The Complainant is Aramex International LLC, United Arab Emirates, represented by SafeNames Ltd., United Kingdom.
The Respondent is asmaayl alsimaayl, pfoksa, Saudi Arabia.
The disputed domain name <aramex.global> is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com (the “Registrar”).
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 13, 2019. On August 13, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 14, 2019, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.
The Center verified that 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 the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on August 19, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 8, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 9, 2019.
The Center appointed Miguel B. O’Farrell as the sole panelist in this matter on September 16, 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.
The Complainant Aramex International LLC is a mail delivery and logistics services company founded in 1982 in the United Arab Emirates that owns several trademark registrations containing the word ARAMEX, including the following:
- Jordan trademark ARAMEX n° 25308 registered on February 25, 1988, in class 16;
- European Union Trade Mark ARAMEX n° 000386391 registered on January 21, 2009, in classes 9, 35 and 39;
- Canadian trademark ARAMEX n° TMA767457 registered on May 20, 2010, in classes 35 and 39; and
- Australian trademark ARAMEX n° 1455349 registered on October 24, 2011, in classes 35 and 39.
For its official website the Complainant uses the domain name <aramex.com>, which it registered in 1995.
The disputed domain name <aramex.global> was registered on July 10, 2019 and resolves to a webpage containing links such as “Package Delivery”, “International Courier” and “International Shipping, which direct Internet users to the Complainant’s competitive websites.
The Complainant claims to be the leading global provider of logistical and transportations solutions, with over 300 Aramex offices in 73 countries and 604 cities worldwide. It has acquired widespread consumer goodwill by virtue of its 37 years of using the ARAMEX brand, which also has an active presence in the Internet through Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, LinkedIn and YouTube.
More specifically, the Complainant contends that, to the best of its knowledge, the Respondent does not have any registered or unregistered trademark rights in the term “Aramex”, nor is the Respondent commonly known by the term “Aramex”. Neither has the Respondent received any license from the Complainant to use domain names featuring the ARAMEX trademark. All active trademarks for the term “Aramex” are held by the Complainant.
The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name resolves to a Pay-Per-Click (PPC) webpage containing links such as “Package Delivery”, “International Courier” and “International Shipping” which direct users to competitive websites.
The brand ARAMEX derives from the term “Arab American Express”. It is a distinctive and non-descriptive term for the Complainant’s services. The Complainant uses their brand name “ARAMEX”, as part of their brand logo, to distinguish their services from their competitors.
Therefore, the Complainant submits that there is no plausible reason for the registration and use of the disputed domain name <aramex.global> other than with the ulterior motive of keeping it from the Complainant and to take advantage of the goodwill and valuable reputation attached to the ARAMEX brand.
The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is generating monetary revenue through misleadingly diverting online users with the disputed domain name which is identical to the Complainant’s trademark.
Finally, the Complainant requests the Panel to order the transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainant.
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, for this Complaint to succeed in relation to the disputed domain name, the Complainant must prove each of the following, namely that:
(I) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark 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
(Ill) The disputed domain name was registered and is being used In bad faith.
The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has proved that it has rights in the trademark ARAMEX.
The standing test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the trademark and the disputed domain name to determine whether the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark. The test involves a side-by-side comparison of the disputed domain name and the textual components of the relevant trademark to assess whether the mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name.
For the purposes of assessing identity or confusing similarity under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, it is permissible for the Panel to ignore the Top-Level Domain (“TLD”) as it is viewed as a standard registration requirement in section 1.11.1 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”). Thus, for the test for confusing similarity of this first prong the Panel shall disregard the “.global” included in the disputed domain name.
The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is identical to the trademark ARAMEX in which the Complainant has rights and that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy are fulfilled.
Pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, a respondent may establish rights to or legitimate interests in a domain name by demonstrating any of the following:
(i) before any notice to it of the dispute, the respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) the respondent has been commonly known by the domain name, even if it has acquired no trade mark or service mark rights; or
(iii) the respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain, to misleadingly divert consumers.
Although the Policy addresses ways in which a respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name, it is well established, as it is put in section 2.1 of WIPO Overview 3.0 that a complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. Once such prima facie case is made, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to come forward with appropriate allegations and evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent does come forward with some allegations of evidence of relevant rights or legitimate interests, the panel weighs all the evidence, with the burden of proof always remaining on the complainant.
The Complainant submits that it has never granted the Respondent with a license to use or register the trademark ARAMEX as part of the disputed domain name.
Previous panels under the Policy have found that a lack of rights or legitimate interests exists where, as here, “Complainant asserts that it has not authorized Respondent to use the mark.” Chicago Pneumatic Tool Company LLC v. Texas International Property Associates- NA NA, WIPO Case No. D2008-0144.
As further discussed under section C of this decision, it does not seem that the Respondent is making any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, but rather it is using the Complainant’s trademark without consent for the purpose of deriving unfair monitory advantage by confusing Internet users and leading them to believe that the site to which the disputed domain name resolves relates to the Complainant. Since the Complainant conducts its business in many countries, the “.global” in the disputed domain name only contributes to create such confusion.
The Panel considers that the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain, which resolves to a webpage with links which direct users to the Complainant’s competitive websites cannot be considered a bona fide offering but rather an attempt to capitalize on the reputation and goodwill of the Complainant’s mark or otherwise mislead Internet users.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case, a case calling for an answer from the Respondent. The Respondent has not responded and the Panel therefore finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
The Complaint also succeeds on the second prong.
As defined in section 3.1 of WIPO Overview 3.0, bad faith under the Policy is broadly understood to occur where a respondent takes unfair advantage of or otherwise abuses of complainant’s mark.
The Complainant has proved that it has acquired widespread consumer goodwill by virtue of its many years using the ARAMEX brand, for which it has received several awards and accolades.
The Panel is satisfied that the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant’s name and trademark ARAMEX when it registered the disputed domain name <aramex.global> on July 10, 2019. The Complainant’s earliest trademark registration predates the registration date of the disputed domain name by 31 years.
As proved by the evidence produced by the Complainant, the Respondent has also registered several domain names in the past with third party famous trademarks and domain names.
In other words, the present case is not the first time in which the Respondent has attempted to capitalize on the fame of third parties well-known trademarks.
The fact that there is a clear absence of rights or legitimate interests coupled with no credible explanation for the Respondent’s choice of the disputed domain name is also a significant factor to consider that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith (as stated in section 3.2.1 of WIPO Overview 3.0).
Clearly, the Respondent has registered the disputed domain intentionally to attempt to attract for commercial gain Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s widely used mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement. This amounts to bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
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.global> be transferred to the Complainant.
Miguel B. O’Farrell
Sole Panelist
Date: September 19, 2019