DECISION

 

Slade Shipping, Inc. DBA Slade Global v. Johnny Loh / Nex Venture

Claim Number: FA2507002164174

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Slade Shipping, Inc. DBA Slade Global ("Complainant"), represented by Jacob Guidry, Texas, USA. Respondent is Nex Venture / Slade Shipping Far East Pte. Ltd. ("Respondent"), represented by David Llewelyn and Co LLC, Advocates & Solicitors, Singapore.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <sladeglobal.com>, registered with DNC Holdings, 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 July 3, 2025; Forum received payment on July 3, 2025.

 

On July 8, 2025, DNC Holdings, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <sladeglobal.com> domain name is registered with DNC Holdings, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. DNC Holdings, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the DNC Holdings, 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 July 8, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 1, 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@sladeglobal.com. Also on July 8, 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 August 1, 2025.

 

On August 12, 2025, pursuant to Parties' 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

Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name <sladeglobal.com> is confusingly similar to its SLADE and SLADE GLOBAL marks. It claims rights through longstanding use of "Slade Global" as a trade name since the early 2010s, in addition to its registered trademarks. According to Complainant, the domain name incorporates its core SLADE mark in its entirety, with the addition of the descriptive term "global," which does not prevent confusion but instead reinforces the association with its brand identity. Complainant argues that the domain name is identical to its trade name and public-facing identity used in business correspondence, contracts, proposals, and online branding.

Complainant further contends that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. While the initial use of "Slade Global" occurred within a collaborative international structure, Complainant states that this arrangement has since been dissolved. Respondent allegedly assumed exclusive control of the domain name without authorization and now uses it to represent an entity not approved by Complainant. Complainant argues that Respondent reproduces its branding and materials, creating instances of confusion and identity impersonation through email accounts connected to the disputed domain. Complainant adds that Respondent is not commonly known by "Slade Global" and has never been authorized to use the domain in its current form.

Finally, Complainant alleges that the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. It claims that following the dissolution of the international collaboration, Respondent took over the domain name without authorization, while maintaining the misleading appearance of continuity with Complainant's brand. According to Complainant, the <sladeglobal.com> website reproduces its history, structure, services, and branding, thereby confusing third parties. It further asserts that the domain has been used in email-based impersonation, including by issuing instructions to business partners under the address erik.brongers@sladeglobal.com, giving the false impression of Complainant's involvement in unauthorized transactions.

B. Respondent

Respondent disputes Complainant's contentions. It asserts that the disputed domain name is not confusingly similar to Complainant's marks and that Complainant holds no registered rights in SLADE GLOBAL. Respondent states that Nex Venture, an IT consultancy, registered the domain name in 2014 on behalf of Slade Shipping Far East Pte. Ltd., a client, and that the beneficial ownership has always rested with members of the Slade Alliance. Respondent contends that the SLADE mark was filed and registered by its parent company in March 2022, prior to Complainant's filings, and that both SLADE and SLADE GLOBAL have been used collectively by independent logistics companies under the Alliance name.

Respondent further argues that it has rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. It states that the registration was undertaken with the consent of all alliance members, including Complainant, and that the domain name was used in connection with their joint commercial activities. According to Respondent, the <sladeglobal.com> domain appeared in the email signatures of all alliance members, and Complainant itself requested an @sladeglobal.com email address. Respondent notes that the allegation of misleading use is unfounded, as the website was deactivated prior to the filing of the Complaint following a DMCA notice. Before deactivation, the site allegedly displayed full contact details of all alliance members, including Complainant's, showing that its use was collective and authorized.

Respondent also denies that the domain was registered or used in bad faith. It argues that the Alliance has operated under a common name since 2014, without any formal contract, and that disagreements only arose after Complainant proposed centralizing control in 2024, which several members rejected. Respondent claims that Complainant subsequently initiated multiple actions—including trademark filings, cancellations, oppositions, and this UDRP—while omitting or distorting key facts. With respect to the allegations concerning specific individuals such as Ms. Jessica Thanavastien and Mr. Erik Brongers, Respondent maintains that these persons were not its employees and that issuance of @sladeglobal.com email addresses was handled by the employing alliance members.

FINDINGS

The Panel finds that Complainant has failed to establish all three elements required under the Policy. The Panel further finds that the Complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.

 

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

Complainant asserts rights in the SLADE mark based on its registrations with multiple trademark offices, including the EUIPO (registration no. 019084833, registered April 18, 2025), as well as its long-standing use in international freight forwarding and related services. Complainant also relies on its DBA "Slade Global," publicly used as a trade name and brand identity since the early 2010s.

The disputed domain name <sladeglobal.com> incorporates Complainant's SLADE mark in its entirety and merely adds the descriptive term "global." Prior UDRP panels have consistently held that the mere addition of a descriptive or geographic term to a complainant's mark does not avoid a finding of confusing similarity. See Ant Small and Micro Financial Services Group Co., Ltd. v. Ant Fin, FA 1759326 (Forum Jan. 2, 2018) (finding <antfinancial-investorrelations.com> confusingly similar to ANT FINANCIAL mark). See also Microsoft Corporation v. Thong Tran Thanh, FA 1653187 (Forum Jan. 21, 2016) (holding that adding a generic term to a well-known mark did not prevent a finding of confusing similarity).

In this case, the addition of "global" reinforces rather than diminishes the association with Complainant's trade name SLADE GLOBAL creating a direct link in the minds of consumers between the disputed domain name and Complainant's established brand identity.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Panel notes Complainant's assertion that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, alleging that it was managed without Complainant's consent and used to mislead customers and partners into believing they were dealing with Complainant or its affiliates.

Respondent, however, has demonstrated that the disputed domain name was registered and used within the framework of an international alliance of which Complainant was a member. Evidence shows that all alliance members, including Complainant, used the <sladeglobal.com> domain in their email communications and that Complainant itself requested use of an @sladeglobal.com email address. This evidence indicates that the domain name was not appropriated by Respondent in a vacuum, but rather formed part of a cooperative and bona fide enterprise in which Complainant knowingly participated.

Panels have consistently found that use of a disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide business relationship or cooperative venture may confer rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See General Machine Products Company, Inc. v. Prime Domains, FA 92531 (Forum Mar. 16, 2000) (finding respondent's use of a disputed domain name in connection with its commercial activities to be a legitimate interest where no evidence of abusive intent was shown). Similarly, in Strum v. Nordic Net Exchange AB, FA 102843 (Forum Jan. 17, 2002), the panel noted that "a respondent may establish rights or legitimate interests where the domain name is demonstrably used in connection with a bona fide cooperative arrangement."

On this record, the Panel finds that Respondent has established that it was making a legitimate use of the disputed domain name in connection with bona fide alliance activity.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

The Panel recalls that, under the Policy, Complainant must cumulatively establish all three elements set forth in paragraph 4(a). Failure to prove any one of these elements necessarily results in dismissal of the Complaint. With respect to the third element, bad faith cannot be presumed; it must be affirmatively demonstrated with specific and persuasive evidence.

On the record before it, however, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name <sladeglobal.com> was registered and used in the context of a cooperative relationship. Respondent has provided compelling evidence that the registration was undertaken with the knowledge and consent whether express or implied of all alliance members, including Complainant. Since 2014, the designation "Slade Global" has served as a collective identifier to reflect the group's international presence.

The record further shows that Complainant itself made use of the disputed domain name in its professional communications, including through an @sladeglobal.com email address. Such direct use by Complainant is inconsistent with the allegation that Respondent registered and used the domain name with the intent to deceive or to deprive Complainant of its rights.

UDRP panels have consistently held that when a domain name is used within the framework of a prior business relationship or partnership, a finding of bad faith cannot stand absent clear evidence of intentional abuse. See General Machine Products Company, Inc. v. Prime Domains, FA 92531 (Forum Mar. 16, 2000), where the panel rejected a finding of bad faith on the basis that respondent had a plausible commercial connection to the disputed domain name. Numerous panels have also emphasized that the UDRP was not designed to adjudicate contractual or complex commercial disputes, but rather to address clear cases of cybersquatting.

In the present case, there is no indication that Respondent sought to exploit Complainant's mark for illegitimate gain, nor that Respondent engaged in conduct designed to intentionally confuse or mislead consumers. To the contrary, the evidence demonstrates collective, transparent, and consistent use of the domain name in furtherance of the alliance's operations, serving as a legitimate communication tool rather than an instrument of deception or misappropriation.

Accordingly, the Panel concludes that Complainant has failed to establish that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKING

Reverse Domain Name Hijacking ("RDNH") is defined in Rule 1 as "using the Policy in bad faith to attempt to deprive a registered domain-name holder of a domain name". Rule 15(e) provides, in part:

 

"If after considering the submissions the Panel finds that the complaint was brought in bad faith, for example in an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking or was brought primarily to harass the domain-name holder, the Panel shall declare in its decision that the complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding."

The Panel notes that the disputed domain name was registered in 2014, a decade before Complainant acquired any trademark rights in SLADE or adopted SLADE GLOBAL as a trade name. Complainant was well aware of the collective use of the disputed domain name within the context of the Slade Alliance, and indeed itself used the domain name in email signatures and correspondence. Despite this knowledge, Complainant brought this proceeding seeking to recast a breakdown of a commercial alliance as cybersquatting, while knowing that it could not meet the conjunctive requirement of bad faith registration and use. See M. Corentin Benoit Thiercelin v. CyberDeal, Inc. (WIPO Case No. D2010-0941) (finding RDNH where the complainant filed a case despite knowing the disputed domain name predated its rights), and Dextra Asia Co., Ltd. v. Lakeside Enterprises Limited (WIPO Case No. D2012-0403) (holding that complainant engaged in RDNH by bringing a case it knew it could not win).

On this record, the Panel concludes that the Complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding. Accordingly, the Panel finds Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.

DECISION

Having failed to establish one of the three elements required under the Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED. The Panel further finds Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <sladeglobal.com> domain name REMAIN WITH Respondent.

 

__________________________________________________________________

 

 

Nathalie Dreyfus Panelist

Dated: August 19, 2025