FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:<\/p>\n
Key aspects of the Complainant’s contentions are summarized below.<\/p>\n
Complainant’s Background<\/p>\n
The Complainant container logistics company was established in 1904, in Svendborg, Denmark by Arnold Peter Møller, who started out his activity in tramp shipping, where vessels were operating on the spot market without fixed schedules or port calls.<\/p>\n
Today, the Complainant is the largest container logistics company in the world, with more than 100,000 employees and operations in more than 130 countries, moving about 12 million containers every year. The company is headquartered in Copenhagen, Denmark.<\/p>\n
Registration of the disputed domain names<\/p>\n
On April 27, 2023, the Respondent using the name “A.P. Moller – Maersk“ - located in Hong Kong - registered the disputed domain name <maerskrent.com>.<\/p>\n
On January 5, 2023, the Respondent using the name “A.P. Moller – Maersk“ - located in Hong Kong - registered the disputed domain name <maersk.icu>.<\/p>\n
On April 10, 2023, the Respondent using the name “Harry Maersk Vip Group“ - located in Indonesia - registered the disputed domain name <maerskcargo.net>.<\/p>\n
On July 16, 2023, the Respondent using the name “xuxu“ - located in Hong Kong - registered the disputed domain name <maersk9.com>.<\/p>\n
Consolidation Request<\/strong><\/p>\n The Complainant claims that the disputed domain names are subject to common control for the following reasons: (i) all disputed domain names have the same registrar; (ii) all disputed domain names have the same name servers; (iii) all corresponding websites have a login page; (iv) all corresponding websites feature the Complainant’s white seven-pointed star logo; (v) the domain names the domain names <maerskrent.com>, <maersk.icu> and <maerskcargo.net> share similar e-mails: fundmaersk@gmail.com (for <maerskrent.com>, <maersk.icu>), maersk.fund@gmail.com (for <maerskcargo.net>); (vi) whois for the disputed domain name <maersk9.com>, <maerskrent.com> and <maersk.icu> all show the registrant location as Hong Kong.<\/p>\n First UDRP Element - disputed domain names are Confusingly Similar to Complainant’s Trademark<\/strong><\/p>\n The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its MAERSK trademarks, as they incorporate the MAERSK mark in its entirety alongside an element such as the number 9 and generic terms (i.e. cargo and rent), suffixed to the mark as part of the domain name string along with the generic Top-Level Domains .com, .net and .icu. Complainant points to numerous trademark registrations and the fame in its MAERSK brand to support the Complainant’s contention that it has a significant portfolio of trademark registrations and a reputation in the MAERSK brand.<\/p>\n Second UDRP Element – The Respondents have no Rights or Legitimate Interests in the disputed domain names<\/strong><\/p>\n The Complainant contends that the mere registration of a domain name does not establish rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. Further, the Respondent is not a licensee, authorized agent, reseller of the Complainant, not is authorized in any way to use the Complainant’s trademarks or to register or use the disputed domain names. Complainant claims there is no evidence of demonstrable preparations to use nor actual use of the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Rather, the disputed domain names resolve to websites featuring the Complainant’s MAERSK mark which improperly seek to obtain revenues from internet users.<\/p>\n Third UDRP Element – The disputed domain names were Registered and are Being Used in Bad Faith<\/strong><\/p>\n The Complainant asserts that its MAERSK trademark is distinctive and well-known in the container logistics sector, and that it is inconceivable that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant at the time of registering the disputed domain names in 2023.<\/p>\n Respondents intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain internet users to their website or other online location by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of their website or location. Complainant argues that this assertion is supported by the use of the disputed domain names in connection with websites where the Complainant’s trademarks are misappropriated and where the Respondent profits from the payments of internet users following the login to the dedicated page. In the case <maersk.icu> which does not resolve to an active web site, the fact that it uses the Complainant’s famous trademark, that it is held by the Respondent who has utilized other disputed domain names to obtain profit is sufficient to constitute bad faith according to the passive holding doctrine as described in Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003.<\/p>\n Additionally, the Complaint argues bad faith due to a pattern of conduct on the part of the Respondents in registering domain names to prevent the owner of a trademark from reflecting such mark in a corresponding domain name. The Complainant contends that a pattern of conduct is evident through the registration of four disputed domain names all confusingly similar to the Complainant’s MAERSK mark.<\/p>\n Lastly, Complainant claims the Respondent’s lack of response to its cease-and-desist letters as further evidence of bad faith.<\/p>\n The above summarized facts and arguments asserted by the Complainant are not contested by the Respondents because no Response was filed.<\/p>",
"other_legal_proceedings": " The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain names.<\/p>",
"no_response_filed": " NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED. <\/p>",
"rights": " The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain names are 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).<\/p>",
"no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": " The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Respondent to have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy).<\/p>",
"bad_faith": " The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).<\/p>",
"procedural_factors": " The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.<\/p>",
"decision": "Partially Accepted\/Partially Rejected",
"panelists": [
"Claire Kowarsky"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2023-09-15 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " The Complainant relies on its numerous registered trademarks, in territories around the world, including but not limited to the following:<\/p>\n Mark<\/p>\n<\/td>\n Territory<\/p>\n<\/td>\n Registration No.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n Application date<\/p>\n<\/td>\n Registration date<\/p>\n<\/td>\n Classes<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n MAERSK<\/p>\n<\/td>\n EU<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 003483039<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 30\/10\/2003<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 10\/07\/2006<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 1,4,6,9,11,12,16,35,36,37, 38, 39, 40, 42<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n MÆRSK (figurative)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n DK<\/p>\n<\/td>\n VR 1954 01456<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 29\/04\/1953<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 25\/09\/1954<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 1, 4<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n MAERSK<\/p>\n<\/td>\n DK<\/p>\n<\/td>\n VA 1955 03060<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 14\/12\/1955<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 10\/03\/1956<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n MAERSK<\/p>\n<\/td>\n IN<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 1249184<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 12\/11\/2003<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 12\/11\/2003<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 39<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n Further, the Complainant operates its business using its portfolio of MAERSK related domain names including <maersk.com> (registered October 10, 1995), <maersk.us> (registered April 24, 2002) and <maersk.cn> (registered March 29, 2003).<\/p>\n The Complainant’s MAERSK brand is also active in several social media platforms such as LinkedIn, Instagram, Facebook, Twitter and YouTube. For example, Complainant’s official Facebook page https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Maersk has over three million followers worldwide.<\/p>",
"decision_domains": {
"maerskrent.com": "TRANSFERRED",
"maersk.icu": "TRANSFERRED",
"maerskcargo.net": "TRANSFERRED",
"maersk9.com": "REJECTED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}\n\n
\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n