About Intellectual Property IP Training IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Industrial Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgements IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Industrial Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars World IP Day WIPO Magazine Raising Awareness Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Economics Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Enforcement Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions COVID-19 Support National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO ALERT Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Job Vacancies Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Noatum Holdings S.L.U. and Noatum Logistics Netherlands B.V. v. WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc. / Alexander Sokolov

Case No. DNL2020-0057

1. The Parties

The Complainants are Noatum Holdings S.L.U., Spain (“First Complainant”), and Noatum Logistics Netherlands B.V., the Netherlands (“Second Complainant”), represented by Leeway Advocaten, the Netherlands.

The Respondent is WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc., Panama / Alexander Sokolov, the Netherlands.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <noatumbvlogistics.nl> (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with SIDN through NAMECHEAP, INC.

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 8, 2020. On the same day, the Center transmitted by email to SIDN a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On December 9, 2020, SIDN 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 and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on December 27, 2020, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by SIDN and the Registrar, and requesting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. In response to a notification by the Center, the Complainant filed an amended Complaint on December 28, 2020.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Dispute Resolution Regulations for .nl Domain Names (the “Regulations”).

In accordance with the Regulations, articles 5.1 and 16.4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on December 30, 2020. In accordance with the Regulations, article 7.1, the due date for Response was January 19, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January 21, 2021.

The Center appointed Thijs van Aerde as the panelist in this matter on February 22, 2021. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panelist has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required to ensure compliance with the Regulations, article 9.2.

4. Factual Background

The Complainants form part of a multinational group providing transport and logistics services in 28 countries. The First Complainant’s main office is located in Barcelona, Spain. The Second Complainant, a subsidiary of the First Complainant, is based in the Netherlands. The Complainants operate their websites inter alia under the domain names <noatum.com> and <noatumlogistics.com>.

The First Complainant holds various trademark registrations for NOATUM, including a European Union trademark, registered on June 3, 2011 (registration no. 009676453), hereinafter referred to as the “Trademark”.

According to the information provided by SIDN, the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name on May 5, 2020. At the time the Complaint was filed, the Disputed Domain Name resolved to a website impersonating the Complainants.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainants

The Complainants contend that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Trademark.

The Complainants assert that the Respondent is not authorized to use the Trademark. Furthermore, the Respondent is not commonly known under the Disputed Domain Name and lacks any legitimate rights or interests to the Disputed Domain Name.

The Complainants argue that the Respondent acquired the Disputed Domain Name for the purpose of impersonating the Complainant, which must be considered bad faith under the Regulations.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainants’ contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

Pursuant to article 2.1 of the Regulations the Complainants must prove each of the following three elements:

a. the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to:

I) a trademark or trade name protected under Dutch law in which (one of) the Complainants have rights; or
II) a personal name registered in the General Municipal Register (Gemeentelijke Basisadministratie) of a municipality in the Netherlands, or the name of a Dutch public legal entity or the name of an association or foundation registered in the Netherlands under which (one of) the Complainants undertake public activities on a permanent basis; and,

b. the Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name; and,

c. the Disputed Domain Name has been registered or is being used in bad faith.

As the Respondent has not filed a response, the Panel shall rule on the basis of the Complaint. In accordance with article 10.3 of the Regulations, the Complaint shall in that event be granted, unless the Panel considers it to be without basis in law or in fact.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The First Complainant established that it has rights in the Trademark, registered in the European Union and thus protected under Dutch law.

The Disputed Domain Name incorporates the First Complainant’s NOATUM trademark, in combination with the element “bvlogistics”. The Panel further notes that the Disputed Domain Name incorporates all elements of the Second Complainant’s statutory name, albeit in a different order, with the exception of “Netherlands”.

The Panel finds the Disputed Domain Name to be confusingly similar to the Trademark, noting also that the country code Top-Level Domain “.nl” may be disregarded when assessing the similarity between the domain name on the one hand, and the relevant trademark on the other hand (see, Roompot Recreatie Beheer B.V. v. Edoco LTD, WIPO Case No. DNL2008-0008).

The Complainants have established the first element of article 2.1 of the Regulations.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainants have made a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights to or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. The evidence on record shows that the Respondent does not make legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name as it misleadingly presents Internet users with a website impersonating the Complainants.

There are no indications before the Panel of any rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent in respect of the Disputed Domain Name. The Respondent has failed to rebut the Complainants’ assertions. Accordingly, the Panel concludes that the Complainants prevail on the second element of article 2.1 of the Regulations.

C. Registered or Used in Bad Faith

Conclusive evidence before the Panel indicates that the Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used to impersonate the Second Complainant, leading Internet users to believe that they are dealing with the Complainants. In its attempt to mislead and defraud Internet users, the Respondent placed the Second Complainant’s business address on the website at the Disputed Domain Name, in combination with a false telephone number and email address. This demonstrates the Respondent’s fraudulent intentions with the Disputed Domain Name, affecting the Complainants’ reputation and compromising business transactions with existing and prospective customers.

Further evidence of the Respondent’s bad faith lies in the fact that large portions of the website at the Disputed Domain Name have been copied from the Complainants’ official websites, including extensive textual elements. It is thus apparent that the Respondent had full knowledge of the Complainants and registered the Disputed Domain Name with the intent to impersonate the Complainants.

The Panel holds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website at the Disputed Domain Name, as established by article 3.2(d) of the Regulations.

The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has established the third element of article 2.1 of the Regulations.

7. Decision

For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with articles 1 and 14 of the Regulations, the Panel orders that the Disputed Domain Name <noatumbvlogistics.nl> be transferred to the Complainants.

Thijs van Aerde
Panelist
Date: March 8, 2021

https://www3.wipo.int/contact/en/area.jsp?area=arbitration https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/disclaim.html https://www.wipo.int/en/web/privacy-policy/ https://www.wipo.int/en/web/accessibility/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/sitemap.html https://www3.wipo.int/newsletters/en/ https://www.wipo.int/podcasts/en/ https://www.wipo.int/news/en/