DECISION

 

Leader LLC v. Mark / leader limousine

Claim Number: FA2505002156286

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Leader LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Adam Rehm of Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, Texas, USA. Respondent is Mark / leader limousine ("Respondent"), New York, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <leaderlimousine.com>, registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com.

 

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.

 

Héctor Ariel Manoff as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on May 19, 2025; Forum received payment on May 19, 2025.

 

On May 21, 2025, PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <leaderlimousine.com> domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com 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 May 22, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 11, 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@leaderlimousine.com. Also, on May 22, 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.

 

Having received no response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On June 12, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Héctor Ariel Manoff 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

1- Leader LLC is the owner of the LEADER trade name and trademark and has used it since 2001.

2- LEADER Limo Worldwide is a PAX-certified chauffeur company operating in over 1,000 cities worldwide.

3- LEADER Limo Worldwide was founded more than 25 years ago.

4- The company currently employs 60 full-time and part-time individuals working.

5- LEADER Limo Worldwide advertises the LEADER mark on its website https://www.leaderlimo.com/.

6- Complainant has common law rights developed through use of its LEADER Mark and owns a trademark registration for LEADER before the USPTO (U.S. Reg. No. 4,286,908) as from 2013. 

7- The disputed domain name <leaderlimousine.com> is identical to Complainant's mark, merely adding the generic top-level domain ("gTLD") ".com" and the generic term "LIMOUSINE."

8- Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the LEADERLIMOUSINE.COM domain name and is not known by it either.

9- The disputed domain name <leaderlimousine.com> was registered and used in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant, Leader LLC is a PAX-certified chauffeur company. Its trademark rights and use of the mark LEADER are prior to the date of registration of the disputed domain name <leaderlimousine.com>. Respondent registered and is using the domain name 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 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").

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The Panel finds that the disputed domain name <leaderlimousine.com> is nearly identical and confusingly similar to Complainant's LEADER marks, in which Complainant has rights. (Exhibit E).

 

The disputed domain name <leaderlimousine.com> incorporates Complainant's LEADER mark and adds the generic term "limousine" along with the generic top-level domain ("gTLD") ".COM".

 

The Panel finds that the term LEADER is a fanciful and arbitrary term in relation to transportation services and that it is clear that Respondent knew it belonged to Complainant. Respondent has just added a generic word which is related to the services identified by Complainant's trademark. The Panel finds that the domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark since the additional elements are not sufficiently distinctive. (See Microsoft Corporation v. Thong Tran Thanh, FA 1653187 (Forum Jan. 21, 2016) (determining that confusing similarity exists where [a disputed domain name] contains Complainant's entire mark and differs only by the addition of a generic or descriptive phrase and top-level domain, the differences between the domain name and its contained trademark are insufficient to differentiate one from the other for the purposes of the Policy); see also, Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognizable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element").

 

The Panel also points out that Complainant uses the domain name <leaderlimo.com> to offer its services with the trademark LEADER (Exhibit C).

 

The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical and confusingly similar to LEADER mark, in which Complainant has rights, under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Even though the disclosed registration information for the disputed domain name lists "leader limousine" as the registrant (Exhibit B) this Panel finds that it is an attempt to try to support the domain registration and impersonate Complainant.

 

According to Exhibit F when confirming a service Respondent's site states "Thank you for traveling with Orange County Limousine Service", which proves Respondent is not known by LEADER LIMOUSINE but Orange County Limousine Service.

 

It is clear that Respondent is not known by LEADER LIMOUSINE, since it is a well-known trademark that belongs to Complainant. (See Cummins Inc. v. Dennis Goebel, WIPO D2015-1064 ("Respondent is not using the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Rather, he is appropriating Complainant's well-known mark to lure consumers who may reach the mistaken conclusion that Respondent's business is somehow affiliated with, or endorsed by, Complainant.").  

 

The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use the LEADER mark. 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)").

 

Respondent has neither filed a response nor submitted evidence to prove that Respondent has any trademark rights in the disputed domain name.

 

The evidence submitted by Complainant shows that Respondent's use of the domain name is not a bona fide offering of goods. (Exhibit H and I). The disputed domain name is used to lead the consumers into confusion.

 

This Panel agrees with Complainant that Respondent is not using the domain name in connection with a legitimate noncommercial use or fair use under Policy 4(c)(iii).

 

Therefore, the Panel agrees that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and does not have legitimate interest under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant has proved trademark rights and use before the disputed domain name's date of registration (January 26, 2018, Exhibit B).

 

According to the evidence submitted by Complainant, trademark LEADER was granted in 2013 and the domain name <leaderlimo.com> was created on September 11, 2000 (Exhibit D).

 

The Panel finds that the registration of the domain name was done with Complainant's mark in mind since the domain name includes it along with words related to the services identified by Complainant (limousine). In addition, Complainant uses the <leaderlimo.com> domain name to promote its services and it includes a word almost identical to "limousine": "limo".

 

In the Panel's point of view the cited facts are sufficient evidence to support that the registration of the domain name was registered in bad faith.

 

As regards the use of the disputed domain name, this Panel also finds that it was done in bad faith. Complainant has submitted evidence (Annex I) to prove that the domain name was used to impersonate Complainant by using colour brown in Respondent's site along with an almost identical forms to submit an inquiry for an estimate (Exhibit I).

 

The Panel finds that the use of the domain name was done in bad faith since Respondent's site includes references to services identical to the ones provided by Complainant. (Exhibit I).

 

The Panel concludes that Respondent has the intention of creating an association with Complainant and its products.

 

This Panel concludes that Respondent has registered the domain name with the intent to attract and divert Internet users to the corresponding websites for its own benefit. See Carey Int'l, Inc. v. Kogan, FA 486191 (Forum July 29, 2005) ("[T]he Panel finds that Respondent is capitalizing on the confusing similarity of its domain names to benefit from the valuable goodwill that Complainant has established in its marks. Consequently, it is found that Respondent registered and used the domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).").

 

The Panel determines that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

        

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 <leaderlimousine.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

 

Héctor Ariel Manoff, Panelist

Dated: June 19, 2024