Encanaoil.com

The timeline behind encanaoil.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Ovintiv Canada ULC v. pars ertebat Case No. D2026-1722 1. The Parties The Complainant is Ovintiv Canada ULC, Canada, represented by Gowling WLG (Canada) LLP, Canada. The Respondent is pars ertebat, Türkiye. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <encanaoil.com> (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with CSL Computer Service Langenbach GmbH (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 22, 2026. On April 23, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On April 24, 2026, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Disputed Domain Name(s) which differed from the named Respondent (Redacted for Privacy) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on April 24, 2026, 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 April 24, 2026. 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 April 28, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 18, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 19, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Michal Havlík as the sole panelist in this matter on May 27, 2026. 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 leading North American oil and natural gas exploration and production company. The Company is focused on the development of its multi-basin portfolio of top tier oil and natural gas assets located in the United States of America and Canada. The Complainant owns multiple trademark registrations among others including: - Canada trademark registration No. TMA611109 for ENCANA with registration date May 26, 2004; (collectively the “ENCANA mark”). The Disputed Domain Name was registered on June 7, 2020. The Disputed Domain Name is inactive since its registration and there has been no change on the website of the Disputed Domain Name after filing this Complaint. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that is has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the Disputed Domain Name. The Complainant cites its Canada and other trademarks for word mark ENCANA. The Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name contains the ENCANA mark in its entirety as its initial part. According to the Complainant, the only change is the addition of a commonly used word “oil” and the generic Top-Level-Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”, which is not sufficient to prevent confusion between the Disputed Domain Name and the Complainant’s mark. On the contrary, the Complainant submits that the confusion is enhanced by the addition of the word “oil” as the Complainant is an oil and gas company. Therefore, consumers are likely to be misled into believing that the Disputed Domain Name resolves to the Complainant’s website. In other words, the Complainant claims that the Respondent may not avoid confusion by appropriating another’s entire trademark in a domain name. See Research In Motion Limited v. One Star Global LLC, WIPO Case No. D2008-1752. Accordingly, the Complainant submits that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the ENCANA marks. The Complainant also contends that the Respondent has prima facie no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name since there has never been any relationship between the Complainant and the Respondent and there is no evidence to suggest that the Respondent has ever used, or demonstrated preparations to use, the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Finally, the Complainant alleges that the registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name was undertaken in bad faith since the Disputed Domain Name is being used in an attempt to intentionally attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement. According to the Complainant, the Disputed Domain Name, if ever put to use, would result in Internet traffic being diverted from the Complainant’s website to the Respondent’s website, thereby putting the Respondent in a position to reap a financial benefit. page 3 B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions, however, sent an email to the Center indicating that it is a web design company and several years ago it registered the Disputed Domain Name for a client. 6. Discussion and Findings Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant has the burden of proving the following: (i) that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or a service mark in which the Complainant has right; (ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name; and (iii) that the Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Preliminary Issue – Respondent Identity The Respondent’s informal communication suggests that the Respondent is not the beneficial holder of the disputed domain name. The Panel notes that paragraph 1 of the Rules defines “Respondent” as “the holder of a domain-name registration against which a complaint is initiated” and that the appointed panel retains discretion to determine the respondent against which the case should proceed. Considering the circumstances of this proceeding, in particular, the silence of the beneficial holder, the Panel finds in the present case there is no evidence on the existence and nature of any relationship between the listed registrant and the beneficial holder which would allow the Panel to consider that the beneficial holder should be treated as a further Respondent. The Panel finds that “pars ertebat” is the Respondent in this proceeding. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has shown rights regarding a trademark or service mark for the purpose of the Policy. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 1.2.1. The threshold requirement of confusing similarity under the first element is met where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the Disputed Domain Name. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. The entirety of the ENCANA mark is reproduced within the Disputed Domain Name. As to the addition of the term “oil”, although the addition of other terms to a trademark in a domain name may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds in this case that the addition of such terms does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.8. Accordingly, this Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a Disputed Domain Name. page 4 Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings in on the Complainant, previous panels have recognized that proving a respondent lack of rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the Respondent. As such, where a Complainant makes out a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks right or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the Respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (even though the burden of proof always remains on the Complainant). If the Respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the Complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.1. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence illustrating rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. Moreover, there has never been any relationship between the Complainant and the Respondent, consequently, the Respondent is not in any manner authorized to register or use the ENCANA mark. Furthermore, the Panel finds that the composition of the Disputed Domain Name, which wholly incorporates the Complainant’s mark coupled with the term “oil”, which relates to the goods for which the ENCANA trademark is registered, carries a risk of implied affiliation with the Complainant. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.5.1. The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel notes that, for the purpose of paragraph 4(a)(iii), paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances may be relevant in assessing whether a respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.2.1. The non-use of a domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. The relevant factors include: (i) the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant’s mark, (ii) the failure of the respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good- faith use, (iii) the respondent’s concealing its identity or use of false contact details (noted to be in breach of its registration agreement), and (iv) the implausibility of any good faith use to which the domain name may be put. See Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003. The Panel notes that the Complainant’s ENCANA mark predates the Disputed Domain Name by many years and have been put to genuine use. Furthermore, the Disputed Domain Name incorporated not only the ENCANA marks as a whole, but it also consists of term “oil” which, given the Complainant’s field of business, increases the likelihood of confusion and indicates targeting of the Complainant. Moreover, the fact that the Disputed Domain Name contains the term “oil” that is characteristic of the business conducted by the Complainant under the ENCANA mark shows that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and the ENCANA mark at the time of the registration of the Disputed Domain Name and the Respondent specifically targeted the Complainant and the ENCANA mark. When taking into account all relevant facts and circumstances, the Panel notes that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s distinctive and widely known trademark, the Respondent has no legitimate rights or interests in the Disputed Domain Name and has failed to prove any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use and such use is practically implausible. page 5 Having reviewed the available record, the Panel notes the distinctiveness or reputation of the Complainant’s trademark, the composition of the disputed domain name, and finds that in the circumstances of this case the passive holding of the Disputed Domain Name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.3. In the light of the above-mentioned, the Panel finds that the Respondent has registered and used the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element 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 Disputed Domain Name <encanaoil.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Michal Havlík/ Michal Havlík Sole Panelist Date: June 10, 2026

Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.