The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i)of the Policy), because the disputed domain name contains Complainant's HAPAG-LLOYD trademark in its entirety plus two hyphens and the word "cargo." The hyphens are irrelevant and do nothing to eliminate any confusing similarity, and the word "cargo" is associated with Complainant's service and, therefore, only enhances any confusing similarity.
The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Respondent to have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii)of the Policy). While Complainant's arguments on this point are minimal, Complainant has argued that "Hapag-Lloyd has nothing to do with the Site, the Infringing Domain, or the Respondent. The Respondent has no legitimate interest in the Site or the Infringing Domain as they are being used to defraud users into purchasing products that are never delivered." Further, Respondent has failed to dispute this.
The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii)of the Policy). As with the foregoing elements of the UDRP, Complainant's arguments on this element are minimal. However, it is apparent that Respondent's use of the disputed domain name in connection with a website offering shipping services is likely to cause confusion, in violation of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the UDRP.
|