Park 'N Fly Service LLC v Usman Hafeez

WIPO Case No. D2025-1727

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Park ’N Fly Service LLC v. Usman Hafeez

Case No. D2025-1727

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Park ’N Fly Service LLC, United States of America (“United State”), represented by Neal,

Gerber & Eisenberg LLP, United States.

The Respondent is Usman Hafeez, United Kingdom.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <goparknfly.com> is registered with 123-Reg Limited (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 29, 2025. On April 30, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 30, 2025, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent (Domains by Proxy, LLC) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on May 2, 2025, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on May 7, 2025.

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 May 8, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 28, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 30, 2025.

page 2

The Center appointed John Swinson as the sole panelist in this matter on June 5, 2025. 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 limited liability company with an office in Chicago, United States. The Complainant provides airport-adjacent vehicular parking and airport transportation services. The Complainant and its affiliates operate one of the United States’ largest airport parking and shuttle services, which serve millions of

business and leisure travellers every year.

The Complainant owns a portfolio of trademark registrations, including U.S. Registration No. 1,111,956 for PARK ’N FLY that was registered on January 23, 1979. The Complainant also owns United Kingdom trademark registration for PARK ’N FLY in logo format that was filed on February 13, 2012, and that was entered on the register on July 9, 2012, being UK Registration No. UK00910637999.

The Complainant and was established in 1967 has been using its PARK ’N FLY in the United States for decades.

The Complainant promotes is services in many ways, including on a website located at <parknfly.com>.

The Complainant was successful in United States Supreme Court decision involving its PARK ‘N FLY trademark. See Park ‘N Fly, Inc. v. Dollar Park and Fly, Inc., 469 U.S. 189 (1985). The Complainant also has been a successful complainant in decisions under the Policy.

The disputed domain name was registered on December 3, 2020.

The Respondent did not file a Response, so little information is known about the Respondent. According to the Registrar’s records, the Respondent has an address in the United Kingdom.

As of April 7, 2025, the disputed domain name did not resolve to an active webpage. At the present time, the disputed domain name does not resolve to an active webpage.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name.

Notably, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith and undoubtedly with full knowledge of the Complainant’s rights in its the PARK ‘N FLY trademarks. The Complainant submits that given the renown of the Complainant’s PARK ‘N FLY

trademarks, and the virtual identity of the disputed domain name to the PARK ‘N FLY trademarks, it is not plausible that Respondent innocently registered the disputed domain name without a design to exploit its similarity to the PARK ‘N FLY trademarks.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

page 3

6. Discussion and Findings

To succeed, the Complainant must demonstrate that all of the elements enumerated in paragraph 4(a) of the

Policy have been satisfied, namely:

(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.

The onus of proving these elements is on the Complainant.

An asserting party needs to establish that it is more likely than not that the claimed fact is true. An asserting party cannot meet its burden by simply making conclusory statements unsupported by evidence. To allow a party to merely make factual claims without any supporting evidence would essentially eviscerate the

requirements of the Policy as both complainants and respondents could simply claim anything without any
proof. For this reason, UDRP panels have generally dismissed factual allegations that are not supported by

any bona fide documentary or other credible evidence.

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 the 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.

The 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 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, “go”) may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such term 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 the 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.

page 4

Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not rebutted the 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.

There is no evidence before the Panel to demonstrate that the Respondent has used or has made demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name or a name correspondent to the disputed domain name. There is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name.

The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Generally speaking, a finding that a domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith requires an inference to be drawn that the respondent in question has registered and is using the disputed domain name to take advantage of its significance as a trademark owned by (usually) the complainant.

The Complainant’s PARK ’N FLY trademark is long standing and well-known. The Complainant has relevant trademark registrations in the United Kingdom where the Respondent has an address.

Without further information from the Respondent, the Panel concludes that it is more likely than not that the unfairly take advantage of the Complainant’s trademark rights.

Panels have found that the non-use of a domain name would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel notes the distinctiveness or reputation of the Complainant’s trademark, and the composition of the disputed domain name, and finds that in the circumstances of this case the passive holding of the disputed

domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the Policy. The Respondent has provided no
evidence whatsoever of any actual or contemplated good faith use by it of the disputed domain name.

Taking into account all of the above, it is not possible to conceive of any plausible actual or contemplated active use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent.

The Panel finds that the 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 <goparknfly.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

/John Swinson/
John Swinson
Sole Panelist
Date: June 16, 2025