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

Shipco Transport Inc. v. WhoIsGuard, Inc. / Joel Kelvin

Case No. D2018-2374

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Shipco Transport Inc. of Chatham, New Jersey, United States of America (“United States”), represented internally.

The Respondent is WhoIsGuard, Inc. of Panama, Panama / Joel Kelvin of Abuja, Nigeria.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <shiippco.com> is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 17, 2018. On October 18, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 18, 2018, 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 and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on October 22, 2018 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 October 22, 2018. Following a request for clarification from the Center, the Complainant filed a second amended Complaint on October 24, 2018.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the two amended Complaints 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 October 30, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 19, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on November 20, 2018.

The Center appointed James Bridgeman as the sole panelist in this matter on November 26, 2018. 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.

On December 5, 2018, the Panel issued Procedural Order No. 1 wherein the Complainant was requested to submit appropriate documentary evidence corroborating the claims about the intercepted email exchange and the registration and ownership of its trademark by December 8, 2018. The Respondent was given an opportunity to make submissions solely in relation to any additional evidence adduced by the Complainant in response to the Procedural Order, by no later than December 10, 2018. It further provided in accordance with paragraph 10(c) of the Rules, that the date by which the Administrative Panel is required to forward its decision to the Center has been extended to December 15, 2018.

On December 5, 2018, the Complainant furnished further evidence in response to Procedural Order No. 1. No submissions were received from the Respondent.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant and members of its group of companies, provide international transport and logistics services. The Complainant is the owner of a number of service mark registrations for the SHIPCO and SHOPCO TRANSPORT marks including:

European Union Trade Mark (“EUTM”) SHIPCO, registration number 0008127151 registered on October 15, 2009 for services in class 39 namely “transport, packaging and storage of goods, travel arrangements.”

United States registered trademark SHIPCO TRANSPORT, registration number 3109289, registered on June 27, 2006 for services, in international class 39.

The Complainant has also owned the domain name <shipco.com> since February 18, 1998 and hosts a website at “www.shipco.com”.

In the absence of any Response or other communication from the Respondent, the only information available about the Respondent is that which is provided in the Complaint and the registration details provided by the Registrar in response to an enquiry from the Centre. According to the information held by the Registrar the registrant is the Respondent Joel Kelvin with an address in Abuja, Nigeria.

The disputed domain name <shiippco.com> was created on April 24, 2018 using the privacy service WhoIsGuard Inc.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant claims rights in the SHIPCO and SHIPCO TRANSPORT marks through its above-mentioned service mark registrations and its use of the marks in its international logistics and transport business which it carries out through its group of companies.

The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is obviously similar to the Complainant’s SHIPCO and SHIPCO TRANSPORT marks.

The Complainant submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, alleging that before any notice to the Respondent of the dispute, there is no evidence of the Respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name or a corresponding domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Complainant further alleges that the Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name; that no registered trademarks or service marks belonging to the Respondent can be found in any published database; and that the disputed domain name has been used solely for the purposes of defrauding the Complainant.

The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name was registered with the specific intent to defraud the Complainant and has been used to overtly defraud a member of the Complainant’s group of companies to the sum of around USD 32,000.

In support of this assertion the Complainant has provided copies of emails exchanged between Shipco Transport Vietnam Limited, a member of the Complainant’s group of companies, and one of its customers in São Paulo, Brazil during the months of April, May and June 2018. The correspondence discussed reconciliation, confirmation, and agreement of a payment schedule for the customer’s account. It concluded with the customer advising Shipco Transport Vietnam Limited that the email exchange had been hacked and that the customer had paid the sum due into an account in accordance with directions that it understood had come from the supplier. The Complainant submits that this email exchange was unlawfully intercepted by an unidentified third party who used the disputed domain name to confuse the customer and direct it to divert the funds intended for the Complainant’s Vietnam company to a third party account. The third party used the disputed domain name to confuse the customer by sending emails from four “@shiippco.com” email addresses.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires the Complainant to establish that:

(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and

(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.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant has provided evidence of its rights in the names and marks SHIPCO and the mark SHIPCO TRANSPORT through its ownership of the above-listed registered trademarks and the goodwill acquired by the Complainant and its group of companies through the use of the names and marks in its international logistics business.

The disputed domain name is almost identical to the Complainant’s SHIPCO name and service mark, differing only by the inclusion of an additional letters “i” and “p” in the disputed domain name.

The disputed domain name is also confusingly similar to the Complainant’s SHIPCO TRANSPORT service mark, because the name “Shipco” is the dominant and distinctive element of the SHIPCO TRANSPORT mark and the second element in the mark is descriptive of the Complainant’s field of commercial activity.

This Panel agrees with the Complainant’s submission that the additional letters “i” and “p” are likely to be overlooked in any quick reading of the disputed domain name.

In the circumstances of this Complaint, the generic Top-Level Domain extension “.com” in the disputed domain name may be ignored for the purposes of these comparisons.

Having compared each of them, this Panel finds that the disputed domain name <shiippco.com> is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s SHIPCO and SHIPCO TRANSPORT service marks and the Complainant has therefore succeeded in the first element of the test in paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant has made out a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, arguing that before any notice to the Respondent of the dispute, there is no evidence of the Respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name or a corresponding domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; that the Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name; and that the Respondent has no registered trademarks or service marks that can be found in any published database.

Furthermore, the Complainant has submitted evidence that the Respondent has caused, permitted or allowed the disputed domain name to be used for the purposes of confusing one of the Complainant’s customers, to send funds intended for the Complainant to a third party account.

It is well established that once a complainant has made out a prima facie case, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to establish that it has rights or legitimate interest. Despite having been given the opportunity to do so, the Respondent has not provided any evidence or made any submissions whatsoever.

The Respondent having failed to discharge the burden of production, this Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and the Complainant has therefore succeeded in the second element of the test in paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Complainant has provided unchallenged evidence that a third party intercepted an exchange of email correspondence between a member of the Complainant’s group of companies, Shipco Transport Vietnam Limited, and one of its customers in São Paulo, Brazil. The third party then, using the above email addresses, sent emails to the customer, impersonating Shipco Transport Vietnam Limited and managed to divert payment to the third party’s bank account.

The Respondent has not denied these allegations. This Panel finds therefore that on the balance of probabilities that the disputed domain name was chosen and registered in bad faith, in an act of typosquatting, for the purposes of creating a perception of a connection with the Complainant.

This Panel also finds on the balance of probabilities that the Respondent has caused, permitted or allowed the disputed domain name to be used in bad faith to intentionally, for commercial gain, to misrepresent to the Complainant’s customer that the Complainant was the source of deceptive emails purporting to come from the Complainant which unlawfully gave instructions to divert payment to a third party bank account.

The Complainant has therefore succeeded in the third and final element of the test in paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy and is entitled to the remedy requested, namely that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant.

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 <shiippco.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

James Bridgeman
Sole Panelist
Date: December 13, 2018

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/