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

Brambles LTD v. Privacy Service Provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf / Paul Moore

Case No. D2021-4263

1. The Parties

Complainant is Brambles LTD, Australia, represented by Michael L. Leetzow, P.A., United States of America (“United States”).

Respondent is Privacy Service Provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf, Iceland / Paul Moore, United States.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <brambles-de.com> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 17, 2021. On December 17, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On December 17, 2021, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed from named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on December 21, 2021 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on January 19, 2022.

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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on January 24, 2022. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 13, 2022. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on February 14, 2022.

The Center appointed Clive L. Elliott Q.C., as the sole panelist in this matter on March 2, 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 a multi-national supply-chain logistics company, listed on the Australian securities exchange with its headquarters in Sydney, Australia. Complainant primarily operates through its two companies, CHEP and BXB Digital, in more than 60 countries with the largest operations being in North America and Western Europe. Complainant’s customers are primarily in the fast-moving consumer goods, fresh produce, beverage, retail and general manufacturing industries. Complainant employs more than 13,000 people and works through a network of more than 750 service centers throughout the world.

Complainant and its related entities, own registered trade marks related to its brand BRAMBLES, both the BRAMBLES word (character) marks and BRAMBLES related logos throughout the world. As part of its global business, Complainant has 43 standard character marks and 27 stylized marks registered throughout the world (“Complainant’s Mark”).

Complainant is also the registered owner of more than 160 top-level domain names and country code top-level domain names related to its BRAMBLES brand.

According to the publicly available WhoIs the Domain Name was registered on August 18, 2021. The Domain Name resolves to an inactive page.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

Complainant indicates in its complaint that included in the domain names owned by it, several include “.de” as the country code top level domain, i.e. <brambles.de>, <brambles.com.de>, <brambles.de.dom> and <brambleslimited.de>.

Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s Mark as it contains Complainant’s Mark in its entirety with the addition of the country code “de”.

Complainant asserts that Respondent is using Complainant’s Mark in a confusingly similar email address and addressing emails to Complainant’s customers who would recognize the mark BRAMBLES. Complainant further states that through Respondent’s fraudulent use of emails linked to the Domain Name Respondent has caused one of Complainant’s customers to pay an invoice for USD 37,000.00 to Respondent rather than to Complainant.

Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name, and that Respondent is not related to Complainant’s business, is not one of its agents or have any business with it. Complainant further asserts that it has never given anyone outside of Complainant’s company permission to register the Domain Name or to send emails changing the banking details.

Complainant submits that Respondent has registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith and for illegal activity by a play-off of Complainant’s well-known and globally registered trade marks to catch customers off‑guard and to make erroneous and fraudulent payments to Respondent. Complainant further submits that such actions of Respondent acting as an Internet fraudster impersonating a business can be associated with phishing activities. Complainant goes on to submit that the fact that the identity and address of Respondent are also hidden by using Namecheap’s WhoisGuard service is further evidence that registration of the Domain Name has been in bad faith.

B. Respondent

Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

Complainant is a large supply-chain logistics company headquartered in Sydney, Australia. It operates in more than 60 countries around the world and employs more than 13,000 people. Complainant has a number of trade mark registrations containing the word BRAMBLES, either in the form of standard character marks or stylised marks, referred to above as Complainant’s Mark.

Complainant has demonstrated it has rights in Complainant’s Mark. The Domain Name reproduces Complainant’s Mark in its entirety (except for a dash and the letters “de”), along with the generic Top-Level Domain “.com”. Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s Mark as it contains Complainant’s Mark in its entirety with the addition of the country code “de”.

Regardless of whether “de” is a country code, the addition of these letters does nothing material to detract from the fact that Complainant’s Mark in its entirety has been adopted and is reflected in the Domain Name. The Domain Name is therefore confusingly similar to Complainant’s Mark.

Accordingly, the first ground under the Policy is made out.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant’s primary complaint is that Respondent is using Complainant’s Mark in a confusingly similar email address and in particular has addressed emails to Complainant’s customers. Complainant argues that in doing so these third parties would recognize the mark BRAMBLES in the email address and be misled as to whom they are dealing with. Complainant refers more specifically to one instance of allegedly fraudulent use of emails linked to the Domain Name, which resulted in one of Complainant’s customers erroneously paying a not insignificant invoice to Respondent, rather than to Complainant.

Complainant’s allegations are specific and serious in nature. They place an onus on Respondent to deny or refute such allegations. They also call for an explanation as to why Respondent chose the Domain Name. In the absence of any response, the Panel concludes that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name and that in the absence of any licence or authorisation to use the Domain Name, that Respondent is using the Domain Name to wrongly associate itself with Complainant.

Absent any response or explanation, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name and that the Domain Name was not registered and has not been used for any legitimate or fair purpose.

Accordingly, the second ground under the Policy is made out.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Under this ground Complainant submits, with evidence, that Respondent has registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith and for illegal activity by a play-off of Complainant’s well-known and globally registered trade marks to catch customers off-guard and to make erroneous and fraudulent payments to Respondent. Given Complainant’s reputation and the existence of its registered rights in Complainant’s Mark Respondent must have had prior knowledge of Complainant’s Mark at the time of registration of the Domain Name. The fact that Respondent appears to have used Complainant’s Mark to engineer erroneous payments in its favour leads the Panel to infer that these actions were undertaken with knowledge of Complainant’s rights in Complainant’s Mark.

The Panel therefore concludes that the Domain Name was registered and used for the purpose of taking advantage of Complainant’s reputation in Complainant’s Mark to erroneously attract, and mislead, Internet users and that such conduct amounts to bad faith under the Policy.

Accordingly, the third ground under the Policy is made out.

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 Domain Name <brambles-de.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Clive L. Elliott Q.C.
Sole Panelist
Date: March 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/