DECISION

 

C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. v. Luke Petty / Ervl

Claim Number: FA2503002143055

 

PARTIES

Complainant is C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by John P. Olson of Merchant & Gould, P.C., New York, USA. Respondent is Luke Petty / Ervl ("Respondent"), represented by Christopher J. Falkowski of Falkowski PLLC, Michigan, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME 

The domain name at issue is <freightquotecalculator.com> (the "Domain Name"), registered with NameCheap, Inc.

 

PANEL

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.

 

Nathalie Dreyfus as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on March 3, 2025; Forum received payment on March 3, 2025. Complainant amended the Complaint on March 4, 2025.

 

On March 4, 2025, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <freightquotecalculator.com> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, Inc. 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 5, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 25, 2025 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@freightquotecalculator.com. Also on March 5, 2025, 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.

 

A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on March 25, 2025.

 

On March 26, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Nathalie Dreyfus 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

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

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A.       Complainant

The Complainant's contentions can be resumed as follows:

 

The Complainant, C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. ("C.H. Robinson"), specialized in logistics and supply chain services, owns the U.S. federal trademarks FREIGHTQUOTE and FREIGHTQUOTE.COM ("FREIGHTQUOTE Trademarks"), used in connection with its freight brokerage and information management services. The Complainant seeks the transfer of the Domain Name.

 

The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademarks, incorporating the dominant portion of the FREIGHTQUOTE Trademarks, thus creating a likelihood of consumer confusion. The website associated with the Domain Name offers competing services, further amplifying this confusion.

 

The Respondent has no legitimate interest in the Domain Name, as it has no permission to use the FREIGHTQUOTE Trademarks and is not commonly known by the name. The Respondent's registration and use of the Domain Name aim solely to divert traffic from the Complainant's website.

 

The Complainant asserts that the Respondent registered the Domain Name with knowledge of the FREIGHTQUOTE Trademarks and is using it in bad faith to attract consumers for commercial gain by creating confusion.

 

B. Respondent

The Respondent's contentions can be resumed as follows:

 

The Respondent, Luke Petty, acting on behalf of STB Freight Brokers, Inc., argues that the Complaint should be denied because the Complainant fails to meet any of the three elements required to have the Domain Name transferred.

 

First, the Respondent contends that the Domain Name is not confusingly similar to the Complainant's FREIGHTQUOTE Trademarks. The addition of the descriptive term "calculator" distinguishes the domain, and the trademarks themselves are composed of common, generic terms widely used in the freight industry. According to the Respondent, such weak trademarks are entitled only to narrow protection, which does not extend to the Domain Name.

 

Second, the Respondent claims legitimate rights in the Domain Name, as it is used in connection with a bona fide business offering AI-powered freight quote services. The Domain Name was registered to accurately describe the services provided, not to trade on the Complainant's goodwill. STB Freight Brokers, Inc. has operated the website in good faith and did not seek to trademark the Domain Name, viewing it as descriptive and generic.

 

Third, the Respondent denies any bad faith. The Domain Name was registered without knowledge of the Complainant's trademarks and has not been used to disrupt the Complainant's business or mislead consumers. The Respondent maintains that the Complaint lacks evidence of any intent to confuse users or capitalize on the Complainant's reputation.

 

FINDINGS

The Domain Name was registered on August 12, 2024 by Mr. Luke Petty, as COO of the Ervl Organization.

 

The Complainant, C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. owns the following United States trademarks:

 

-       FREIGHTQUOTE N° 3185806 registered on December 19, 2006 in class 35 and 39 and includes services such as "freight brokerage";

-       FREIGHTQUOTE.COM N° 3185852 registered on December 19, 2006 in class 39 and includes services such as "brokerage of freight".

 

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.

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the FREIGHTQUOTE and FREIGHTQUOTE.COM trademarks based on the registration certificates submitted, showing U.S. federal trademark registrations dating back to 2006.

 

The Panel further finds that the Domain Name <freightquotecalculator.com> is confusingly similar to the Complainant's FREIGHTQUOTE trademarks. Indeed, the domain name reproduces in its entirety the Complainant prior trademark rights "FREIGHTQUOTE" with the mere addition of a generic word "calculator".

 

The addition of the descriptive term "calculator" does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the Policy. Indeed, it is well established that the addition of generic or descriptive terms to a trademark does not avoid a finding of confusing similarity when the trademark remains recognizable within the domain name. See Ant Small and Micro Financial Services Group Co., Ltd. v. Ant Fin, FA1711001759326 (Forum Jan. 2, 2018).

 

The test of confusing similarity under the Policy is confined to a comparison of the disputed Domain Name and the trademarks alone, independent of the other marketing and use factors usually considered in trademark infringement or unfair competition cases. Thus, the content of the Respondents' website is irrelevant to this issue. See Wasteland Inc. v. Monica Dimperio / The MidWasteland, FA2501002134687 (Forum Feb. 13, 2025).

 

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established the first element of the Policy.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy lists three circumstances in particular, without limitation, that demonstrate rights or legitimate interest of a domain name registrant to a domain name, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy:

 

(i)         before any notice of the dispute, the Respondent's use of, or demonstrable preparations to use the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services;  or

(ii)        the Respondent, as an individual, business, or other organization, has been commonly known by the domain name, even if no trademark or service mark rights have been acquired;  or

(iii)       the Respondent is making a legitimate non‑commercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.

 

The Complainant's assertion that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name establishes a prima facie case under the Policy.  Once a prima facie case has been established, the burden shifts to Respondent to demonstrate that it does have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy 4(c).

 

Under paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy, the Respondent will have rights to or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name if, before any notice of the dispute, it had used or made demonstrable preparations to use the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.

 

The Respondent registered a combination of dictionary terms as a domain name, and used the Domain Name for a purpose related to those terms, i.e., to provide freight brokerage services. While the Respondent's website was functional at the time of the Complainant's notice, the Respondent has not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the business conducted via the Domain Name was bona fide or significant prior to the notice. The website's limited functionality or lack of a clear, established business presence before the dispute weakens the claim of bona fide use under Policy 4(c)(i).

 

There is no evidence that suggests the Respondent is commonly known by the Domain Name pursuant to Policy 4(c)(ii). Respondent is known to this Panel only as Luke Petty. Indeed, the Panel finds that the Respondent's proof that the domain name was registered for the STB Freight, Inc., is not conclusive, as no legal document was provided to substantiate that the Respondent is indeed working for the company or that an assignment or license agreement regarding the disputed domain name was concluded between the Respondent and STB Freight Inc.

 

As established by the Complainant, the Respondent's use is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy 4(c)(iii), because Respondent's website is commercial and offers similar services as the Complainant. Indeed, the Panel finds that using another's mark to resolve to a website that offers products or services in competition with a Complainant's business is not using the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Learneo, Inc. v. badr choukry,  FA2310002064446 (Forum Oct. 27, 2023).

 

Additionally, the Panel finds that the Respondent does not own any right on the FREIGHTQUOTE Trademarks and the Complainant has never authorized or permitted the Respondent to use the FREIGHTQUOTE Trademarks or use it to register any domain name consisting of the FREIGHTQUOTE trademarks.

 

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

The four illustrative circumstances set out in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy as evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) are not exclusive.

 

The circumstances set out above in relation to the second element satisfy the Panel that Respondent was fully aware of Complainants' FREIGHTQUOTE trademarks when Respondent registered the <freightquotecalculator.com> domain name and that Respondent registered the domain name in bad faith.

 

By registering and using the confusingly similar domain name to attract Internet users to its website, where it purports to offer services similar or identical to those offered by Complainant, Respondent is using the confusingly similar domain name to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its web site by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of its web site. See G.D. Searle & Co. v. James Mahony, FA0204000112559 (Forum June 12, 2002) .

 

For all reasons mentioned above, the Panel concludes that the Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith.

 

DECISION

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

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <freightquotecalculator.com> Domain Name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Nathalie Dreyfus, Panelist

Dated: April 8, 2025