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

CEVA Logistics Headoffice B.V. v. Tsi Nkwenti Collins

Case No. D2021-4133

1. The Parties

Complainant is CEVA Logistics Headoffice B.V., Netherlands (hereinafter, “Complainant”), represented by NLO Shieldmark B.V., Netherlands.

Respondent is Tsi Nkwenti Collins, Cameroon (hereinafter, “Respondent”).

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <cevacargotrans.com> is registered with Domain.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 9, 2021. On December 10, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On the same day, 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 Complainant on December 13, 2021, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on December 16, 2021.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint (hereinafter, 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 December 22, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 11, 2022. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on January 13, 2022.

The Center appointed M. Scott Donahey as the sole panelist in this matter on February 3, 2022. 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

Complainant is the registrant of numerous trademarks consisting of or including the mark CEVA in jurisdictions including the European Union, the Benelux countries, and numerous other jurisdictions. All of these trademark registrations predate the registration of the disputed domain name. For example, International Trademark Registration No. 925318 for CEVA, registered on February 19, 2007. Amended Complaint, Annexes IV and VI. Majority of the trademarks were intended for services in the field of transportation and logistics, the general service area in which Complainant provided its services.

Respondent registered the disputed domain name on April 22, 2021. The disputed domain name resolves to a website displaying the Complainant’s registered CEVA mark and purportedly offering services in the field of logistics.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered CEVA trademarks, since “ceva” is the essential “label” in the disputed domain name and the words “cargo” and “trans” are merely descriptive of services, such as those offered in logistics.

Complainant alleges that the company described on the website to which the disputed domain name resolves, Ceva Cargo Transport, gives an address in Kiev, Ukraine. However, Complainant contends that this company is not registered in that country, and does not exist officially. Complainant asserts that this company was previously named, Fleet GCL Maritime Logistics, using the same address as is listed on the website at the disputed domain name. The company was engaged in fraudulent activity in the past and has been blacklisted. See, e.g., (1) “https://dirtyscam.com/report/fleet-gcl-maritime-logistics-company-agent-mr-alex-volodimiri-k/”; (2) “https://dirtyscam.com/report/krovita-kyt-co-ltd”; and (3) “https://work-info.name/chernyl-spisok-kompanii/73451-fleet-gcl-maritime-logistics-company”, a site which reviews frauds. Complainant alleges that Respondent committed frauds, including issuance of fake shipment documents, the receipt of partial prepayment and then the rendering of no services.

In sum, Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CEVA trademarks. Complainant argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. Complainant contends that Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.

B. Respondent

Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

“A Panel shall decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.” Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules.

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that the complainant must prove each of the following:

(i) that the domain name registered by the respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and,

(ii) that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and,

(iii) that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The disputed domain name consists of Complainant’s CEVA trademark and the English words “cargo” and “trans.” The English words are descriptive of services offered by Complainant under its CEVA mark. The CEVA trademark is clearly recognizable in the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

While the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, UDRP panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the almost impossible 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. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 2.1.

In the present case, Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and Respondent has failed to assert any such rights. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The disputed domain name is being used to purportedly offer the same types of services as those offered by Complainant under the trademarked CEVA name that was registered by Complainant long before Respondent registered the disputed domain name. Complainant asserts that the company on the website at the disputed domain name, Ceva Cargo Transport, does not exist and its address in fact matches with a company named, Fleet GCL Maritime Logistics, which has been known for its fraudulent activities. Complainant further asserts that Respondent registered the disputed domain name similar to the Complainant’s CEVA trademark to obtain fraudulently money for services Respondent never intended to perform and never did perform. Respondent has not responded to Complainant’s attentions. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.

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, <cevacargotrans.com>, be transferred to Complainant.

M. Scott Donahey
Sole Panelist
Date: February 17, 2022

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/