A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has shown it owns rights in the trademark “GEFCO” trademark, with various registration, with the earliest one dating back to 1988. The Complainant also has shown rights for other trademarks, including "GEFCO LOGISTICS FOR MANUFACTURERS" (combined), registered since 2005.
Now, the Panel must turn to analyse if there is a confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the trademark. As contained in the record before the Panel, the disputed domain name reproduces the trademark in its totality, with an exception. The Panel was to analyse the first trademark mentioned above, and the disputed domain name reproduces the trademark with the addition of the term "logistics". This addition is immaterial to dispel the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademarks. Concerning the second trademark, the disputed domain name reproduces the first two terms in the trademark in its totality, namely "GEFCO LOGISTICS", leaving aside "FOR MANUFACTURERS". As is the case in the first trademark, these changes are immaterial to dispel the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademarks.
In addition, the use of the term “logistics” appears to refer to one of the main activities of the Complainant, as well as to a domain name used widely by the Complainant, namely, <gefcologistics.com>. These facts alone perhaps do not mean much, but in conjunction can be used to infer elements and relevant conclusions on the balance of probabilities. However, further analysis will be conducted under the second and third elements under the UDRP Policy set out below.
Consequently, the Panel determines that the Complaint has satisfied the first element set under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Based on the evidence on record and acknowledging that the Respondent failed to produce any allegations or evidence necessary to demonstrate its rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, the Panel must turn to the uncontested facts.
The uncontested facts indicate that a) the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name; b) the Respondent has no license or authorization to use the trademarks; c) the Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant; d) the Respondent is not authorized to carry out any activity for the Complainant and has no business dealings with the Complainant and e) the Respondent is not using the disputed domain name and has not demonstratable plans to use the disputed domain name legitimately.
In failing to respond to the Complainant's contentions, the Respondent has not rebutted the prima facie case, as described in paragraph 2.1 of WIPO 3.0 Overview.
In addition to this, the Respondent's use of the trademark plus the term “logistics”, which refers to both the main activity of the Complainant as well as part of the trademark of the Complainant, seems to indicate, on the balance of probabilities, that the Respondent not only was aware of the Complainant but deliberately targeted the Complainant to benefit from the association to the Complainant and confuse Internet users as to the source of sponsorship. A practice like this can never be considered a bona fide offering under the Policy.
These facts lead the Panel to conclude that the Respondent did not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Consequently, the Panel determines that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Subsequently, the Complainant has fulfilled the second requirement set under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
As per the record and evidence at hand, the Panel finds that the Respondent was likely aware of the Complainant and had the Complainant's trademark in mind when registering the disputed domain name. This conclusion is reinforced by the fact that the Respondent seems to evoke a connection to the Complainant's trademark by including the term “logistics”, which refers to both the main activity of the Complainant as well as part of the trademark of the Complainant, seems to indicate, on the balance of probabilities, that the Respondent targeted the Complainant.
Regarding the arguments by the Complainant relating to the Respondent's intention tending towards fraudulent practices, namely the arguments on the telephone number associated with scamming awareness databases and the creation of e-mail resources for the disputed domain name, these alone would not mean much. Still, on the balance of probabilities based on the evidence on record, the Panel considers there is some merit to these allegations and the evidence provided.
All the preceding analysis leaves the Panel no other option than to conclude that the most likely intention of the Respondent was to intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website/disputed domain name, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent's website and/or disputed domain name, as per illustrated under paragraph 3.1 of WIPO 3.0 Overview.
In light of the case's circumstances, based on the available records, the Panel finds that the Complainant has proven that the disputed domain name was registered and is used in bad faith according to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
D. Decision
For the preceding reasons and in concurrence with the provisions specified under Paragraph 4(i) of the Policy and Paragraph 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders the transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainant.
|