UPS Prowls to Victory in Coyote Transporting Domain Dispute

UPS got UDRP panelist Dawn Osborne to make the following conclusions:

  • The complainant was United Parcel Service of America, Inc. (UPS).
  • The respondent was Rajeev Pateriya, based in India.
  • The disputed domain name <> was registered in 2023.
  • UPS has trademark rights to the mark COYOTE which it uses for transportation logistics services.
  • The domain name is confusingly similar to UPS’s mark, only adding the generic term “transporting” and the gTLD “.com”.
  • The respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name, as there was no evidence they were commonly known by it or authorized to use UPS’s mark.
  • The domain name was used for a website offering competing services and using UPS’s COYOTE mark.
  • The panelist found bad faith registration and use under the Policy, citing the established reputation of UPS’s mark, the use of the mark on the site to mislead users, and no rebuttal from the respondent.
  • The panel ordered the domain name be transferred from the respondent to UPS.

In summary, the panel found the respondent violated the Policy by registering and using a domain confusingly similar to UPS’s trademark in bad faith, and ordered the transfer of the domain to UPS.

Was This UDRP Decision Wrongly Decided?

Upon further investigation, the case as presented appears to be misleading because there appears to be a third party with a greater interest in the specific domain name and there are many other third parties that have been actively using “Coyote” in their transportation or logistics business names for many years.

That said, nobody should adopt a name in the transportation industry that uses a confusingly similar name with another such business in North America. Why? Because the transportation business is inherently an interstate business that is federally regulated in the USA and drivers often cross the international boarders of Canada and Mexico. Imagine being stopped for being confused with another business that had its US DOT registration suspended or revoked.

The decision to transfer the domain name, however, may have been an acceptable outcome because of the following factors:

  • The website indicates that that the business listed on the Coyote Transporting website is “Transport Inc.” DBA Coyote Transporting, with an address 2812 Clermont Ave Pittsburgh, Pa 15227.
  • In a corporate search for Coyote Transporting, I discovered that there’s an active business entity registered in South Carolina, USA, registered as COYOTE TRANSPORTING, LLC (South Carolina (US), 15 May 2014- ):
  • Addition of officer JOHN D. BROWN, agent (2014-05-15 – 2017-01-17)
  • The website prominently lists a Florida area phone number of 786-475-8226, as well as a UK based phone number of (102) 6666 8888 in the footer of the website.
  • And there’s an almost identically named but inactive entity that was registered in Texas, as COYOTE TRANSPORTING LLC.

Meanwhile, the Respondent’s name mailing address posted on the ICANN whois lookup is

  • Name: Rajeev Pateriya
  • Kind: individual
  • Mailing Address: HIG-91, Adharshila, Awadhpuri , BHOPAL, MP, 462022, IN

Based on reviewing the website at, there are several issues that indicate it is likely an illegitimate, fraudulent site:

  • The website is new and has inconsistent information
  • The contact details, including address and phone number, are for a residential area in Pittsburgh, not a legitimate business. The phone number area code is also for Florida, not Pennsylvania.
  • The about us and service descriptions contain generic copied text and do not reference a real company.
  • There are stock images used throughout the site. Reverse image search shows these are not original and have been taken from various sources.
  • The site has a quote form and call to action to get shipping quotes, aimed at collecting personal information from visitors.
  • The social media icons in the footer lead nowhere and are likely just for show.
  • Overall the site appears hastily put together using a basic template and fake information.

In summary, the site has all the hallmarks of a scam website masquerading as a legitimate transport company to collect user data and payment information. Visitors should avoid submitting any information to this fraudulent site.

Click for information about Reporting Scam Websites

Here are some additional details on why the website at appears to be a fraudulent, scam website:

  • The domain was only registered very recently in 2022, indicating this is not an established company. Legitimate businesses generally have domain registration dates going back years.
  • There are grammatical errors and awkward phrasing throughout the content, signaling it was not written by native English speakers. This suggests the site was set up by foreign scammers.
  • The site is not using HTTPS encryption, so any information submitted through the quote form or contact forms is transmitted insecurely and could easily be intercepted.
  • The site links in the footer to unrelated privacy policy, terms of service, and refund policy pages on separate, generic domains. This shows a lack of authenticity.
  • While the site claims business registration and licensing info is on the About Us page, there is no such information provided.
  • Searching for “Coyote Transporting” does not reveal any legitimate company by that name operating in the transportation industry.
  • The site provides no documentation, certifications, or verifiable track record that would help establish it as a legitimate shipping provider.
  • The call to action for getting a quote does not specify what services they even provide or where they operate.

Overall, the site simply has no signs of authenticity and multiple clear signals it is a scam designed to quickly take advantage of visitors before getting shut down. I would strongly recommend against using or submitting any information to it.

Coyote is Not Distinctive in the Transport and Logistics Industries

As a side note, it does not appear that COYOTE is unique name used in the transportation or logistics industry.

Specifically, there are 65 entities listed on OpenCorporates that use the words “Coyote Transport” in their names. In addition, there’s a European based logistics company doing business at: UDRP DECISION

United Parcel Service of America, Inc. v. Rajeev Pateriya

Claim Number: FA2307002054674


Complainant is United Parcel Service of America, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Alexandra A. Holt of Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Georgia, USA.  Respondent is Rajeev Pateriya (“Respondent”), India.


The domain name at issue is <>, (‘the Domain Name’) registered with, LLC.


The undersigned certifies that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

Dawn Osborne as Panelist.


Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on July 25, 2023; Forum received payment on July 25, 2023.

On July 26, 2023,, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <> Domain Name is registered with, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name., LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the, LLC registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).

On July 31, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 21, 2023 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to  Also on July 31, 2023, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.

Having received no response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

On August 22, 2023 pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Dawn Osborne as Panelist.

Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the “Panel”) finds that Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) “to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent” through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, Forum’s Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.


Complainant requests that the Domain Name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.


A. Complainant

The Complainant’s contentions can be summarised as follows:

The Complainant owns the trade mark COYOTE registered, inter alia, in the USA for transportation logistics services with first use recorded as 2006.

The Domain Name registered in 2023 is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark adding only the generic word ‘transporting’ and the gTLD .com which is insufficient to prevent said confusing similarity.

The Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, is not commonly known by the Domain Name and is not authorised by the Complainant.

The web site attached to the Domain Name offers competing services to the Complainant using the COYOTE mark in its masthead. This cannot be a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate non commercial or fair use.

Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith in actual knowledge of the Complainant, its business and rights, diverting Internet users for commercial gain under Policy 4(b)(iv) and disrupting the Complainant’s business under Policy 4(b)(iii). The Complainant is concerned about possible phishing.

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.


The Complainant owns the trade mark COYOTE registered, inter alia, in the USA for transportation logistics services with first use recorded as 2006.

The Domain Name registered in 2023 offers competing services to the Complainant using the COYOTE mark in its masthead.


Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to “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 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:

(1)  the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and

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

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

In view of Respondent’s failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant’s undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules.  The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (“Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint”).

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The Domain Name consists of the Complainant’s COYOTE mark (which is registered, inter alia, in the USA for transportation services with first use recorded as 2006), the generic term ‘transporting’ and the gTLD .com.

Previous panels have found confusing similarity when a respondent merely adds a generic term to a Complainant’s mark. See PG&E Corp. v Anderson, D2000-1264 (WIPO Nov. 22, 2000)(finding that respondent does not by adding common descriptive or generic terms create new or different marks nor does it alter the underlying mark held by the Complainant). The addition of the generic term ‘transporting’ does not prevent confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant’s mark.

A gTLD does not serve to distinguish a domain name from a Complainant’s mark. See Red Hat Inc v Haecke FA 726010 (Forum July 24, 2006) (concluding that the domain name is identical to the complainant’s red hat mark because the mere addition of the gTLD was insufficient to differentiate the disputed domain name from the mark). The Panel holds that the addition of the gTLD .com does not prevent confusing similarity between the Complainant’s mark and the Domain Name.

Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered mark.

As such the Panel holds that Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied.

Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant has not authorised the use of its mark. There is no evidence or reason to suggest the Respondent is, in fact, commonly known by the Domain Name.  See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA1408001574905 (Forum September 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark). The use is commercial, so is not legitimate non commercial fair use.

The web site attached to the Domain Name used the Complainant’s mark in its masthead to offer competing transportation services.  It did not make it clear that there was no commercial connection with the Complainant. The Panel finds this use was confusing. As such it cannot have amounted to the bona fide offering of goods and services. (See Am. Intl Group Inc v Benjamin FA 944242 (Forum May 11, 2007) finding that the Respondent’s use of a confusingly similar domain name to compete with the Complainant’s business did not constitute a bona fide use of goods and services.)

The Respondent has not answered this Complaint or rebutted the prima facie case evidenced by the Complainant as presented herein.

As such the Panelist finds that the Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

In the opinion of the Panelist the use made of the Domain Name in relation to the Respondent’s site was confusing and disruptive in that visitors to the site might reasonably have believed that it was connected to or approved by the Complainant as it used the Complainant’s mark in its masthead for competing services. At the time of the registration of the Domain Name in 2023 the Complainant’s mark had an established reputation and the Panel holds in these circumstances it is more likely than not, being in the same business, the Respondent was aware of the Complainant, its rights, business and services and the Respondent has not responded to this Complaint to dispute this.

Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trade mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the web site or services on it likely to disrupt the business of the Complainant. See Asbury Auto Group Inc v Tex. Int’l Prop Assocs FA 958542 (Forum May 29, 2007) (finding that the respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to compete with the complainant’s business would likely lead to confusion amongst Internet users as to the sponsorship or affiliation of a competing business and was therefore evidence of bad faith and use).

As such, the Panelist believes that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith and has satisfied the third limb of the Policy under 4(b)(iii) and 4 (b)(iv).


Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

Dawn Osborne, Panelist

Dated:  August 23, 2023

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.