Pacific Logistics LLC v Elizabeth Suh
WIPO Case No. D2024-2015
•17-07-2024
| ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER |
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Pacific Logistics LLC v. Elizabeth Suh
Case No. D2024-2015
1. The Parties
Complainant is Pacific Logistics LLC, United States of America (“US”), represented by Milord Law Group,
US.
Respondent is Elizabeth Suh, US.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name <pacific-logisticsinc.com> is registered with Cosmotown, Inc. (the “Registrar”).
3. Procedural History
| May 16, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in | The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 14, 2024. On contact information disclosed by the Registrar. |
| The Center verified that the 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on May 29, 2024. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 18, 2024. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on June 19, 2024. | |
| The Center appointed Timothy D. Casey as the sole panelist in this matter on July 1, 2024. 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. |
page 2
4. Factual Background
Complainant is a logistics company providing shipping, air freight, ground transport, warehousing logistics and supply claim logistics.
Complainant has registrations for a number of trademarks that include PACIFIC LOGISTICS, or an acronym of Complainant prior name, (the “PACIFIC LOGISTICS Marks”) as an element of the trademarks, as follows:
| Mark | Jurisdiction Class(es) Registration Nos. Registration Date | ||||
| PLC PACIFIC LOGISTICS CORP |
| ||||
| (and design) | |||||
| PACIFIC LOGISTICS CORP |
|
5,954,839
| PACIFIC LOGISTICS | US | 39 & 35 | 6,349,055 & | May 11, 2021 |
| 6,349,056 | ||||
| PLC | US | 39 | 4,245,364 | November 20, 2012 |
Complainant also claims to be the owner of the domain names <pacific-logisitics.com> and
<pacificlogisitics.com>.
The disputed domain name was registered on July 4, 2023, and at the time of filing the Complaint, the disputed domain name resolved to a website bearing the name “Pacific Logistics” and marketing freight forwarding and logistic services.
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name.
Notably, Complainant contends it has rights in the PACIFIC LOGISTICS Marks as evidenced by the facts
above. Complainant contends the disputed domain name incorporates in its entirety the PACIFIC
LOGISTICS Marks and is therefore confusingly similar to the PACIFIC LOGISTICS Marks.
Complainant contends that Respondent has no legitimate use for the website to which the disputed domain name resolves and only adopted the disputed domain name to divert Internet traffic from Complainant’s own business in an attempt to trade off of Complainant’s goodwill. Complainant contends there is no evidence
that Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. physical addresses, indicating an attempt by Respondent to defraud and scam customers.
Complainant contends that the individuals listed on Respondent’s website as the Board of Directors are the
same as stock photographs of differently named individuals listed as the Board of Directors at the website
“ thereby suggesting that the individuals listed as the Board of Directors by
To Complainant’s knowledge, Respondent is not and have never been a representative of Complainant or licensed to use the PACIFIC LOGISTICS Marks. Complainant contends that through the disputed domain name and the website to which it resolves Respondent uses Complainant’s identity, reproduces the PACIFIC
LOGISTICS Marks, and seeks to confuse Internet users into thinking that Respondent’s business is associated with Complainant.
Complainant contends the disputed domain name was registered and has been used in bad faith by registered the disputed domain name with that knowledge. Respondent’s website reproduces the
page 3
trademarks and falsely duplicates Complainant’s website. Complainant contends that Respondent’s website commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion, is further evidence of bad faith.
diverts Internet traffic and defrauds customers and extorts payments related to various scams.
B. Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or
threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between
Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on
Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7.
Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy.
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1.
The entirety of the PACIFIC LOGISTICS mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly,
the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy.
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.
Although the addition of other terms here, a hyphen and the term “inc”, may bear on assessment of the
second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such terms does not prevent a finding of confusing
similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy.
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8.
The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name.
Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1.
Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds Complainant has established a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent has not rebutted Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating
rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or
otherwise.
page 4
Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity here, claimed impersonation/passing off, or other types of fraud, can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1.
The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established.
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel notes that, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith.
In the present case, the Panel notes that Respondent has registered the disputed domain name and used attract, for commercial gain, Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s marks.
Complainant’s PACIFIC LOGISTICS Marks to create a false website that reproduces aspects of
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances may be relevant in assessing whether a respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1.
Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity here, claimed impersonation/passing off, or other types of fraud, constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith
under the Policy.
The Panel finds that Complainant has established the third element of the Policy.
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 <pacific-logisticsinc.com> be transferred to the Complainant.
/Timothy D. Casey/
Timothy D. Casey
Sole Panelist
Date: July 17, 2024
0
0
0