DECISION

 

XPO Logistics, Inc. v. Bitcoin Pete

Claim Number: FA2403002090738

 

PARTIES

Complainant is XPO Logistics, Inc. ("Complainant"), United States, represented by Georges Nahitchevansky of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, United States. Respondent is Bitcoin Pete ("Respondent"), Cameroon.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <xpoprologistics.com>, registered with NameSilo, LLC.

 

PANEL

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.

 

David E. Sorkin as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on March 27, 2024; Forum received payment on March 27, 2024.

 

On March 28, 2024, NameSilo, LLC confirmed by email to Forum that the <xpoprologistics.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 March 29, 2024, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 18, 2024 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@xpoprologistics.com. Also on March 29, 2024, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email 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 April 19, 2024, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed David E. Sorkin 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant is a global provider of transportation and logistics solutions. Complainant ranked 190th on the Fortune 500 list in 2021; it currently is the second largest freight broker worldwide and ranks among the top three LTL (Less-Than-Truckload) providers in North America. Complainant uses XPO, XPO LOGISTICS, and other XPO formative marks in connection with its services. Complainant owns trademark registrations for XPO and XPO LOGISTICS in standard character form in the United States and many other jurisdictions throughout the world, and a United States registration for XPO LOGISTICS in stylized form.

 

The disputed domain name <xpoprologistics.com> was registered in April 2023. The name is registered in the name of a privacy registration service on behalf of Respondent. The domain name is being used for a website entitled "XPO Logistics." The website includes numerous references to "XPO Logistics" and displays a logo corresponding to the XPO portion of Complainant's XPO LOGISTICS stylized mark; it also includes text that describes services offered by Complainant. Complainant alleges that Respondent is using the website to impersonate Complainant as part of a fraudulent scheme, likely to obtain package tracking information, payments, and information from Complainant's customers. Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name, has no relationship with Complainant, and is not licensed or otherwise permitted to use Complainant's mark.

 

Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <xpoprologistics.com> is confusingly similar to its XPO and XPO LOGISTICS marks; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

DISCUSSION

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 Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, § 4.3 (3d ed. 2017), available at http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (dismissing complaint where complainant failed to "produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations").

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The disputed domain name <xpoprologistics.com> incorporates Complainant's registered XPO LOGISTICS trademark, omitting the space and adding the generic term "pro" and the ".com" top-level domain. These alterations do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., XPO Logistics, Inc. v. Ayuk Clovis, FA 2015788 (Forum Nov. 11, 2022) (finding <xpologisticslimited.com> confusingly similar to XPO LOGISTICS); XPO Logistics, Inc. v. FakeBills / Michael Mbah, FA 2000464 (Forum July 12, 2022) (finding <xpofreightlogistics.com> confusingly similar to XPO and XPO LOGISTICS); Coinbase, Inc. v. Jan Everno, FA 1983493 (Forum Mar. 11, 2022) (finding <procoinbase.com> confusingly similar to COINBASE). The Panel considers the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Under the Policy, the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc. v. Entertainment Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).

 

The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's registered mark without authorization. Its sole apparent use has been for a website that attempts to pass off as Complainant for what the Panel infers to be fraudulent purposes. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., XPO Logistics, Inc. v. Ayuk Clovis, supra (finding lack of rights or interests in similar circumstances); XPO Logistics, Inc. v. FakeBills / Michael Mbah, supra (same).

 

Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of such rights or interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered the disputed domain name "primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor." Under paragraph 4(b)(iv), bad faith may be shown by evidence that "by using the domain name, [Respondent] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent's] web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [Respondent's] web site or location or of a product or service on [Respondent's] web site or location."

 

Respondent used a privacy registration service and what appears to be at least partially fictitious underlying registration information to register a domain name incorporating Complainant's mark, and is using the domain name to pass off as Complainant for what the Panel infers to be fraudulent purposes. Such conduct is indicative of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See, e.g., XPO Logistics, Inc. v. Ayuk Clovis, supra (finding bad faith registration and use in similar circumstances); XPO Logistics, Inc. v. FakeBills / Michael Mbah, supra (same). The Panel so finds.

 

DECISION

Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <xpoprologistics.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

David E. Sorkin, Panelist

Dated: April 19, 2024