Westmore · UDRP DecisionAftonchemcial.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <aftonchemcial.com>. It found the domain confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered AFTON CHEMICAL mark, found no rights or legitimate interests, and found bad-faith registration and use based principally on typosquatting and the domain’s use for fraudulent emails seeking payment from a customer of the Complainant.
The timeline behind aftonchemcial.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 aftonchemcial.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
The decision illustrates that an inactive website does not preclude a finding of abusive use when the domain is used as email infrastructure for impersonation and attempted payment diversion. The combination of a close typographical variant, longstanding prior trademark rights, and customer-directed fraudulent emails supported findings under all three UDRP elements.
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 Afton Chemical Corporation v. Anene Obi Case No. D2019-0086 1. The Parties The Complainant is Afton Chemical Corporation of Richmond, Virginia, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Day Pitney LLP, United States. The Respondent is Anene Obi of Berlin, Germany. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <aftonchemcial.com> (the “Disputed Domain Name”) 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 January 15, 2019. On January 16, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On January 17, 2019, 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 January 17, 2019 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on January 19, 2019. 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 the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on January 22, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 11, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 12, 2019. The Center appointed Michael D. Cover as the sole panelist in this matter on February 25, 2019. 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 is a global developer and manufacturer of fuel and lubricant oils and provides services in relation to these products. The Complainant has used its name and trademark since 2004 and has registered trademarks for AFTON CHEMICAL in the United States ( e.g. , United States Reg. No. 3059527, registered on February 14, 2006) and other jurisdictions in relation to the products and services that it provides under that trademark. Certain of those trademark registrations are set out in Annex 5 to the Complaint and copies of the certificates of registration of those trademark are set out in Annex 6 to the Complaint. All that is known about the Respondent is the name Anene Obi of Berlin, Germany. The Disputed Domain Name was registered on November 3, 2018, and resolves to an inactive website. The Respondent appears as “GDPR Masked” in the WhoIs for the Disputed Domain Name. The Complainant first became aware of the Disputed Domain Name on November 13, 2018, when it received a copy of an email from a customer purporting to be from an Afton Chemical Customer Relationship Supervisor, requesting payment to what was described as a sister company bank account in Hong Kong. This was forwarded to the Complainant by the customer in question, who had become suspicious. The relevant emails are set out in Annex 4 to the Complaint. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant sets out that the Disputed Domain Name is nearly identical and confusingly similar to a trademark in which it has rights and notes that it is the proprietor of the registered trademarks set out above and trades as AFTON CHEMICAL, also as set out above. The Complainant goes on to set out that the Disputed Domain Name is clearly similar to its trademark AFTON CHEMICAL, the only difference being the reversal of the “i” and the “c”. The Complainant submits that the Disputed Domain Name contains the Complainant’s trademark AFTON CHEMICAL in its entirety, subject to the typographical error already noted. The Complainant goes on to submit that numerous UDRP panels have recognized that the incorporation of a trademark in its entirety can be sufficient to establish that a Disputed Domain Name is at least confusingly similar to a registered trademark. The Complainant states that typosquatted domain names are in fact intended to be confusing, so that Internet users, who unwillingly make common type errors, will enter the typosquatted domain name instead of the correctly-spelled trademark and that this is a classic example of typosquatting. The Complainant concludes that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to its trademark AFTON CHEMICAL in which it has rights and asks the Panel to find in the Complainant’s favour on the first element of the UDRP. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant states that is has not licensed or permitted the Respondent to use its trademark AFTON CHEMICAL. The Complainant goes on to state that it has found no evidence of rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent in the Disputed Domain Name. In particular, the Respondent is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name and has gone to the extent of requesting that its personal data be hidden by the use of a privacy proxy service. With regard to the possible use of the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services and making legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers, the Complainant notes the instance of phishing set out in Annex 4 to the Complaint. The Complainant concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Complainant sets out that the Disputed Domain Name was registered and has been used in bad faith. The Complainant notes that the registration and use of the Complainant’s trademark AFTON CHEMICAL dates back to 2004, which is well before the registration of the Disputed Domain Name. The Complainant submits that the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name knowing of the Complainant’s operation and trademark, which would all lead to the conclusion that the Disputed Domain Name was registered in bad faith. With regard to use in bad faith, the Complainant points to what it calls the misleading use of the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a fraudulent phishing scam, documented in Annex 4 to the Complaint, and that this is an instance of typosquatting by the Respondent. The Complainant concludes that the Respondent has been using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith. Remedy Requested by the Complainant The Complainant requests that the Panel decides that the Disputed Domain Name be transferred to the Complainant. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings The Complainant must demonstrate on the balance of probabilities that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name and that the Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel accepts that the Complainant has established registered rights in its trademark AFTON CHEMICAL. The Complainant owns registered trademarks for AFTON CHEMICAL in the United States, the application for which dates back to 2004, which is over 10 years before the registration of the Disputed Domain Name. The Panel accepts that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the trademark AFTON CHEMICAL, in which the Complainant has rights. The Disputed Domain Name reproduces the Complainant’s trademark AFTON CHEMICAL in its entirety, subject to two letters being added or changed, and this amounts to typosquatting, as the Complainant submits. The Panel also accepts that the addition of a generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”), such as “.com”, is standard registration requirement disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test ( section 1.11 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”). The Panel accordingly finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark AFTON CHEMICAL, in which it has rights, and that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been met. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Panel accepts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. There is no suggestion or evidence that the Complainant has authorized or licensed the Respondent to use its AFTON CHEMICAL trademark; the original use of that trademark and business name and the registered AFTON CHEMICAL trademark predates the registration of the Disputed Domain Name by a considerable number of years. Further, it is a reasonable inference that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s AFTON CHEMICAL trademark when the Disputed Domain Name was registered. The Panel finds that such use as has taken place of the Disputed Domain Name, was not legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name, and had the effect and the intention, in which it could have succeeded, misleadingly to divert consumers the Complainant by the fraudulent attempt to have money transferred, following the email using the Disputed Domain Name. The Panel accordingly finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name and that paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy has been met. A. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel accepts that the Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The Disputed Domain Name was registered on November 3, 2018 by the Respondent, well after the Complainant’s first use of its AFTON CHEMICAL trademark in 2004. The Respondent has used the Disputed Domain Name connected with fraudulent emails seeking payment from a customer of the Complainant (Annex 4 to the Complaint). The Panel finds, on the evidence and on the balance of probabilities, that the Respondent, by using the Disputed Domain Name in the way already described in this Decision registered the Disputed Domain Name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the Complainant’s business, including by typosquatting. The Panel has already found that it is a reasonable inference that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s AFTON CHEMICAL trademark when registering the Dispute Domain Name. The Panel therefore finds that the Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith and that paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy has been met. 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 <aftonchemcial.com>, be transferred to the Complainant. Michael D. Cover Sole Panelist Date: March 11, 2019
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around aftonchemcial.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.