Burris Holdings, Inc. v. Gregory Burris Jr / burris logistics
Claim Number: FA2108001958771
Complainant is Burris Holdings, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Kate Sherlock of Archer & Greiner, PC, New Jersey, USA. Respondent is Gregory Burris Jr / burris logistics (“Respondent”), Alabama, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <burris4logistics.com>, registered with Wix.com Ltd..
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.
Richard Hill as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on August 10, 2021; the Forum received payment on August 10, 2021.
On August 11, 2021, Wix.com Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <burris4logistics.com> domain name is registered with Wix.com Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Wix.com Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Wix.com Ltd. 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 17, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 7, 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@burris4logistics.com. Also on August 17, 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 September 13, 2021, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Richard Hill 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 states that it provides logistic services, including warehousing services; rental of warehouse space; cold storage services; transportation by truck, storage and delivery of refrigerated and frozen foods. Complainant has rights in the BURRIS LOGISTICS mark based on its registration of the mark in the United States in 2011.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its mark since it wholly incorporates the mark, merely adding the number “4” between the words “Burris” and “Logistics” and the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
According to Complainant, Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because Complainant has not licensed or permitted Respondent to use the BURRIS LOGISTICS mark. Additionally, Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor for any legitimate noncommercial or fair use because Respondent uses the disputed domain name to attract users to its own website, which advertises general consulting services in competition with Complainant’s business. Furthermore, Complainant argues that Respondent is attempting a phishing scheme using the handle @burris4logistics on Facebook and the Telegram App.
Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith because Respondent takes advantage of the goodwill associated with Complainant’s mark in order to divert users to the website under the disputed domain name, where Respondent advertises competing services. Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the BURRIS LOGISTICS mark based on Complainant’s prior registration of use of the mark and the fame of Complainant’s mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has rights in the mark BURRIS LOGISTICS dating back to 2011 and uses it to provide logistic services.
The disputed domain name was registered in 2020.
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.
The resolving website purports to promote services that are not related to those of Complainant, nor to logistic services.
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”).
The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s mark in its entirety, merely adding the number “4” between the words “Burris” and “Logistics”, and adding and the gTLD “.com.” Adding a number and the gTLD “.com” to the complainant’s mark does not negate confusing similarity. See Novartis AG v. boggs, william, FA 1570988 (Forum Aug. 25, 2014) (finding that the <freshlook2.com> domain name was confusingly similar to the complainant’s FRESHLOOK mark because the domain name contained the mark in its entirety and merely added the number “2”); see also Home Depot Product Authority, LLC v. Angelo Kioussis, FA 1784554 (Forum June 4, 2018) (“The domain name contains the mark in its entirety, with only the addition of the generic letters ‘sb’ and the digits ‘2018,’ plus the generic Top Level Domain (“gTLD”) ‘.com.’ These alterations of the mark, made in forming the domain name, do not save it from the realm of confusing similarity under the standards of the Policy.”). Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant has not licensed or permitted Respondent to use its BURRIS LOGISTICS mark. Absent a response, WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is 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). Where the WHOIS is related to the disputed domain name, the Panel may still find the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name if the respondent lacks authorization to use the complainant’s mark and the respondent fails to provide affirmative evidence in support of its identity. See Ripple Labs Inc. v. Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund, FA 1790949 (Forum July 9, 2018) (finding that, although the respondent listed itself as “Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund” in the WHOIS contact information, it did not provide any affirmative evidence to support this identity; combined with the fact that the complainant claimed it did not authorize the respondent to use the mark, the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name); see also Indeed, Inc. v. Ankit Bhardwaj / Recruiter, FA 1739470 (Forum Aug. 3, 2017) (”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.”). Here, the WHOIS information identifies “Gregory Burris Jr / burris logistics” as the registrant of the domain name, but Respondent provides no affirmative evidence in support of this identity and no evidence in the record suggests Respondent is authorized to use the BURRIS LOGISTICS mark; further, the resolving website does not appear to offer logistic services. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Complainant alleges that the resolving website offers services that compete with those of Complainant, but presents no evidence to support that allegation. As noted above, the Panel need not take into account allegations that are not supported by evidence. See also by analogy Chris Pearson v. Domain Admin / Automattic, Inc., FA 1613723 (Forum July 3, 2015) (finding that the complainant could not establish the respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith because it failed to present evidence that would support such a holding).
According to paragraph 4.8 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0”), a Panel may conduct limited factual research regarding disputed domain names:
Noting in particular the general powers of a panel articulated inter alia in paragraphs 10 and 12 of the UDRP Rules, it has been accepted that a panel may undertake limited factual research into matters of public record if it would consider such information useful to assessing the case merits and reaching a decision.
This may include visiting the website linked to the disputed domain name in order to obtain more information about the respondent or its use of the domain name, consulting historical resources such as the Internet Archive (www.archive.org) in order to obtain an indication of how a domain name may have been used in the relevant past, reviewing dictionaries or encyclopedias (e.g., Wikipedia), or accessing trademark registration databases.
The Panel has consulted the resolving website and finds that it does not offer services that compete with those of Complainant. Instead, the resolving website purports to offer consulting services not related to Complainant’s business, nor to logistic services. Use of a domain name to redirect users to unrelated third-party sites (whether or not they compete with Complainant) is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Constellation Wines U.S., Inc. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 948436 (Forum May 8, 2007) (finding that the respondent had no rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or 4(c)(iii) by using the disputed domain name to operate a website featuring links to goods and services unrelated to the complainant). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not using the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or 4(c)(iii). And the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name was used in a phishing scheme. To support this allegation, Complainant provides evidence showing that “burris4logistics” was used as a channel username in the Telegram app. A Telegram app username is not a domain name. Complainant does not provide any evidence of use of the disputed domain name in emails. Thus the Panel finds that Complainant has failed to satisfy its burden of proving that the disputed domain name was used in a phishing scheme, and it will not further discuss this allegation.
Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant’s contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant’s mark. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent’s failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain name.
Indeed, as already noted, the resolving website purports to offer services that are not related to logistic services. This is sufficient to find bad faith registration and use. See Bank of Am. Fork v. Shen, FA 699645 (Forum June 11, 2006) (holding that the respondent’s previous use of the <bankofamericanfork.com> domain name to maintain a web directory was evidence of bad faith because the respondent presumably commercially benefited by receiving click-through fees for diverting Internet users to unrelated third-party websites); see also PopSockets LLC v. san mao, FA 1740903 (Forum Aug. 27, 2017) (finding disruption of a complainant’s business which was not directly commercial competitive behavior was nonetheless sufficient to establish bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)); see also Dovetail Ventures, LLC v. Klayton Thorpe, FA1506001625786 (Forum Aug. 2, 2015) (holding that the respondent had acted in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), where it used the disputed domain name to host a variety of hyperlinks, unrelated to the complainant’s business, through which the respondent presumably commercially gained). Thus, the Panel finds bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and/or (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 <burris4logistics.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: September 13, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page