DECISION

 

Expeditors International of Washington, Inc. v. Chris MOODY / MASSIVE TRUCKING INC Bulldog Carrier

Claim Number: FA2602002204173

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Expeditors International of Washington, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Annie Allison of Haynes and Boone, LLP, New York, USA. Respondent is Chris MOODY / MASSIVE TRUCKING INC Bulldog Carrier ("Respondent"), Ohio, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES

The domain names at issue are <expeditorscorp.com> and <expeditorscorps.com>, registered with Realtime Register B.V. and Metaregistrar BV.

 

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 February 6, 2026; Forum received payment on February 6, 2026.

 

On February 10, 2026, Realtime Register B.V.; Metaregistrar BV confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <expeditorscorp.com> and <expeditorscorps.com> domain names are registered with Realtime Register B.V. and Metaregistrar BV and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Realtime Register B.V. and Metaregistrar BV have verified that Respondent is bound by the Realtime Register B.V. and Metaregistrar BV registration agreements 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 16, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 9, 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@expeditorscorp.com and postmaster@expeditorscorps.com. Also on February 16, 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 March 10, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed The Honorable Neil Anthony Brown KC 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 the Respondent.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

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

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

    Complainant made the following contentions.

1.       The Complainant is a prominent United States company engaged in the provision of freight, warehousing, insurance and related goods and services and has been so engaged since 1979.

2.       The Complainant provides its goods and services under the trademark for EXPEDITORS.

3.       The Complainant acquired its registered trademark rights by virtue of the following registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") namely EXPEDITORS (Reg. No. 1,824,592) registered by the Complainant on March 1, 1994 and numerous other registrations for EXPEDITORS and derivatives both domestically and internationally and the acquisition of common law trademark rights (collectively "the EXPEDITORS trademark").

4.       The EXPEDITORS trademark has attracted substantial goodwill and is uniquely associated with the Complainant's goods and services and with the Complainant as its owner.

5.       The Respondent registered the domain name <expeditorscorp.com> ("the first domain name") on December 4, 2025 and the domain name <expeditorscorps.com> ("the second domain name") on February 5, 2026.

6.       As well as the EXPEDITORS trademark, the Complainant has registered the domain name <expeditors.com> which it uses in its business and to promote its goods and services on its website at www.expeditors.com.

7.       The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the EXPEDITORS trademark.

8.       The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names as:

(a)                      the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the EXPEDITORS trademark as they include the trademark plus respectively the words "corp" and "corps" which signify the words "company" and "corporation" and are therefore invoking the Complainant as a company and its aforesaid trademark;

(b)                      the Complainant acquired its aforesaid trademark rights prior to the registration by the Respondent of the disputed domain names;

(c)                      the Respondent is not a licensee, authorized retailer or distributor of the Complainant's goods and services and has received no permission to use the Complainant's trademark;

(d)                      the Respondent has not used the disputed domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services within the meaning of Policy ¶4(c)(i); rather, the Respondent has used the domain names to impersonate and pass itself off as the Complainant with the clear intent to deceive internet users and perpetrate fraud by offering, allegedly, the same services as the Complainant which it describes as "cost-effective"; the evidence will also show that the Respondent is spoofing the Complainant's website and using email addresses associated with the Infringing first domain name in order to impersonate the Complainant in furtherance of a financial crime;

(e)                      in particular, the Respondent has not used the second domain name for a legitimate website but has caused it to resolve to a registrar's landing page;

(f)                      the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names;

(g)                      the Respondent has not used the disputed domain names for a legitimate, noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii); and

(h)                      there is no other ground on which it could conceivably be contended that the Respondent has a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain names.

9.       The Respondent registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith as:

(a)       by its aforesaid conduct, the Respondent has sought to disrupt the Complainant's business within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii);

(b)       the Respondent has used the domain names to impersonate the Complainant, has used the first domain name to spoof the Complainant's own website and used email addresses associated with that domain name to impersonate the Complainant's employees and mislead third parties into illegitimate business transactions with the Respondent;

(c)       when the Complainant filed abuse reports against the first domain name, the Respondent registered the second domain name with the intention and effect of continuing with its nefarious activities, posing a risk to internet users in the future;

(d)       the Respondent had actual knowledge of the Complainant and its aforesaid trademark rights when it, the Respondent, registered the disputed domain names;

(e)       the Respondent registered the disputed domain names well after the Complainant had acquired its aforesaid trademark rights;

(f)        by its aforesaid conduct, the Respondent has sought to engender confusion among internet users within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv); and

(g)        there was and is no plausible circumstance under which the Respondent could legitimately register or use the disputed domain names;

 

Accordingly, the disputed domain names should be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.

 

B. Respondent

    Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

1.       The Complainant is a prominent United States company engaged in the provision of freight, warehousing, insurance and related goods and services and has been so engaged since 1979.

2.       The Complainant provides its goods and services under the trademark for EXPEDITORS.

3.       The Complainant acquired its registered trademark rights by virtue of the following registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") namely EXPEDITORS (Reg. No. 1,824,592) registered by the Complainant on March 1, 1994 and numerous other registrations for EXPEDITORS and derivatives both domestically and internationally and the acquisition of common law trademark rights (collectively "the EXPEDITORS trademark").

4.       The Respondent registered the domain name <expeditorscorp.com> ("the first domain name") on December 4, 2025 and the domain name <expeditorscorps.com> ("the second domain name") on February 5, 2026.

5.       The Complainant acquired all of its aforesaid trademark rights prior to the registration by the Respondent of the disputed domain names.

6.       The Respondent has used the first disputed domain name to resolve to a website that impersonated the Complainant, held itself out as being the Complainant or as being authorized by it, copied the Complainant's trademarks and the contents of the Complainant's official website and purported to offer goods and services being the same as those of the Complainant.

7.       The Respondent has also used the second disputed domain name to resolve to a registrar's landing page in circumstances showing that it generates to the real danger of being later used by the Respondent for further conduct in breach of the Policy.

8.       By reason of the matters aforesaid, and as established by the evidence, the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant's aforesaid trademark, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names and the disputed domain names have been registered and used in bad faith.

9.       Accordingly, the disputed domain names 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").

 

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 under the EXPEDITORS trademark. In particular, the evidence is that the Complainant acquired its registered trademark rights by virtue of the following registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") namely EXPEDITORS (Reg. No. 1,824,592) registered by the Complainant on March 1, 1994 and numerous other registrations for EXPEDITORS and derivatives both domestically and internationally and the acquisition of common law trademark rights (collectively "the EXPEDITORS trademark"). All of the aforesaid facts have been established by documentary evidence that the Complainant has examined and finds to be in order, including the fact that the trademark is registered in the name of the Complainant and that it is current.

The Complainant has therefore established its trademark rights and hence its standing to institute this proceeding.

The next question that arises is whether the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's aforesaid trademark. The Panel finds that the domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark.

The domain names include as their first and dominant feature the word "expeditors" which is an obvious copy of the trademark as well as the major portion of the Complainant's name. Thus, the objective bystander would look at the domain names and notice that they are invoking the Complainant and its trademark and brand. These considerations clearly make the domain names similar to the trademark.

The domain names also include respectively the words "corp" and "corps" which signify the words "company" and "corporation" and are therefore invoking the Complainant as a company, which it is, and its aforesaid trademark; that is because the words added are generic and have the effect that the domain names mean and would be taken to mean that they relate to the expediting activities of the Complainant carried out by the Complainant as a company and by using its trademark.

The domain names are also confusingly similar to the trademark, as they raise in the mind of the internet user the natural question whether they are genuine or legitimate domain names of the Complainant or not.

The generic Top Level Domain ".com", like all such extensions, does not militate against this conclusion as all domain names must have such an extension and their presence does not signify one way or the other whether the domain names are confusingly similar to the trademark or not.  

Thus, applying these well-accepted principles, the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant's EXPEDITORS trademark.

The Complainant has thus made out the first of the three elements that it must establish as provided in Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

Rights or Legitimate Interests

It is now well established that the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) and that, if the prima facie case is made out, the burden then shifts to the Respondent to show that it does have such rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)).

 

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 names on all of the grounds relied on by the Complainant, namely:

 

(a)                      the evidence shows that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the EXPEDITORS trademark as they include the trademark plus respectively the words "corp" and "corps" which signify the words "company" and "corporation" and are therefore invoking the Complainant as a company and its aforesaid trademark; the Respondent must carry responsibility for what it has done and it must therefore be assumed that it intended to register domain names that were similar to the trademark and confusingly so; it is inconceivable that a registrant of domain names can acquire a right or legitimate interest in them when its intention was to create deception, mislead internet users, exploit another party's trademark rights and to cause loss and harm to the trademark owner;

(b)                      in that regard Exhibit 6 shows the website to which the first domain name resolves; this shows every attempt being made to demonstrate that this is the website of the Complainant,  which is shown in Exhibit 5; it uses the Complainant's name, trademark and logo extensively, impersonates it, gives details of the services it purports to offer which are the same as those legitimately offered by the Complainant, copies images from the Complainant's website that must be copyright and makes several attempts to inveigle internet users to be dragged into the Respondent's machinations by providing information; this litany shows conclusively that the Respondent does not have a right or legitimate interest in the domain names;

(c)                      the same can be said for the second domain name as, although it does not resolve to a website, it was clearly registered just after the Complainant filed abuse reports with the web host and registrar associated with the first domain name and was registered to hold in reserve to use for further fraud and deception; indeed, that is the real danger of such situations, that a domain name held in the name of an offending registrant will almost certainly lead to further offending if it is allowed to retain ownership of the domain name;  

(d)                      the evidence also shows that the Respondent is spoofing the Complainant's website and using email addresses associated with the Infringing first domain name in order to impersonate the Complainant in furtherance of a financial crime;

(e)                      the evidence shows that the Complainant acquired its aforesaid trademark rights prior to the registration by the Respondent of the disputed domain names; thus, the Respondent's conduct shows that it intended to deceive and mislead, knowing that it was trespassing on the Complainant's trademark;

(f)                      the Respondent is not a licensee, authorized retailer or distributor of the Complainant's goods and services and has received no permission to use the Complainant's trademark; thus, it could not be said that the domain names were registered with anything remotely like the consent of the Complainant;

(g)                      the Respondent has not used the disputed domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i); rather, the evidence shows that the Respondent has used the domain names to impersonate and pass itself off as the Complainant with the clear intent to deceive internet users and perpetrate fraud; essentially, what has happened in this case is that the Respondent has pretended that it is the Complainant, and that it is offering by means of the terms of the domain names genuine EXPEDITORS services when it is not the Complainant and its alleged offerings probably do not exist at all; it would be a contradiction in terms to describe this conduct as bona fide when it is not remotely so; all of this is made very clear by Exhibit 6, the offending website, and Exhibit 8, the generic landing page to which the second domain name most recently resolved which shows the misleading and deceptive conduct in which the Respondent has engaged; the whole thing is a deception; indeed, comparing the offending website with the Complainant's genuine website shows in the opinion of the Panel that an attempt has been made by the use of the first domain name to copy the get-up and ambiance of the Complainant's site and to hold the second domain name in reserve for further subterfuge; by no stretch of the imagination could this conduct be described as bona fide and, if anything, it could more accurately be described as mala fide;

(h)                      in particular, as already shown, the Respondent has not used the second domain name for a legitimate website;

(i)                      the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names; there is no evidence that the Respondent is known by the domain names and there is no evidence that it is known by any name other than its own;

(j)                      the Respondent has not used the disputed domain names for a legitimate, noncommercial or fair use within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii); there is nothing legitimate about the way the Respondent has used the domain names, it is clearly commercial and it is not fair to the Complainant or to internet users in general; and

(k)                      there is no other ground on which it could conceivably be contended that the Respondent has a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain names.

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 names.

All of these matters make out the prima facie case against the Respondent. The Respondent is in default and has not advanced any evidence or submissions to show that it could rebut the Complainant's contentions.

 

The Complainant has therefore made out the second of the three elements it must establish under Policy ¶4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

It is clear that to establish bad faith for the purposes of the Policy, the Complainant must show that the disputed domain names were registered and used in bad faith. It is also clear that the criteria set out in Policy ¶ 4(b) are not exclusive but that domain name proceedings may also rely on conduct that is bad faith within the generally accepted meaning of that expression.

In view of the evidence discussed above, particularly Exhibits 5 and 6, 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 names and has continued in that conduct after their registration, showing bad faith use; the registration was, as was its use, clearly an attempt by the Respondent to use the domain names, incorporating and invoking as they do, the Complainant's trademark, to give the false impression that it was the Complainant or was authorized by it to offer the Complainant's services, as the first domain name resolves to a website that copies and plagiarises the Complainant's name, trademark and logo and its legitimate website and content and as the second domain name resolves to a registrar's landing page, showing that the Respondent was holding it in abeyance for later improper use. It is therefore clear from the evidence that, as the Complainant has submitted:

(a)       by its aforesaid conduct, the Respondent has sought to disrupt the Complainant's business within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii); clearly, the Respondent set about damaging the Complainant's name and reputation so that it, the Respondent, could mislead internet users into providing personal information and even buying the Respondent's alleged services, as it describes them as "cost-effective", instead of the Complainant's genuine services;

(b)       the evidence shows that the Respondent has used the domain names to impersonate the Complainant, has used the first domain name to spoof the Complainant's own website and used email addresses associated with that domain name to impersonate the Complainant's employees and mislead third parties into illegitimate business transactions with the Respondent, which it describes as "cost-effective";

(c)       the evidence shows that when the Complainant filed abuse reports against the first domain name, the Respondent registered the second domain name with the intention and effect of continuing with its nefarious activities, posing a risk to internet users;

(d)       the Respondent had actual knowledge of the Complainant and its aforesaid trademark rights when it, the Respondent, registered the disputed domain names; the Respondent must have had such actual knowledge in view of its obvious copying of the Complainant's website and services and it could not have carried out its subterfuge without having that actual knowledge;

(e)       the evidence shows that the Respondent registered the disputed domain names well after the Complainant had acquired its aforesaid trademark rights;

(a)       the evidence shows that by its aforesaid conduct, the Respondent has sought to engender confusion among internet users within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) in the hope that it might mislead internet users into thinking that it was the Complainant and that the services on offer were genuine EXPEDITOR products when they clearly were not; and

(b)       the evidence shows that there was and is no plausible circumstance under which the Respondent could legitimately register or use the disputed domain names;

 

In general, the impersonation of the Complainant, copying the get-up and presentation of the Complainant's official website, the repeated uses of the Complainant's trademarks and logo and the overall assertion that it is the Complainant and that it can provide the services it offers on its website, all show that the Respondent's registration and use of the domain names were in bad faith.

The Complainant has thus made out the third of the three elements that it must establish under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

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 Policy.

The Complainant has also cited numerous prior UDRP decisions which support all of its contentions.

The Complainant has therefore established all the elements that it must show under the Policy and it is entitled to the relief it seeks, namely transfer of the disputed domain names.

 

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 <expeditorscorp.com> and <expeditorscorps.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

The Honorable Neil Anthony Brown KC, Panelist

Dated: March 11, 2026