DECISION

 

Progress Rail Services Corporation v. Morales Mayers / Mayers Inc

Claim Number: FA2602002207344

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Progress Rail Services Corporation ("Complainant"), represented by AJ Schumacher of Kelly IP, LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Morales Mayers / Mayers Inc ("Respondent"), California, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <progerssrail.com>, registered with NameCheap, 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.

 

Richard Hill as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 25, 2026; Forum received payment on February 25, 2026.

 

On February 26, 2026, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <progerssrail.com> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, 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 27, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 19, 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@progerssrail.com. Also on February 27, 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 20, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Richard Hill 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 states that it is one of the largest integrated and diversified providers of rolling stock and infrastructure solutions and technologies for global rail customers, with nearly 200 facilities in 16 countries. Under the EMD brand of its subsidiary Progress Rail Locomotive (formerly known as Electro-Motive Diesel), Complainant offers diesel-electric locomotives and aftermarket parts for all commercial railroads, including freight, intercity passenger, commuter, switching-industrial, and mining applications. Complainant is also a global provider of EMD engines for marine propulsion, offshore and land-based oil well drilling rigs and stationary power generation. Complainant also offers a wide array of services, including locomotive leasing, contract maintenance, locomotive remanufacturing, engine overhauls, freight car services, rail sales, rail removals, and designing wayside and highway crossing systems, among other services. Under its PROGRESS RAIL marks, Complainant produces and offers numerous products, such as freight, passenger, and road-switching locomotives and a full line of trackwork, components, and fasteners for heavy haul and transit railways, among other products. Over the years, Complainant has enjoyed significant commercial success under its PROGRESS RAIL Marks. For example, Complainant has delivered more than 75,000 EMD-powered locomotives to more than 75 countries to date. Complainant uses its PROGRESS RAIL mark in connection with its online network dedicated to advertising, promoting, and/or offering its products and services, and has done so since at least as early as 1998. In particular, Complainant owns and uses the domain name <progressrail.com>, which Complainant registered in 1997 and which it has used since at least as early as 1998 for its website and email addresses. Complainant asserts rights in the PROGRESS RAIL mark through its registration in the European Union in 2009. The mark is registered elsewhere.

 

Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its PROGRESS RAIL mark as it consists of a misspelling of the mark (the letters "r" and "e" are transposed), merely adding the ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD"). Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.

 

According to Complainant, Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant's mark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain names. Respondent does not use the disputed domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the disputed domain name resolved to a web site hosting pay-per-click advertising hyperlinks for goods and services, some of which compete with or relate to Complainant's business. MX records are configured for the disputed domain name, so it could be used in furtherance of email phishing. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.

 

Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. The resolving website displayed pay-per-click advertising links, some to competing services. Respondent has engaged in typosquatting. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has rights in the mark PROGRESS RAIL and uses it to provide rolling stock and infrastructure solutions and technologies for global rail customers.

 

Complainant's rights in its mark date back to 2000.

 

The disputed domain name was registered in 2025.

 

Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.

 

The resolving website displayed pay-per-click advertising links, some to competing services.

 

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 disputed domain name consists of a misspelling of Complainant's mark (the letters "r" and "e" are transposed). A change to a mark, such as a minor misspelling, does not negate any confusing similarity between a disputed domain name and a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Wiluna Holdings, LLC v. Zhichao Yang, FA 1804964 (Forum Oct. 1, 2018) ("Misspelling of a complainant's mark, either by adding, removing, or transposing letters, does not sufficiently mitigate any confusing similarity between a disputed domain name and mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)."); see also Bechtel Group, Inc. v. Eliza Dushku, FA 1631725 (Forum Sept. 1, 2015) (finding <betchel.com> confusingly similar to BECHTEL); see also Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Orville Walk, FA 1503047 (Forum July 13, 2013) (finding <exxonmobile.net> confusingly similar to EXXONMOBIL). Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name). Here, the WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as "Morales Mayers / Mayers Inc". Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

The evidence provided by Complainant shows that Respondent used the disputed domain name to display parked webpages containing links to third-party sites, some of which offer services that compete with those of Complainant. Use of a domain name to redirect users to unrelated third-party sites (whether or not they compete with Complainant) is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Constellation Wines U.S., Inc. v. Tex. Int'l Prop. Assocs., FA 948436 (Forum May 8, 2007) (finding that the respondent had no rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or 4(c)(iii) by using the disputed domain name to operate a website featuring links to goods and services unrelated to the complainant); see also Coachella Music Festival, LLC v. josh greenly / All Access Tickets, FA 1629217 (Forum August 10, 2015) (finding that the respondent had failed to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name as required under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii), where the respondent was using the disputed domain name to host a web page that featured links to services that competed with those of the complainant). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not using the disputed domain names to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or 4(c)(iii). And the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant's contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant's mark. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent's failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain name.

 

Indeed, as already noted, Respondent used the disputed domain name to disrupt Complainant's business and attract users for commercial gain through the use of third-party links. Panels have found such a use of a domain name to constitute bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) and/or (iii). See Capital One Financial Corp. v. Above.com Domain Privacy / Above.com Domain Privacy, FA 1598657 (Forum Feb. 20, 2015) ("This Panel agrees that Respondent's use as shown in Exhibits C-D illustrates that Respondent here seeks commercial gain through a likelihood of confusion, as competing hyperlinks have been found to establish evidence of intent to seek commercial gain through referral fees, and thus demonstrates bad faith registration under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)."). Bad faith has been found even where a respondent has commercially benefited through links unrelated to a complainant's mark. See Bank of Am. Fork v. Shen, FA 699645 (Forum June 11, 2006) (holding that the respondent's previous use of the <bankofamericanfork.com> domain name to maintain a web directory was evidence of bad faith because the respondent presumably commercially benefited by receiving click-through fees for diverting Internet users to unrelated third-party websites); see also PopSockets LLC v. san mao, FA 1740903 (Forum Aug. 27, 2017) (finding disruption of a complainant's business which was not directly commercial competitive behavior was nonetheless sufficient to establish bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)); see also Dovetail Ventures, LLC v. Klayton Thorpe, FA 1625786 (Forum Aug. 2, 2015) (holding that the respondent had acted in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), where it used the disputed domain name to host a variety of hyperlinks, unrelated to the complainant's business, through which the respondent presumably commercially gained). Thus, the Panel finds bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and/or (iv).

 

Moreover, by switching the adjacent letters "r" and "e" in Complainant's mark, Respondent engages in typosquatting. A finding of typosquatting can evince bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Adorama, Inc. v. Moniker Privacy Services, FA 1610020 (Forum May 1, 2015) ("Respondent has also engaged in typosquatting, which is additional evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). Respondents who capitalize on common typing errors engage in bad faith registration under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)."). As such, the Panel finds bad faith typosquatting under 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 <progerssrail.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Richard Hill, Panelist

Dated: March 20, 2026