Schneider National, Inc. v. Zhichao Yang
Claim Number: FA2208002006591
Complainant is Schneider National, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Amanda L. DeFord of McGuireWoods LLP, Virginia, USA. Respondent is Zhichao Yang (“Respondent”), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <schneidrr.com>, registered with Sav.com, LLC.
Hon. Karl v. Fink (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on August 1, 2022; the Forum received payment on August 1, 2022.
On August 2, 2022, Sav.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <schneidrr.com> domain name is registered with Sav.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Sav.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Sav.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 August 3, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 23, 2022 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@schneidrr.com. Also on August 3, 2022, 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 August 24, 2022, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Hon. Karl V. Fink (Ret.) 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, Schneider National, Inc., offers transportation logistics services. Complainant has rights in the SCHNEIDER LOGISTICS mark through its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 5,453,502, registered on April 24, 2018). Respondent’s <schneidrr.com> domain name is virtually identical and confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark because it incorporates the SCHNEIDER LOGISTICS mark in its entirety, deletes the word “logistics”, replaces the letter “e” with the letter “r” to create a common misspelling, and adds the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent has no legitimate interests in the <schneidrr.com> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and Complainant has not authorized or licensed Respondent any rights in the SCHNEIDER mark. Additionally, Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the disputed domain name resolves to a page with competing third-party pay-per-click links. Respondent also uses the disputed domain name to engage in typosquatting.
Respondent registered and uses the <schneidrr.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent registered the disputed domain name in order to divert customers for commercial gain. Respondent registered the disputed domain name in order to participate in typosquatting. Finally, Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the SCHNEIDER LOGISTICS mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
For the reasons set forth below, based upon the uncontested allegations and evidence, the Panel finds that Complainant is entitled to the requested relief of transfer of the <schneidrr.com> domain name.
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 asserts rights in the SCHNEIDER LOGISTICS mark based upon the registration of the mark with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 5,453,502, registered on April 24, 2018). Registration of a mark with the USPTO is a valid showing of rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See DIRECTV, LLC v. The Pearline Group, FA 1818749 (Forum Dec. 30, 2018) (“Complainant’s ownership of a USPTO registration for DIRECTV demonstrate its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”). Since Complainant provides evidence of registration of the SCHNEIDER LOGISTICS mark with the USPTO, the Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the mark under Policy 4(a)(i).
Complainant argues Respondent’s <schneidrr.com> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s SCHNEIDER LGOSTICS mark. The addition of a gTLD, the removal of a descriptive term from a mark, and the replacement of a single letter fail to sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Huron Consulting Group Inc. v. David White, FA 1701395 (Forum Dec. 6, 2016) (finding that Respondent’s <huroninc.net> domain name is confusingly similar to the HURON CONSULTING GROUP and HURON HEALTHCARE marks under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) because in creating the domain name, the respondent contains the dominant portion of the marks and appends the term “inc” and a gTLD); see also Microsoft Corp. v. Domain Registration Philippines, FA 877979 (Forum Feb. 20, 2007) (finding the respondent’s <microssoft.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to the complainant’s MICROSOFT mark because they differ by only one letter, and “such a small alteration is insufficient to avoid a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)”). The disputed domain name contains the SCHNEIDER LOGISTICS mark in its entirety while deleting the descriptive term “logistics”, replacing the letter “e” with the letter “r” to create a common misspelling, and adding in the “.com” gTLD. The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant has proved this element.
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”). The Panel finds that Complainant has made a prima facie case.
Complainant contends that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <schneidrr.com> domain name since Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and Complainant has not authorized or licensed to Respondent any rights in the SCHNEIDER LOGISTICS mark. WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Fred Wallace, FA1506001626022 (Forum July 27, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <chevron-europe.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), as the WHOIS information named “Fred Wallace” as registrant of the disputed domain name). In addition, a lack of authorization to use a complainant’s mark may also indicate that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Google LLC v. Bhawana Chandel / Admission Virus, FA 1799694 (Forum Sept. 4, 2018) (concluding that Respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name where “the WHOIS of record identifies the Respondent as “Bhawana Chandel,” and no information in the record shows that Respondent was authorized to use Complainant’s mark in any way.”). The WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as “Zhichao Yang”. Complainant further asserts it has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use Complainant’s SCHEIDER LOGISTICS mark. The Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Complainant argues that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use as the disputed domain name instead resolves to a page displaying links related to the goods and services associated with Complainant and its competitors. Where the respondent uses a domain to redirect users to competing services, the Panel may find the respondent fails to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See CheapCaribbean.com, Inc. v. Moniker Privacy Services, FA1411001589962 (Forum Jan. 1, 2015) (“The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the <cheepcaribbean.com> name to promote links in competition with Complainant’s travel agency services does not fall within Policy ¶ 4(c)(i)’s bona fide offering of goods or services, nor does it amount to a legitimate noncommercial or fair use described in Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”). Complainant provides evidence of the disputed domain name resolving to a page displaying pay-per-click third party links. The Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).
Complainant argues that, because the domain incorporates Complainant’s mark and is nearly identical to Complainant’s own “schneider.com” website, replacing a single letter to make a typographical error, Respondent has engaged in typosquatting. Typosquatting demonstrates a lack of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Chegg Inc. v. yang qijin, FA1503001610050 (Forum Apr. 23, 2015) (“Users might mistakenly reach Respondent’s resolving website by misspelling Complainant’s mark. Taking advantage of Internet users’ typographical errors, known as typosquatting, demonstrates a respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).”). The <schneidrr.com> domain name replaces the letter “e” with the letter “r” in Complainant’s “schneider.com” website, which incorporates Complainant’s SCHNEIDER LOGISTICS mark. The Panel finds that Respondent has engaged in typosquatting and lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, per Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant has proved this element.
Complainant argues that Respondent registered and uses the <schneidrr.com> domain name in bad faith because Respondent attempts to attract Internet users to its competing website for commercial gain. Use of a disputed domain name to redirect consumers to pay-per-click hyperlinks to competing goods or services can be evidence of a bad faith attempt to attract users for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See American Council on Education and GED Testing Service LLC v. Anthony Williams, FA1760954 (Forum Jan. 8, 2018) (“Respondent’s hosting of links to Complainant’s competitors demonstrates bad faith registration and use of the <geddiploma.org> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)”). As previously noted, Complainant provides evidence of the disputed domain name resolving to a page displaying pay-per-click third party links. This is evidence that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Complainant argues that, because the domain includes only Complainant’s mark and is identical to Complainant’s own “schneider.com” domain while replacing letters to make a typographical error, Respondent has engaged in typosquatting and thus demonstrated bad faith registration and use. Typosquatting may in and of itself be considered evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See LifeLock, Inc. v. Adam Viener / ThunkTunk LLC, FA1409001579875 (Forum Oct. 28, 2014) (“As the Panel has noted above, at the conclusion of its findings under the first Policy element under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), the disputed domain name <lifelocl.com> differs from the LIFELOCK mark only by substituting the letter ‘L’ for the letter ‘K’ in the LOCK-portion of Complainant’s registered mark. The Panel finds this behavior amounts to typosquatting, and as such the Panel finds this to be evidence of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”). The <schneidrr.com> domain name is an example of typosquatting. Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name is evidence of bad faith, pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Complainant argues that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the SCHNEIDER LOGISTICS mark. The Panel may find that respondent had actual knowledge of complainant's mark and rights by looking at the respondent’s use of the mark, and therefore determine that respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Nat'l Patent Servs. Inc. v. Bean, FA 1071869 (Forum Nov. 1, 2007) ("[C]onstructive notice does not support a finding of bad faith registration."); see also Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent "actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name"). In this case, Complainant argues that Respondent's references to “trucking” and “shipping” and the use made of the domain name at the resolving website indicate that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark and rights. The Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Complainant has proved this element.
Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the <schneidrr.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Hon. Karl V. Fink (Ret.) Panelist
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page