Westmore · UDRP DecisionAramcocapitalgroup.com + 4 more domains
The Panel ordered transfer of all five domain names. It found them confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ARAMCO or SAUDI ARAMCO trademarks because the added terms—“capital group,” “investment,” “investment group,” “gas,” and “solar”—did not sufficiently distinguish them. The Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests, and the Panel found bad-faith registration and use based on the well-known character of the marks, the timing before the Complainant’s anticipated initial public offering, the registration of several domains incorporating the marks, pay-per-click parking, and the Respondent’s failure to answer the cease-and-desist letter or Complaint.
The timeline behind aramcocapitalgroup.com
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 aramcocapitalgroup.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
How each disputed name was decided in this proceeding.
This decision illustrates a cumulative bad-faith analysis involving five coordinated registrations, a well-known mark, descriptive additions connected to investment or energy concepts, pay-per-click parking, timing around an anticipated corporate event, and respondent default. The decision also confirms that adding ordinary terms to a recognizable mark generally does not prevent confusing similarity where the mark remains clearly identifiable.
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 Saudi Arabian Oil Co. v. Yordanys Hector Case No. D2018-0908 1. The Parties The Complainant is Saudi Arabian Oil Co. of Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, represented by Fish & Richardson P.C., United States of America ("United States"). The Respondent is Yordanys Hector of Orlando, Florida, United States. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar The disputed domain names <aramcocapitalgroup.com>, <aramcoinvestment.com>, <aramcoinvestmentgroup.com>, <saudiaramcogas.com> and <saudiaramcosolar.com> (the "Domain Names") are registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on April 24, 2018. On April 24, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Names. On April 25, 2018, 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 May 11, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 31, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on June 1, 2018. The Center appointed Mathias Lilleengen as the sole panelist in this matter on June 6, 2018. 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 The Complainant was founded in 1933 and is among the largest oil companies in the world. Based in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, the Complainant is expected to have a market capitalization of USD 1 trillion to USD 1.5 trillion when it sells shares in 2018. The Complainant has an upcoming initial public offering. The Complainant runs operations in the United States and internationally, with subsidiaries and affiliates in the United Arab Emirates, the United States, China, Egypt, India, Japan, the Netherlands, Singapore, the Republic of Korea and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The Complainant owns United States Registration No. 4,541,437 for the ARAMCO trademark, registered on June 3, 2014. The Complainant also owns numerous other registrations and applications for the ARAMCO and SAUDI ARAMCO trademarks throughout the world, such as the European Union Registration No. 012676045, registered on August 15, 2014 and the European Union Registration No. 000918581, registered on December 1, 1999. The Complainant is the owner of <aramco.com> domain name, which was registered on January 27, 1994. The Complainant has used "www.aramco.com" as the official website. The Domain Names were registered on November 21, 2017 and resolve to registrar parking websites with pay-per-click links. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant provides trademark registrations and submits that its trademark is well known. The Complainant argues that the Domain Names are identical to the Complainant's trademark, with the mere addition of descriptive and/or common terms and the gTLD ".com". The addition of generic terms such as "capital group", "investment", "investment group", "gas" and "solar" to the Domain Names fails to alleviate confusion or distinguish the Domain Names from the Complainant's trademarks. The Complainant argues that the Respondent is not affiliated or related to the Complainant in any way, or licensed or otherwise authorized to use the Complainant's trademark. The Respondent has no prior rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. The Respondent's use does not constitute a fair or legitimate noncommercial use of the Domain Names. As to bad faith, the Complainant argues that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant when it registered the Domain Names. The Complainant's trademark is famous. Moreover, the timing of the registration of the Domain Names, before the Complainant's upcoming initial public offering, indicates knowledge of the Complainant and its trademark. Moreover, the Respondent has registered several domain names incorporating the Complainant's trademarks. This also indicates bad faith. Likewise, the fact that the Domain Names resolve to parked pages to attract clicks and promote third parties, and the Respondent has failed to respond to the Complainant's cease-and-desist letter. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has established that it has rights in the trademarks ARAMCO and SAUDI ARAMCO. The test for confusing similarity involves the comparison between the trademark and the domain name. In this case, the Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark. The addition of generic terms such as "capital group", "investment", "investment group", "gas" and "solar" to the Domain Names does not provide sufficient distinction from the Complainant's mark. For the purpose of assessing confusing similarity under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, it is permissible for the Panel to ignore the gTLD ".com", see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions , Third Edition ("WIPO Overview 3.0"), section 1.11 . The Panel finds that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to trademarks in which the Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant has made unrebutted assertions that it has not granted any authorization to the Respondent to register domain names containing its trademarks or otherwise make use of its marks. Based on the evidence, the Respondent is not affiliated or related to the Complainant in any way. There is no bona fide offering nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use within the meaning of the Policy. The Panel finds that the Complainant has made out an unrebutted prima facie case. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Names in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith It is more likely than not that the Respondent knew of the Complainant's trademarks and its business when the Respondent registered the Domain Names, in particular taking into account that the Complainant's trademark is well-known and the timing of the registration before the initial public offering. The Respondent has registered several domain names incorporating the Complainant's trademarks. This indicates bad faith. Moreover, the Domain Names resolve to a parking page to attract clicks and promote third parties. The Respondent has failed to respond to the Complainant's cease-and-desist letter and the Complaint. For the reasons set out above, the Panel concludes that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith, within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. 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 Names <aramcocapitalgroup.com>, <aramcoinvestment.com>, <aramcoinvestmentgroup.com>, <saudiaramcogas.com> and <saudiaramcosolar.com> be transferred to the Complainant. Mathias Lilleengen Sole Panelist Date: June 8, 2018
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around aramcocapitalgroup.com
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.