DECISION
State Road & Tollway Authority v. Bungee / Leonardo JavierBarroso Falcon
Claim Number: FA2506002162500
PARTIES
Complainant is State Road & Tollway Authority ("Complainant"), represented by Katrina M. Quicker of Quicker Law, LLC, Georgia, USA. Respondent is Bungee / Leonardo JavierBarroso Falcon ("Respondent"), Peru.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <peachpassinvoice.com>, registered with NICENIC INTERNATIONAL GROUP CO., LIMITED.
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.
The Honorable Neil Anthony Brown KC as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 24, 2025; Forum received payment on June 24, 2025.
On June 25, 2025, NICENIC INTERNATIONAL GROUP CO., LIMITED confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <peachpassinvoice.com> domain name is registered with NICENIC INTERNATIONAL GROUP CO., LIMITED and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NICENIC INTERNATIONAL GROUP CO., LIMITED has verified that Respondent is bound by the NICENIC INTERNATIONAL GROUP CO., LIMITED 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 June 30, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 21, 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@peachpassinvoice.com. Also on June 30, 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 July 22, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed The Honorable Neil Anthony Brown 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 made the following contentions.
1. The Complainant is a state-level, independent authority created by the Georgia Central Assembly in 1953 to operate tolled transportation facilities within Georgia and to that end it launched in 2010 its PEACH PASS electronic tolling system.
2. The Complainant provides its goods and services under the trademark for PEACH PASS.
3. The Complainant acquired its registered trademark rights in the PEACH PASS trademark by its registration of that mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO"), registration number 4,074,608, registered on December 20, 2011 ("the PEACH PASS trademark").
4. The PEACH PASS trademark has attracted substantial goodwill and is uniquely associated with the Complainant's goods and services.
5. As well as its trademark, the Complainant has registered the <mypeachpass.com> domain name that it uses in its business and in particular for its website at www.mypeachpass.com, where it markets its goods and services under the PEACH PASS trademark.
6. The Respondent registered the <peachpassinvoice.com> domain name on August 20, 2024 ("the disputed domain name") well after the Complainant had established its aforesaid trademark rights in 2011.
7. The disputed domain name embodies, without the consent of the Complainant, the PEACH PASS trademark, and the addition of the generic word "invoice" and the generic Top Level Domain ".com".
8. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the PEACH PASS trademark.
9. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. That is so because:
(a) the Complainant has never given any licence, permission or authority to the Respondent to use the PEACH PASS trademark in a domain name or for any other purpose and there has never been any affiliation or relationship between the Complainant and the Respondent;
(b) the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii);
(c) the Respondent has not used the domain name for a bona fide offer of goods or services within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i);
(d) the Respondent has not used the disputed domain name for a legitimate, non-commercial or fair use within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii);
(e) the Respondent has caused the disputed domain name to resolve to an inactive website;
(f) the Complainant has and had at all material times all of the intellectual property and other rights in the PEACH PASS trademark; and
(g) there is no other ground on which it could conceivably be shown that the Respondent has a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.
10. The Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. That is so because:
(a) the Respondent's conduct in registering and using the domain name as aforesaid was calculated to impersonate the Complainant in furtherance of a scheme to commit fraud on potential customers of the Complainant;
(b) the Respondent's conduct in registering and using the domain name as aforesaid was calculated to generate confusion between the Complainant and the Respondent and their respective websites within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv);
(c) the Respondent's conduct in registering and using the domain name as aforesaid was calculated to pass the Respondent off as the Complainant, engage in phishing, obtain internet users' personal and financial information and redirect internet users to a website of the Respondent;
(d) at the time the Respondent registered the disputed domain name, it had actual knowledge of the Complainant, its business and its trademark which had been used by the Complainant for many years;
(e) the Respondent has not made any active use of the domain name; and
(f) all of the acts, facts, matters and circumstances to be revealed by the evidence will show that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.
The evidence will therefore establish that the Complainant has been able to make out all of the grounds it must establish and that it is entitled to the relief that it seeks.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
FINDINGS
2. The Complainant provides its goods and services under the trademark for PEACH PASS.
3. The Complainant acquired its registered trademark rights in the PEACH PASS trademark by its registration of that mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO"), registration number 4,074,608, registered on December 20, 2011 ("the PEACH PASS trademark").
4. The Respondent registered the <peachpassinvoice.com> domain name on August 20, 2024 ("the disputed domain name") well after the Complainant had established its aforesaid trademark rights in 2011.
5. The Respondent has caused the disputed domain name to be used to perpetrate a fraud on the Complainant and on internet users by attempting to induce them to pay on false invoices for the Complainant's services, infringes and tarnishes the Complainant's trademark, passes itself off as and impersonates the Complainant, phishes for personal and financial information from users, misleads internet users and seeks to disrupt the Complainant's business and generate confusion.
6. By reason of the matters aforesaid, and as established by the evidence, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the PEACH PASS trademark, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and the disputed domain name has been registered and used in bad faith.
7. Accordingly, the disputed domain name should be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.
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"). However, the Complainant has proved all of the elements that it must establish.
Identical and/or Confusingly Similar
The first question that arises is whether the Complainant has rights in a trademark or service mark on which it may rely. The evidence is that the Complainant provides its goods and services including the provision of tolled transportation services under the trademark for PEACH PASS. In particular, the evidence has established that the Complainant acquired its registered trademark rights in the PEACH PASS trademark by its registration of that mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO"), registration number 4,074,608, registered on December 20, 2011("the PEACH PASS trademark"). The aforesaid trademark has remained in current use and the Complainant is still its registered owner.
All of the aforesaid facts have been established by documentary evidence that the Panel has examined and finds to be in order.
The Complainant has thus established its trademark rights and hence its standing to bring this proceeding.
The next question that arises is whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's PEACH PASS trademark. The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the PEACH PASS trademark for the following reasons. The disputed domain name embodies, without the consent of the Complainant, the PEACH PASS trademark, with the addition of the word "invoice" and the generic Top Level Domain ".com". When a domain name includes a trademark, as in the present case, it is more likely than not that the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark. In the present case it is obviously so. Thus, internet users would read the domain name as invoking the PEACH PASS trademark and the well-known tolled transportation services offered under it by the Complainant, making the domain name similar to the trademark and confusingly so, because it raises the question whether the domain name is an official and genuine domain name of the Complainant or not. The addition of the word "invoice" strengthens the notion that the domain name invokes the Complainant and its well-established tolled transportation services conducted under the PEACH PASS trademark. That is because internet users would assume that it meant the provision of those services and the issuing of a legitimate invoice for payment for those services. The addition of the generic Top Level Domain ".com" is ignored in making the comparison between the domain name and the trademark because all domain names must have such an extension.
Applying these well-accepted principles, the Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the PEACH PASS trademark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The Complainant has thus made out the first of the three elements that it must establish under the Policy.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Panel finds on the evidence that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case that arises from the following considerations. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name on all of the grounds relied on by the Complainant, namely:
(a) the Complainant has never given any licence, permission or authority to the Respondent to use the PEACH PASS trademark in a domain name or for any other purpose and there has never been any affiliation or relationship between the Complainant and the Respondent; this ground has been made out because it could not be argued that the domain name was registered with any sort of consent by the Complainant; indeed, the totality of the evidence shows that the domain name has been registered for a purpose entirely inimical to the interests and the public obligations of the Complainant and, not to make too fine a point of it, this has been done to perpetrate a fraud on internet users and customers of the Complainant;
(b) the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii); there is no evidence that the Respondent is known by the domain name, commonly or at all and there is no evidence that it is known by any name other than its own;
(c) the Respondent has not used the domain name for a bona fide offer of goods or services within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i); the conduct of the Respondent in the use of the domain name could not conceivably be regarded as bona fide; it involves taking the Complainant's trademark and using it without permission, constructing a domain name that expressly states that it concerns the PEACH PASS trademark and services provided by the Complainant and the obvious intention to use it to imply that there is a legitimate invoice for which the user should respond to by paying it, when in fact this is a complete deception; this probability is not lessened by the fact that the domain name has not resolved to an active website but has used it to entice customers to hit on the link contained in a text message sent to them, whereupon they are redirect to a fraudulent website seeking payment, and designed to receive such payments; in addition, there is no doubt that the Respondent is holding the domain name and the fraudulent scheme to obtain payment on invoices it had no right; the Panel also agrees with the Complainant's assessment of the facts that the Respondent's intention has been "to pass off as an official website of the Complaint and (to) offer payment tools to collect money from users of Georgia toll roads"; moreover, the evidence is that the Complainant is the only authorized toll authority permitted to send invoices and collect funds from users of Georgia highways and toll roads;
(d) the Respondent has not used the disputed domain name for a legitimate, noncomnmercial or fair use within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii); it is apparent from the evidence that the use of the domain name is not legitimate, because it is entirely illegitimate, not noncommercial, because it is being perpetrated to make money, and not fair either to the Complainant, its customers or internet users in general, because it is dishonest;
(e) the Respondent has caused the disputed domain name to resolve to an inactive website; that has already been established and shows that the Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in the domain name;
(f) the Complainant has and has had at all material times owned all of the intellectual property and other rights in the PEACH PASS trademark; the evidence is that the Respondent has no rights in a trademark or other form of intellectual property relating to PEACH PASS; and
(g) there is no other ground on which it could conceivably be shown that the Respondent has a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.
The Complainant has thus made out a persuasive and detailed case on the evidence for all of the grounds it relies on to show that the Respondent does not have a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.
All of these matters make out the prima facie case against the Respondent. The Respondent has not filed a Response and is in default and has thus not rebutted the prima facie case against it.
The Complainant has therefore made out the second of the three elements it must establish under the Policy.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
In view of the evidence discussed above, which is equally as applicable to bad faith as it is to rights and legitimate interests and which it is not necessary to repeat here, it is clear that the Complainant has made out all of the grounds relied on. The Respondent has clearly been motivated by bad faith in the registration of the domain name and has continued in that conduct after its registration; the registration was clearly an attempt by the Respondent to use the Complainant's trademark improperly and to solicit users to pay invoices which they were not obliged to pay, and to give the false impression that they were genuine invoices of the Complainant, which was deceptive; it is equally clear from the evidence that the Respondent has used the domain name in bad faith in the deception of potential users, amply demonstrated by the evidence referred to above. In particular, it is clear from the evidence that, as the Complainant has submitted:
(a) the Respondent's conduct in registering and using the domain name as aforesaid was calculated to impersonate the Complainant in furtherance of a scheme to commit fraud on customers of the Complainant; clearly, the Respondent has embarked on a scheme designed to give the false impression that the aforesaid alleged invoices were official invoices of the Complainant, which they were not and that the Respondent was obliged to pay them, which they also were not; indeed, the evidence is that the Complainant does not make demands for toll fees by text message which is how the attempted fraud in this case was instigated, so the whole scheme was false from the beginning;
(b) the Respondent's conduct in registering and using the domain name as aforesaid was calculated to generate confusion between the Complainant and the Respondent and their respective websites within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv); equally clearly, the Respondent's intention was to create the illusion that the Respondent was the Complainant and that the invoices referred to were official invoices of the Complainant which should be paid and to obtain money from users of the Complainant's tolls which they were not obliged to pay;
(c) the Respondent's conduct in registering and using the domain name as aforesaid was calculated to pass the Respondent off as the Complainant, engage in phishing, obtain internet users' personal and financial information and redirect internet users to an unauthorized website of the Respondent; pivotal to the Respondent's scheme was to engender the notion that the Respondent was the Complainant and that it was entitled to issue invoices to potential users of the Complainant's tolls that should be paid, which they were not obliged to pay as they were deceptive; in the course of that subterfuge the scheme was also used to attempt to obtain personal and financial information by phishing;
(d) at the time the Respondent registered the disputed domain name, it had actual knowledge of the Complainant, its business and its trademark which had been used by the Complainant for many years; the Respondent must have had such actual knowledge to enable it to concoct the subterfuge, of which the Complainant's trademark and the domain name incorporating it were essential features;
(e) the Respondent has not made any active use of the domain name; this is shown by Exhibit 10 which shows that the domain name resolves to an error message stating "Hmmm... can't reach this page", indicating an inactive website; and
(f) all of the acts, facts, matters and circumstances revealed by the evidence have shown that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.
Finally, in addition to the specific provisions of the Policy and having regard to the totality of the evidence, the Panel finds that, in view of the Respondent's registration of the disputed domain name using the PEACH PASS trademark and in view of the conduct of the Respondent, as shown by all of the available evidence, the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith within the generally accepted meaning of that expression. It is clear that, from the beginning, the Respondent set about targeting the Complainant, its customers and internet users in general, impersonated and passed itself off as the Complainant, infringed and tarnished the Complainant's trademark, and actively sought to mislead internet users to believe that the invoices referred to in the text messages sent out by the Respondent were official invoices of the Complainant, which they were not.
The Complainant has thus made out the third of the three elements that it must establish.
The Complainant has presented a detailed and persuasive case consisting of evidence that has established all of the constituent elements that must be proved under the UDRP. The Complainant has also cited numerous prior UDRP decisions that support all of its contentions.
The Complainant has therefore established all of the elements that it must show under the Policy and it is entitled to the relief it seeks, namely transfer of the disputed domain name.
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 <peachpassinvoice.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
The Honorable Neil Anthony Brown KC,
Panelist
Dated: July 23, 2025
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page