record before the Panel contains no evidence showing that Respondent is commonly known by the <pittohiotracking.com> domain name or by PITT OHIO. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the <pittohiotracking.com> domain name for the purposes of 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);
Respondent uses <pittohiotracking.com> to pass itself off as Complainant. The website addressed by the at-issue domain name mimics Complainant’s official website in design and content. The website displays Complainant’s trademark and significant portions of Complainant’s website found at <pittohio.com> including its color scheme, photographs, and text. On opening the <pittohiotracking.com> website numerous advertisements appear for which Respondent’s presumably receives revenue. Certain links on Respondent’s website directly reference Complainant’s terminals and ultimately display hours of Complainant’s actual branch operations. Respondent’s use the of 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 pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Insomniac Holdings, LLC v. Mark Daniels, FA 1735969 (Forum July 15, 2017) (refusing to find rights and legitimate interests in a domain name on the part of a respondent when the disputed domain name “resolves to a website that Respondent has designed to mimic Complainant’s own in an attempt to pass itself off as Complainant”).
Given the forgoing, Complainant satisfies its initial burden and shows Respondent’s lack of rights and legitimate interests in the at-issue domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
The at-issue domain name was registered and used in bad faith. As discussed below without limitation, bad faith circumstances are present from which the Panel concludes that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
As mentioned above regarding rights and legitimate interests, Respondent uses the confusingly similar <pittohiotracking.com> domain name to address a website mimicking Complainant’s official website. Using the confusingly similar <pittohiotracking.com> domain name in such manner is disruptive to Complainant’s business and falsely indicates that there is a sanctioned relationship between Complainant and Respondent when there is no such relationship. Such use of the domain name thus demonstrates Respondent’s bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). See Artistic Pursuit LLC v. calcuttawebdevelopers.com, FA 894477 (Forum Mar. 8, 2007) (finding that the respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name, which displayed a website virtually identical to the complainant’s website, constituted bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)); see also Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum Dec. 27, 2017) (finding bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where “Respondent registered and uses the <lbittrex.com> domain name in bad faith by directing Internet users to a website that mimics Complainant’s own website in order to confuse users into believing that Respondent is Complainant, or is otherwise affiliated or associated with Complainant.”).
Moreover, after being contacted by Complainant Respondent demanded $20,000 from Complainant to transfer <pittohiotracking.com> and its website to Complainant while threatening that it was in negotiations to sell the domain name and website to one of Complainant’s competitors. Respondent’s excessive demand shows Respondent’s bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(i). See Deutsche Lufthansa AG v. Kenechukwu Okoli, FA 1821759 (Forum Jan. 13, 2019) (“The domain name’s website listed the domain name for sale for $9,150. Respondent also contacted Complainant directly to offer the domain name for sale. Doing so suggests bad faith registration and use of the <lufthansamiles.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(i).”).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <pittohiotracking.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: January 5, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page