DECISION

 

Liberty Global Logistics LLC v. umukoro Elliot / redot

Claim Number: FA2601002202283

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Liberty Global Logistics LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Marlene Williams of Winston & Strawn LLP, California, USA. Respondent is umukoro Elliot / redot ("Respondent"), Hawaii, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <libertygloballogistics.online>, registered with Cosmotown, Inc.

 

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.

 

Debrett G. Lyons as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 28, 2026; Forum received payment on January 28, 2026.

 

On January 31, 2026, Cosmotown, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <libertygloballogistics.online> domain name is registered with Cosmotown, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Cosmotown, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Cosmotown, 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 February 4, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 24, 2026 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@libertygloballogistics.online. Also on February 4, 2026, 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 February 25, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Debrett G. Lyons 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 asserts trademark rights in LIBERTY GLOBAL LOGISTICS and alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark.

 

Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

Complainant alleges that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The background facts pertinent to this decision are that:

1.       Complainant provides multimodal transportation services and integrated global logistics by reference to the trademark, LIBERTY GLOBAL LOGISTICS;

2.       the trademark, LIBERTY GLOBAL LOGISTICS, is the subject of United States Patent & Trademark Office ("USPTO") Reg. No. 3,460,350, registered July 8, 2008;

3.       Respondent registered the disputed domain name on October 3, 2025, concealing its identity by a privacy service; and

4.       the domain name resolves to a website which makes every attempt to present itself as Complainant's website.

 

DISCUSSION

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted 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

Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires a two-fold enquiry – a threshold investigation into whether a complainant has rights in a trademark, followed by an assessment of whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark.

 

Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy does not distinguish between registered and unregistered trademark rights. It is well established by decisions under this Policy that a trademark registered with a national authority is evidence of trademark rights. The Complaint provides a copy of the certificate of a USPTO registration for LIBERTY GLOBAL LOGISTICS, but it is in the name of Liberty Shipping Group LLC, not Complainant. The Complaint does not explain the discrepancy nor provide a current USPTO extract.  The Panel has taken the unnecessary step of checking official records for itself to find that Complainant is now the recorded proprietor and so is satisfied that Complainant has trademark rights (see, for example, State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Periasami Malain, FA 705262 (Forum June 19, 2006) ("Complainant's registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office of the trademark, STATE FARM, establishes its rights in the STATE FARM mark pursuant to Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i).")).

 

The disputed domain name is identical to the trademark for the purposes of the Policy (see, for example, Morgan Stanley v. nashan, FA 1706094 (Forum Jan. 23, 2017) finding <morgan-stanley.xyz> identical to complainant's MORGAN STANLEY mark); Audigier Brand Mgmt. Grp., LLC v. bai wentao, FA 1286108 (Forum Nov. 16, 2009) (holding that even after the "addition of a ccTLD the disputed domain name is still identical to Complainant's mark."; Abt Elecs., Inc. v. Ricks, FA 904239 (Forum Mar. 27, 2007) ("The Panel also finds that Respondent's <abt.com> domain name is identical to Complainant's ABT mark since addition of a generic top-level domain ("gTLD") is irrelevant when conducting a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis.")). 

 

The Panel so finds that Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy states that any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate rights or legitimate interests to a domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy:

 

(i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your 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 or services; or

 

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

 

(iii) you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trade mark or service mark at issue.

 

Complainant need only make out a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, after which the onus shifts to Respondent to rebut that case by demonstrating those rights or interests (see, for example, Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000‑0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000)).

 

The name of the holder of the disputed domain name, as disclosed by the Registrar in consequence of these proceedings, does not suggest that Respondent may be known by the disputed domain name. There is no evidence that Respondent has a trademark of its own which might explain creation of the domain name. Complainant states, and the Panel accepts, that no permission has been given to Respondent to use the trademark. Finally, the evidence shows that the domain name is used to mimic in detail Complainant's website and purport to offer the same services. Further, the evidence is that the domain name has been used as part of an email address to perpetuate that fraud on Complainant's customers.

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has established a prima facie case (see, for example, Watts Water Technologies Inc. v. wo ci fa men zhi zao (kun shan) you xian gong si, FA 1740269 (Forum Aug. 11, 2017) ("Respondent has used the domain name to resolve to a website that mimics the color scheme associated with Complainant's WATTS brand and displays counterfeit versions of Complainant's products for purchase in an attempt to pass itself off as Complainant… [therefore], the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name."); Caterpillar Inc. v. Carlos Remy, FA 1825645 (Forum Feb. 18, 2019) ("Use of a domain name to pass itself off as a complainant in order to sell competing goods is not a use indicative of rights or legitimate interests per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).")).

 

The onus shifts to Respondent to establish a legitimate interest in the domain name and, absent a Response, that case is not rebutted, and the Panel finds that Complainant has established the second limb of the Policy.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant must prove on the balance of probabilities both that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith.

 

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out four circumstances, any one of which is taken to be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith if established. The four specified circumstances are:

 

'(i) circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the respondent's documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or

 

(ii) the respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

 

(iii) the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or

 

(iv) by using the domain name, respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to respondent's website 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 the respondent's website or location or of a product or service on the site or location.'

 

The Panel finds that the evidence supports the application of paragraph 4(b)(iv) above. The Panel has already found the domain name to be identical to the trademark. Confusion is inevitable. The resolving website clearly exists for commercial gain. In terms of the Policy, the Panel finds that Respondent has used the disputed domain name to attract, for commercial gain, internet users to its online location by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of that location (see, for example, Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum Dec. 27, 2017) finding bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where "Respondent registered and uses the <lbittrex.com> domain name in bad faith by directing Internet users to a website that mimics Complainant's own website in order to confuse users into believing that Respondent is Complainant, or is otherwise affiliated or associated with Complainant.").

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied the third and final element of the Policy. 

 

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 <libertygloballogistics.online> domain name be TRANSFERRED to Complainant.

 

 

 

Debrett G. Lyons, Panelist

Dated: February 25, 2026