DECISION

 

Shipco Transport Inc. v. Lucas Malicia

Claim Number: FA2602002206817

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Shipco Transport Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Janet J. Lee of Banner & Witcoff, Ltd., Illinois, USA. Respondent is Lucas Malicia ("Respondent"), Brazil.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <shipco-scan-transport.com> ("Domain Name"), registered with eNom, LLC.

 

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.

 

Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 23, 2026; Forum received payment on February 23, 2026.

 

On February 24, 2026, eNom, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <shipco-scan-transport.com> domain name is registered with eNom, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. eNom, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the eNom, LLC 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 25, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 17, 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@shipco-scan-transport.com. Also on February 25, 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 18, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Nicholas J.T. Smith 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

Since 1988 Complainant has provided transportation and shipping services under word and device marks featuring the words "SHIPCO TRANSPORT". Complainant promotes its services under its marks in various ways, including from its official website at www.shipco.com. Complainant asserts rights in the SHIPCO TRANSPORT mark through its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) (e.g., Reg. No. 3,109,289, registered on June 27, 2006). Respondent's <shipco-scan-transport.com> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's SHIPCO TRANSPORT mark as it incorporates the mark in its entirety, adding the generic term "-scan-" and the ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD").

 

Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <shipco-scan-transport.com> domain name. Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant's SHIPCO TRANSPORT mark and is not commonly known by the Domain Name. Respondent also does not use the Domain Name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent purports to offer competing transport and logistics services from the Domain Name's resolving website.

 

Respondent registered and uses the <shipco-scan-transport.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent disrupts Complainant's business by offering competing services. Respondent creates a likelihood of confusion with Complainant for commercial gain. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the SHIPCO TRANSPORT mark given the reputation of the mark and the use of the Domain Name to offer competing transport and logistics services.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant holds trademark rights for the SHIPCO TRANSPORT mark.  The Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's SHIPCO TRANSPORT mark.  Complainant has established that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the use of the Domain Name and that Respondent registered and has used 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

Complainant has rights in the SHIPCO TRANSPORT mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its registration of the mark with the USPTO (e.g. Reg. No. 3,109,289, registered on June 27, 2006). Registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to establish rights in that mark. See Liberty Global Logistics, LLC v. damilola emmanuel / tovary services limited, FA 1738536 (Forum Aug. 4, 2017) ("Registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently establishes the required rights in the mark for purposes of the Policy.").

 

The Panel finds that the <shipco-scan-transport.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's SHIPCO TRANSPORT mark as it wholly incorporates the SHIPCO TRANSPORT mark and adds the generic term "-scan-", along with the ".com" gTLD. Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) adding a generic word or abbreviation along with a gTLD is generally insufficient in differentiating a disputed domain name from the mark it incorporates. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognisable 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."); see also Dell Inc. v. Protection of Private Person / Privacy Protection, FA 1681432 (Forum Aug. 1, 2016) ("A TLD (whether a gTLD, sTLD or ccTLD) is disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax requires TLDs.").

 

The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant alleges that Respondent holds no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. In order for Complainant to succeed under this element, it must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the Domain Name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006) and AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Forum Sept. 25, 2006) ("Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names."). The Panel holds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case.

 

Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name as Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the SHIPCO TRANSPORT mark. Respondent has no relationship, affiliation, connection, endorsement or association with Complainant. WHOIS information can help support a finding that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, especially where a privacy service has been engaged. See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Dale Anderson, FA 1613011 (Forum May 21, 2015) (concluding that because the WHOIS record lists "Dale Anderson" as the registrant of the disputed domain name, the respondent was not commonly known by the <statefarmforum.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)); see also Kohler Co. v. Privacy Service, FA 1621573 (Forum July 2, 2015) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) where "Privacy Service" was listed as the registrant of the disputed domain name).  The WHOIS lists "Lucas Malicia" as registrant of record. Coupled with Complainant's unrebutted assertions as to absence of any affiliation or authorization between the parties, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name in accordance with Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

The Domain Name is presently inactive which does not provide the Respondent with rights or legitimate interests. Prior to the receipt of the first complaint from the Complainant about the Domain Name the Domain Name resolved to a website where Respondent appeared to offer transportation and logistics services in the United States in direct competition with Complainant under a similar mark to Complainant's registered SHIPCO TRANSPORT mark.  Noting the nature of the SHIPCO TRANSPORT mark and its use for these specialist shipping and transport services since 1988, the Panel finds that in this case the use of a confusingly similar domain name to redirect to a competing website does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the name under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).  See General Motors LLC v. MIKE LEE, FA 1659965 (Forum Mar. 10, 2016) (finding that "use of a domain to sell products and/or services that compete directly with a complainant's business does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)").  

 

The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

The Panel finds on the balance of probabilities that, at the time Respondent registered the Domain Name, February 14, 2025, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's SHIPCO TRANSPORT mark, which had been in use since 1988 for essentially identical services in the United States.  The Respondent was offering transportation and logistics services from the Domain Name that wholly incorporates the SHIPCO TRANSPORT mark that are in direct competition to the Complainant's services offered under that mark.  There is no obvious explanation, and none has been provided by Respondent, for a party to register a domain name that wholly incorporates the registered SHIPCO TRANSPORT mark and redirect it to a website offering services in direct competition with the specialist transportation services offered by Complainant absent any awareness of Complainant and its SHIPCO TRANSPORT mark (and intention to capitalize on Complainant's reputation in its SHIPCO TRANSPORT mark). In the absence of rights or legitimate interests of its own this demonstrates registration in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

The Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the Domain Name in bad faith as Respondent uses the Domain Name to redirect Internet users to Respondent's own website where Respondent purports to offer specialist transportation services in direct competition with Complainant. Using a confusingly similar domain name to divert Internet users to a respondent's competing website can show bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See ZIH Corp. v. ou yang lin q, FA1761403 (Forum Dec. 29, 2017) (finding bad faith where the respondent used the infringing domain name to disrupt the complainant's business by diverting Internet users from the complainant's website to the respondent's website where it offered competing printer products).   Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the Domain Name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). 

 

The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied 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 <shipco-scan-transport.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Nicholas J.T. Smith, Panelist

Dated: March 18, 2026