Aramex International LLC v alian hicham
WIPO Case No. D2022-1317
•06-06-2022
| ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER |
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Aramex International LLC v. alian hicham
Case No. D2022-1317
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Aramex International LLC, United Arab Emirates, represented by SafeNames Ltd.,
United Kingdom.
The Respondent is alian hicham, Spain.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name <aramex.site> is registered with Ligne Web Services SARL (the “Registrar”).
3. Procedural History
| 12, 2022. On April 13, 2022, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar | The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April language of proceeding. |
| The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”). | |
| In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on April 28, 2022. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 18, 2022. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 19, 2022. |
page 2
The Center appointed Elise Dufour as the sole panelist in this matter on May 23, 2022. The Panel finds that
it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of
Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.
4. Factual Background
The Complainant is a an international express, mail delivery and logistics company founded in 1982 and based in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. The Complainant maintains over 600 offices in 65 countries and employs over 17,000 workers.
The Complainant owns several trademark registrations, including the European Union Trade Mark ARAMEX,
no. 007165533, registered on October 10, 2009, and duly renewed for products and services in classes 16,
35 and 39.
In addition to the trademarks previously cited, the Complainant owns various domain names that contain the trademark ARAMEX and notably the domain name <aramex.com> registered on November 24, 1995.
The disputed domain name was registered on December 2, 2021.
It used to resolve to a website with a similar look and feel to the Complainant’s official website featuring the tracking information to customers of the Complainant, inviting users to enter personal information.
Currently the disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website.
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
The Complainant claims that the disputed domain name is (i) identical to its earlier trademarks, (ii) that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
(i) The Complainant claims that the disputed domain name is identical to its trademarks, since the disputed
domain name reproduces its ARAMEX trademarks.
(ii) The Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect to the the disputed domain name in order to pass off as the Complainant.
disputed domain name since the Parties have no relationship and the Complainant has not permitted the
(iii) The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith by the Respondent. According to the Complainant, the incorporation of the whole ARAMEX trademarks in the disputed domain name proves the Respondent’s bad faith. The Complainant further asserts that the
Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name in order to give the impression of an association to fraudulently collect personal information of the Complainant’s customers is evidence of bad faith.
B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
page 3
6. Discussion and Findings
6.1. Preliminary Issue: Language of proceedings
Pursuant to paragraph 11(a) of the Rules, the language of the administrative proceedings shall be the language of the Registration Agreement. However, the Panel is given the authority to determine a language of proceeding other than the language of the Registration Agreement, taking into account the circumstances of every individual case.
The Complainant states that to the best of its knowledge, referring to other panel decisions involving the same Registrar, the Registration Agreement is in French. Nevertheless, the Complainant requests that the language of proceedings be English.
The Panel has carefully considered all elements of this case, in particular, the Complainant's arguments in for Complainant.
connection to its request that the language of proceedings be English; the lack of response of the
Respondent (the Panel notes that the Respondent had the opportunity to put forward arguments in either
English or French); the fact that the disputed domain name was linked to an active webpage that was
entirely and exclusively in English and that contain hyperlinks to other webpages that are also entirely in
English, so that the Panel concludes that the Respondent has no problem with reading and writing in
In view of all these elements, the Panel rules that the language of proceedings shall be English.
6.2. Discussion and Findings on the merits
The Policy requires the Complainant to prove three elements:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the
Complainant has rights;
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Based on the evidence and arguments submitted, the Panel’s findings are as follows:
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant submitted evidence, which incontestably and conclusively establishes rights on the
ARAMEX trademarks.
The disputed domain name wholly incorporates the Complainant’s trademark ARAMEX, which, as it has the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s trademarks and that the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is met.
been long established by previous UDRP panels, typically is sufficient to determine that a disputed domain
name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a non-exclusive list of circumstances that indicate the Respondent’s rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
These circumstances are:
(i) before any notice of the dispute, the Respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the
disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide
page 4
offering of goods or services; or
(ii) the Respondent (as an individual, business, or other organization) has been commonly known by the
disputed domain name, in spite of not having acquired trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, without
intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at
issue.
The Respondent, by not formally responding to the Complaint, has failed to invoke any of the circumstances, which could demonstrate, pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, any rights to and/or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. This entitles the Panel to draw any such inferences from such default as it
considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. Nevertheless, the burden of proof is still on
the Complainant to make a prima facie case against the Respondent.
In that sense, the Complainant states that it has not licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use
the ARAMEX trademark in the disputed domain name, nor is there any sort of relationship between the
Complainant and the Respondent.
Furthermore, the Complainant states that the Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark at issue.
Indeed, the Complainant submitted evidence that the Respondent used the disputed domain name in order to give the impression of association with the Complainant’s business and to obtain personal information such as card details and tracking information, indicating that the disputed domain name has been used fraudulently.
As long established, the use of a domain name for illegal activity (e.g. phishing […] impersonation/passing
off, or other types of fraud can never confer rights or legitimate interest on a respondent (see WIPO
Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, “WIPO Overview 3.0”, section
2.13.1).
Therefore, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect to the disputed domain name.
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Respondent’s bad faith in registering the disputed domain name is made clear by the incorporation of
the whole ARAMEX trademark, which has accrued substantial goodwill and recognition since the
Complainant’s establishment in 1982.
Besides, the Complainant has demonstrated that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name to intentionally target the Complainant.
The Panel therefore finds that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith in order to take advantage of the Complainant’s reputation.
As to the use that has been made of the disputed domain name, the Panel finds that the fact that the website is evidence of bad faith.
Furthermore, the Panel finds that the fact that the website currently is inactive, and thus is no longer being
exploited by the Respondent, does not prevent to conclude that the Respondent is acting in bad faith.
Indeed, previous UDRP panel decisions have established that the non-use of the disputed domain name
page 5
does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding.
As to the circumstances which lead to the conclusion that the Respondent is acting in bad faith, the Panel finds that the Respondent did not respond to the cease and desist letter sent by the Complainant’s representatives on January 5, 2022, nor to the present Complaint.
The Panel finds that the Complainant successfully fulfilled the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(iii).
7. Decision
For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name <aramex.site> be transferred to the Complainant.
/Elise Dufour/ Elise Dufour Sole Panelist Date: June 6, 2022
0
0
0