WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

G4S Plc v. WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc. / Richard Otabil, Engrid Media

Case No. D2020-3200

1. The Parties

Complainant is G4S Plc, United Kingdom, represented by SafeNames Ltd., United Kingdom.

Respondent is WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc., Panama / Richard Otabil, Engrid Media, Ghana.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <g4logistic.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 November 27, 2020. On November 30, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 30, 2020, 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 December 1, 2020 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 1, 2020.

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 December 4, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 24, 2020. Respondent sent email communications on December 8 and 9, 2020. The Center notified the Commencement of Panel Appointment Process on December 29, 2020.

The Center appointed Brian J. Winterfeldt as the sole panelist in this matter on January 6, 2021. 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 G4S PLC is one of the largest provider of security services in the world. Complainant has provided security products, services and solutions under its G4S mark (“Complainant’s Mark”), including global secured transport of goods and individuals, since 2004. Complainant offers its services across six continents, employs over 585,000 people worldwide, and conducts operations in over 100 countries. It generated a revenue GBP 7.8 billion pounds in 2017 and is listed on the FTSE Index and the London and Copenhagen stock exchanges. It has been publicly recognized for its services in high profile events and projects such as the London 2012 Olympics.

Complainant owns multiple national and international registrations for its G4S mark, including International Registration number 885912 (registered on October 11, 2005), European Union registration number 004645297 (registered on May 15, 2007) and United States registration number 3,378,800 (registered on February 5, 2008). Complainant also owns various domain names incorporating its G4S mark, including its primary domain name <gs4.com>, which was registered on December 1, 1999.

The disputed domain name <g4logistic.com> was registered on March 3, 2020. It resolved to a website advertising global transport services and was associated with an active email server. The disputed domain name was used to send emails allegedly on behalf of an individual that was purportedly the “G4S Logistics Operations Manager.” At least one email was sent to an Internet user on behalf of this individual purporting to be working for Complainant in which he requested payment of large sums of money in connection with certain transport services. The recipient contacted Complainant after noting that the relevant shipment never arrived and Complainant informed the recipient that Complainant did not own the disputed domain name nor the website to which it resolved and that no such individual has ever been under its employment.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s G4S mark because it reproduces the most prominent elements of its G4S mark. Furthermore, Complainant alleges that the incorporation of the term “logistic” is a direct reference to its logistics branch, G4S International Logistics. Complainant also argues that the addition of the term “logistic” and the removal of the letter “s” from Complainant’s Mark in the disputed domain name is insufficient to distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant’s G4S trademark. Complainant further argues that the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and Complainant’s Mark is evidenced by the fact that Respondent, through the use of the disputed domain name, successfully scammed at least one Internet user who believed that Respondent was in fact associated with Complainant.

Complainant also contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in or to the disputed domain name. According to Complainant, Respondent has never been commonly known by the disputed domain name, been licensed the right to use Complainant’s Mark, and is not otherwise authorized to act on Complainant’s behalf. Furthermore, Complainant argues that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to perpetrate fraud cannot be considered a bona fide offering of goods and services.

Lastly, Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith. Complainant argues that Respondent must have had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the G4S mark given the almost complete incorporation of Complainant’s Mark in the disputed domain name and Respondent’s attempt to impersonate an employee for Complainant in order to conduct a fraud scheme, and that such use is evidence of Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name.

B. Respondent

Respondent sent one correspondence to Complainant suggesting a settlement to this proceeding but no such agreement was ever reached. Respondent did not otherwise reply to Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, to succeed Complainant must satisfy the Panel that:

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

(ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and

(iii) the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

Furthermore, section 4.3 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) states:

“Does a respondent’s default/failure to respond to the complainant’s contentions automatically result in the complaint succeeding?

Noting the burden of proof on the complainant, a respondent’s default (i.e., failure to submit a formal response) would not by itself mean that the complainant is deemed to have prevailed; a respondent’s default is not necessarily an admission that the complainant’s claims are true.” Thus, even though Respondent has failed to address Complainant’s contentions, the burden remains with Complainant to establish the three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy by a preponderance of the evidence. See, e.g., The Knot, Inc. v. In Knot We Trust LTD, WIPO Case No. D2006-0340.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

Ownership of a nationally registered trademark registration constitutes prima facie evidence that the complainant has the requisite rights in a mark for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1. Complainant has provided evidence that it has rights in the G4S mark through its various national and international registrations.

With Complainant’s rights in the G4S mark established, the remaining question under the first element of the Policy is whether the disputed domain name (typically disregarding the Top-Level Domain (“TLD”) in which the domain name is registered) is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s Mark. Furthermore, panels have also found that the overall facts and circumstances of a case (including relevant website content or other use) may support a finding of confusing similarity, particularly where it appears that the respondent registered the domain name precisely because it believed that the domain name was confusingly similar to a mark held by the complainant. WIPO Overview 3.0, Section 1.7.

Here, Complainant’s G4S mark is almost fully incorporated in the disputed domain name. The deletion of the letter “s” and the inclusion of the dictionary term “logistic” in the disputed domain name does nothing to prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element. Furthermore, Complainant submitted evidence that the website to which the disputed domain name resolves advertises services that are similar to those offered by Complainant under its G4S mark, and that Respondent registered the disputed domain name specifically because of its similarity to Complainant’s Mark in order to perpetrate fraud. The Panel therefore finds that Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy in establishing its trademark rights and showing that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s G4S trademark.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, the complainant must make at least a prima facie showing that the respondent possesses no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. See, e.g., Malayan Banking Berhad v. Beauty, Success & Truth International, WIPO Case No. D2008-1393. Once the complainant makes such a prima facie showing, the burden of production shifts to the respondent, though the burden of proof always remains on the complainant. If the respondent fails to come forward with evidence showing rights or legitimate interests, the complainant will have sustained its burden under the second element of the UDRP.

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy lists the ways that the respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name:

(i) before any notice of the dispute, respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or

(ii) the respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the disputed 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 disputed domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trade mark or service mark at issue.

Here, Complainant has alleged that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent has not submitted any arguments or evidence to rebut Complainant’s contention that it has never authorized, licensed or permitted Respondent to use the G4S mark in any way. Complainant has also asserted that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. As shown in evidence submitted by Complainant, the disputed domain name was used to impersonate an employee allegedly working for Complainant to perpetrate a fraudulent scheme to obtain payments of large sums of money from individuals doing or seeking to do business with Complainant. These activities cannot be considered bona fide offerings of goods or services nor legitimate noncommercial or fair uses under the Policy. Indeed, the use of a domain name for illegal activity, including phishing and fraud, can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. See, e.g., Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. v. Nanci Nette, Name Management Group, WIPO Case No. D2018-0717; WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1.

Respondent has failed to rebut Complainant’s allegations and evidence, and therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name within the meaning of Policy paragraph 4(a)(ii).

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

In this case, bad faith can be found in the registration and use of the disputed domain name. Complainant provided ample evidence to show the widespread use and numerous registrations of the G4S mark that long predates Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name. That the website to which the disputed domain name resolves advertises services similar to those offered under Complainant’s Mark serves as further evidence that Respondent was likely aware of Complainant’s Mark at the moment he registered the disputed domain name. Complainant also provided ample evidence showing that Respondent was impersonating an employee allegedly working for Complainant to conduct a fraudulent scheme to extract payments from individuals. Therefore, Respondent was undoubtedly aware of Complainant and its rights in the G4S mark when he registered the disputed domain name. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1; see also TTT Moneycorp Limited v. Privacy Gods / Privacy Gods Limited, WIPO Case No. D2016-1973.

Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name not only clearly indicate full knowledge of Complainant’s G4S Mark, but also an attempt to misleadingly divert consumers for Respondent’s own commercial gain through its fraudulent activities. See Policy, paragraph 4(b)(iv).

The use of the disputed domain name to conduct a fraudulent scheme to collect payments from Internet users via an email address impersonating an employee working for Complainant is the type of illegal activity that is manifestly considered evidence of bad faith under the Policy. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4; Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. v. Nanci Nette, Name Management Group, supra.

For these reasons, this Panel finds that Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name was 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 <g4logistic.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Brian J. Winterfeldt
Sole Panelist
Date: January 20, 2021