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

Aramex International LLC v. Asmaayl Alsimaayl, Pfoksa

Case No. D2019-2124

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Aramex International LLC, United Arab Emirates, represented by SafeNames Ltd., United Kingdom.

The Respondent is Asmaayl Alsimaayl, Pfoksa, Saudi Arabia.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <aramex.promo> is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 30, 2019. On August 30, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 31, 2019, 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 September 3, 2019, 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 September 3, 2019.

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 September 6, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 26, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 4, 2019.

The Center appointed Nayiri Boghossian as the sole panelist in this matter on October 11, 2019. 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 logistics services company established in 1982, and has grown substantially since its incorporation. It has been listed on stock exchanges and has an online presence. It currently has 300 offices in 73 countries.

The Complainant has used its trademark ARAMEX for 37 years and has registered it in many countries in the world. For example, the Complainant the owns trademark registration no. 25308 registered on February 25, 1988 in Jordan, the trademark registration no. 007165533 registered on October 7, 2019 in the European Union, the trademark registration no. TMA767457 registered on May 20, 2010 in Canada and the trademark registration no. 1455349 registered on December 6, 2012 in Australia. The trademark of the Complainant is a distinctive non-descriptive term.

The Complainant has registered domain names including the trademark ARAMEX. Its first registration of a domain name took place in 1995 for <aramex.com>. The Complainant is present on the social medial using its trademark ARAMEX.

The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on July 10, 2019. The disputed domain name resolves to a website displaying pay-per-click (“PPC”) links that provide competing services with the Complainant.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. The Complainant owns several registrations of its mark ARAMEX. Goodwill and recognition have been attained for the trademark ARAMEX. The disputed domain name contains the trademark ARAMEX. The generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.promo” should be disregarded.

The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Respondent does not have any trademark rights or unregistered trademark rights in the trademark ARAMEX. The Complainant did not authorize the Respondent the use of the trademark in the disputed domain name. None of the circumstances, which demonstrate a right or legitimate interest in a domain name apply to the case in hand. The disputed domain name resolves to a PPC webpage, containing links such as “Package Delivery”, “Delivery Courier”, which direct users to the competitors’ websites. Accordingly, there is no bona fide offering of goods or services. The Respondent is using the trademark ARAMEX to create an impression of association with the Complainant for commercial gain. This is not a legitimate noncommercial use.

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant’s first registration of the trademark ARAMEX took place 31 years before the disputed domain name was registered. Substantial goodwill and popularity are attached to the trademark ARAMEX. Information on the registrations of the trademark is publicly available online. The trademark ARAMEX is wellknown in the region where the Respondent is based. The PPC links demonstrate the Respondent’s knowledge of the Complainant. Hence the registration was in bad faith.

The use of the domain name is also in bad faith. The Respondent is engaged in a pattern of registering third party trademarks. The use of PPC links to redirect Internet users to competitors’ websites through misleading those users is clearly done with the aim of commercial gain.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant owns trademark registrations for ARAMEX in many jurisdictions. The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has established its ownership of the trademark ARAMEX.

The disputed domain name comprises the Complainant’s trademark ARAMEX in its entirety. The gTLD “.promo” should typically be ignored when assessing confusing similarity as established by prior UDRP decisions.

Consequently, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark of the Complainant and that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant has made a prima facie case showing that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, particularly by asserting that it never authorized the Respondent to use its trademark as part of the disputed domain name.

The Respondent has not provided evidence of circumstances of the types specified in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, or of any other circumstances, giving rise to rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

Consequently, the Panel finds that the Complainant has met the requirement under the Policy of showing that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Registration and use in bad faith are evidenced by the fact that the disputed domain name resolves to a website where PPC links are available for services in competition with those of the Complainant. Furthermore, the trademark ARAMEX has been in use for 37 years and is well-known in the Arab world, where the Respondent resides. Hence, the Panel finds that the Respondent was fully aware of the Complainant and its trademark and has registered the disputed domain name with the aim of attracting consumers to its website and with the intent of commercial gain, by creating the impression of being affiliated with the Complainant.

Such conduct falls squarely within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, and therefore the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(iii) 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 <aramex.promo> be transferred to the Complainant.

Nayiri Boghossian
Sole Panelist
Date: October 18, 2019

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/