Westmore · UDRP DecisionStatoilaviation.biz
The Panel ordered transfer of <statoilaviation.biz>. It found the domain confusingly similar to Complainant's STATOIL trademarks because it incorporated STATOIL in its entirety and added the descriptive term “aviation,” which reinforced an association with Complainant's aviation-related fuels. Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests because it was not commonly known by the domain, was not authorized to use the mark, and used the domain for automatically generated advertisements and a sale offer. Bad faith was established from the later registration of a domain associating STATOIL with Complainant's goods, evidence concerning Respondent's registration of other trademark-bearing domains, and the combined unsolicited and website-based sale offers.
The timeline behind statoilaviation.biz
Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.
Westmore reconstructs the full history behind statoilaviation.biz — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
The case illustrates how adding a term connected to a complainant's actual goods can strengthen, rather than reduce, the perceived association created by incorporating a trademark in full. It also distinguishes a generic domain-sale offer, which the Panel said was insufficient by itself, from a combination of sale-related circumstances capable of supporting bad-faith use.
Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Statoil ASA (Statoil) v. Liheng, Just Traffic Supervision Consulting Case No. D2016-2115 1. The Parties Complainant is Statoil ASA of Stavanger, Norway, represented by Valea AB, Sweden. Respondent is Liheng, Just Traffic Supervision Consulting, of Hong Kong, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <statoilaviation.biz> is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 18, 2016. On same day, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 20, 2016, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on October 28, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 17, 2016. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on November 21, 2016. The Center appointed Timothy D. Casey as the sole panelist in this matter on December 1, 2016. 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 an international energy company with approximately 22,000 employees that has been operating worldwide for over 40 years. Complainant owns rights throughout the world in several hundred trademark registrations, including International Trademark Reg. No. 730092, registered on March 7, 2000 and European Union Trademark Reg. No. 003657871 for STATOIL, registered on May 18, 2005 (the “STATOIL Trademarks”), the earliest of which (now expired) dates back to 1974. Complainant also owns several hundred domain names containing the STATOIL Trademarks. The disputed domain name was registered on February 16, 2016. The disputed domain name currently resolves to a website that appears to automatically generate advertisements and includes a form through which offers to buy the disputed domain name can be submitted. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends the disputed domain name is confusingly similar, visually, phonetically and in overall commercial impression, to the STATOIL Trademarks. The mere addition of the descriptive term “aviation” is not sufficient to differentiate or distinguish the disputed domain name from the STATOIL Trademarks because the word “aviation” merely suggests that the disputed domain name is associated with products intended for use with aviation. Likewise, the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.biz” does not serve to distinguish the disputed domain name from the STATOIL Trademarks. Complainant further contends that Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name and that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and has never been authorized by Complainant to use the STATOIL Trademark in any manner. Complainant also argues that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name for a website that automatically generates advertisements and seeks to sell the disputed domain name is not a bona fide offering of goods and services. Complainant further contends that Respondent has registered other domain names incorporating other well-known trademarks, such as <budlight.biz> and <hasselblad.org>. As for evidence of bad faith, Complainant alleges the STATOIL Trademarks are well known worldwide, such that they could not have been unknown to Respondent at the time of registration of the disputed domain name. Complainant further alleges that the disputed domain name bears no relationship to Respondent’s apparent name or business and has no meaning outside of the name and trademarks of Complainant. Finally, Complainant notes the unsolicited attempt, by an apparent agent of Respondent, to sell the disputed domain name to Complainant. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings In view of Respondent’s failure to reply to Complainant’s contentions, the Panel will treat Complainant’s contentions as true and undisputed unless it is unreasonable or unnecessary to do otherwise. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Complainant owns a large number of registrations for the STATOIL Trademarks around the world for goods associated with energy products. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has trademark rights in the STATOIL Trademarks. Although not argued by Complainant, the disputed domain name incorporates the entirety of the STATOIL Trademarks. While the disputed domain name incorporates a descriptive term, “aviation”, the additional term does nothing to distinguish the disputed domain name from the STATOIL Trademarks because the incorporated term only serves to associate “statoil” with goods offered by Complainant in association with the STATOIL Trademarks, including aviation-related fuels. As such, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the STATOIL Trademarks. The Panel agrees that the gTLD does nothing to further distinguish the disputed domain name from the STATOIL Trademarks. The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Panel finds that Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. Respondent does not appear to be commonly known by the disputed domain name. Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use or register the disputed domain name. Neither the automatically generated advertisements nor the offer to sell the disputed domain name on Respondent’s website creates any legitimate interest in the disputed domain name as it is well established that neither offering serves as a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Given the timing of Complainant’s registration of the STATOIL Trademarks and use in association with the noted goods, and the timing of Respondent’s subsequent registration of the disputed domain name, using terms that clearly associate the disputed domain name with Complainant’s goods, registration of the disputed domain name was more likely than not in bad faith. Evidence of Respondent’s likely unauthorized registration of other domain names incorporating other well-known trademarks is further evidence of bad faith with respect to registration of the disputed domain name. While the mere generic offer to sell the disputed domain name on the website does not constitute bad faith, the Panel notes that Respondent’s website cautions against making offers that do not meet the owner’s expectations. As it is unlikely that Respondent is in the business of buying and selling domain names only to sell them for the cost of registration, it appears likely to the Panel that Respondent’s suggestion is that it will deny any offer that is not greater than the cost of registration. The Panel therefore finds Respondent’s combined additional unsolicited offer, along with the generic website offer cautioning against low offers, to constitute evidence of use in bad faith. The Panel concludes that the disputed domain name was registered and used 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, <statoilaviation.biz>, be transferred to Complainant. Timothy D. Casey Sole Panelist Date: December 12, 2016
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around statoilaviation.biz
The decision is only the record. Westmore connects it to the cases, authorities, panelists, parties and domain evidence surrounding it.
A short, grounded explanation drawn only from this decision's record — not legal advice or a prediction.
Grounded in the Westmore record for this decision. Research/informational only — not legal advice or a prediction of any outcome.
The decision is only the beginning.
You've seen what happened. Now discover the deeper intelligence behind the case, the panelist, the parties and the authorities that matter.
Go beyond the public record: see how this case has been cited, find comparable decisions, analyze the panelist and apply the relevant authorities to your Matter.
Westmore Professional · $395/month
Research with UDRP IntelligenceWestmore AI drafts an attorney-review-ready UDRP response from your facts, grounded in the exact panel and closest precedent.
$895 one-time per matter · no subscription required. Self-help drafting aid — not legal advice.
Build your responseWestmore UDRP records draw on WIPO-indexed decisions and are provided for research and informational purposes only. Not legal advice, a clearance opinion, or a prediction of any outcome.