Westmore · UDRP DecisionValer0.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <valer0.com>. It found the domain confusingly similar to the registered VALERO mark because it replaced the letter “o” with the number “0.” The Panel also found no rights or legitimate interests because the domain was used in a phishing scheme involving fraudulent emails impersonating a Complainant employee. Bad faith was established through the phishing activity, apparent knowledge of the VALERO mark, typosquatting, and false registrar contact information.
The timeline behind valer0.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 valer0.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
This decision illustrates how a single-character letter-to-number substitution, when paired with phishing and employee impersonation, can establish all three UDRP elements. The use evidence was especially important: it both defeated any plausible legitimate-interest theory and supplied direct support for bad faith.
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 Valero Energy Corporation, Valero Marketing and Supply Company v. John Mai Case No. D2019-1309 1. The Parties The Complainant is Valero Energy Corporation, Valero Marketing and Supply Company, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Fasthoff Law Firm PLLC, United States. The Respondent is John Mai, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <valer0.com> 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 June 7, 2019. On June 7, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 8, 2019, 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 June 17, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 7, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 8, 2019. The Center appointed Sandra J. Franklin as the sole panelist in this matter on July 17, 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 Complainant uses the VALERO mark in the oil and gas industries, and also to operate convenience stores and related businesses. Complainant holds various trademark registrations for the VALERO mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) ( e.g ., Registration No. 1,314,004, registered January 8, 1985.) Respondent registered the <valer0.com> domain name May 28, 2019, and uses it to conduct a phishing scheme. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant 1. Respondent’s <valer0.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s VALERO mark. 2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <valer0.com> domain name. 3. Respondent registered and uses the <valer0.com> domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to “decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted 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 Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0 ”), section 4.3. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the VALERO mark for purposes of Policy paragraph 4(a)(i) by virtue of its registration of the mark with the USPTO. See WIPO Overview 3.0 section 1.2.1. Respondent’s <valer0.com> domain name simply replaces the letter “o” in Complainant’s VALERO mark with the number “0”. Such a change does not distinguish a domain name from a mark under Policy 4(a)(i). Respondent also adds the generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) “.com,” which is irrelevant in analyzing the confusing similarity between a mark and domain name. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <valer0.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s VALERO mark. The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy paragraph 4(a)(i). B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Once Complainant makes a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the domain name under Policy paragraph 4(a)(ii), the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See WIPO Overview 3.0 section 2.1 . Complainant argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name, and is not commonly known by the domain name. Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its VALERO mark, and the Parties are not affiliated. The WhoIs information for the domain name lists “John Mai” as the registrant. Therefore, the Panel finds that there is no evidence to suggest that Respondent is commonly known by the domain name under Policy paragraph 4(c)(ii). See Moncler S.p.A. v. Bestinfo, WIPO Case No. D2004-1049 (in which the panel noted “that the Respondent’s name is ‘Bestinfo’ and that it can therefore not be ‘commonly known by the Domain Name’ [moncler.com]”). Complainant demonstrates that the domain name is being used as part of a phishing scheme, wherein Respondent poses as an employee of Complainant in fraudulent emails. The Panel finds that this use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use and thus Respondent has no rights under Policy paragraphs 4(c)(i) and (iii). The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy paragraph 4(a)(ii). C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Complainant provides evidence that Respondent uses the <valer0.com> domain name in fraudulent emails to phish for payments from Internet users. The Panel finds that this use constitutes bad faith under Policy paragraph 4(a)(iii). Complainant argues that Respondent registered the <vaelro.com> domain name with full knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the VALERO mark. The Panel notes Complainant’s longstanding, widespread use of the VALERO mark, as well as Respondent’s use of the disputed domain to pose as Complainant’s employee, and finds that this is further evidence of bad faith under Policy paragraph 4(b)(ii). See Tudor Games, Inc. v. Domain Hostmaster, Customer ID No. 09382953107339 dba Whois Privacy Services Pty Ltd / Domain Administrator, Vertical Axis Inc. , WIPO Case No. D2014-1754 ) (“the Panel makes its finding regarding bad faith registration byasking whether it is more likely than not from the record of the evidence in the proceeding that Respondent had the ELECTRIC FOOTBALL trademark in mind when registering the Domain Name.”) Complainant also shows that Respondent provided false contact information to the Registrar in an attempt to conceal its identity, and argues that this is further evidence of bad faith. The Panel agrees. See Home Director, Inc. v. HomeDirector, WIPO Case No. D2000-0111 (finding bad faith use and registration where Respondent “used false and misleading information in connection with the registration of the domain name”). The Panel also notes that Respondent engages in typosquatting by capitalizing on a common tying error, exchanging the “o” in Complainant’s VALERO mark for a “0”, which is further evidence of bad faith under Policy 4(a)(iii). Respondents who capitalize on common typing errors engage in bad faith registration under Policy 4(a)(iii).”). The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy paragraph 4(a)(iii). 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 <valer0.com> domain name be transferred to Complainant. Sandra J. Franklin Sole Panelist Date: July 25, 2019
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around valer0.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.