Hessoil-uk.com

The timeline behind hessoil-uk.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.

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION Hess Corporation v. John Doe Claim Number: FA0805001191921 PARTIES Complainant is Hess Corporation (“Complainant”), represented by Paul J. Reilly, of Baker Botts L.L.P., New Jersey, USA. Respondent is John Doe (“Respondent”), Virginia, USA.[1] REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <hessoil-uk.com>, registered with Melbourne It, Ltd. d/b/a Internet Names Worldwide. PANEL The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Bruce E. Meyerson as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on May 20, 2008; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on May 20, 2008. On May 22, 2008, Melbourne It, Ltd. d/b/a Internet Names Worldwide confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <hessoil-uk.com> domain name is registered with Melbourne It, Ltd. d/b/a Internet Names Worldwide. Melbourne It, Ltd. d/b/a Internet Names Worldwide has verified that the registrant of the domain name is bound by the Melbourne It, Ltd. d/b/a Internet Names Worldwide registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy"). On June 3, 2008, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of June 23, 2008 by which Respondent could file a response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on the registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts, and to postmaster@hessoil-uk.com by e-mail. Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On July 2, 2008, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Bruce E. Meyerson as Panelist. Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent." Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the National Arbitration Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant makes the following assertions: 1. Respondent’s <hessoil-uk.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s HESS mark. 2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <hessoil-uk.com> domain name. 3. Respondent registered and used the <hessoil-uk.com> domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant, Hess Corporation, is an integrated oil and gas company with its headquarters in New York. Complainant has been in business since 1920. Complainant holds a trademark registration in the HESS mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 832,393 issued July 25, 1967). Additionally, based on its worldwide market Complainant registered the HESS mark with the United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office (“UKIPO”) (Reg. No.1,503,668 issued Nov. 18, 1994). Respondent registered the disputed domain name on October 29, 2007. The <hessoil-uk.com> domain name currently hosts a non-active website. DISCUSSION 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." 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(e), 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 and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); see also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.”). 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. Identical and/or Confusingly Similar The Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in the HESS mark for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its trademark registration with the USPTO. See Men’s Wearhouse, Inc. v. Wick, FA 117861 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 16, 2002) (“Under U.S. trademark law, registered marks hold a presumption that they are inherently distinctive [or] have acquired secondary meaning.”); see also Innomed Techs., Inc. v. DRP Servs., FA 221171 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 18, 2004) (“Registration of the NASAL-AIRE mark with the USPTO establishes Complainant's rights in the mark.”). Complainant contends that Respondent’s <hessoil-uk.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s HESS mark. Respondent’s disputed domain name includes Complainant’s mark in its entirety, adds the term “oil” which has an obvious relationship to Complainant’s business, and “uk,” a common geographic term. Also the disputed domain name includes a hyphen and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.” The Panel finds that the addition of a term with an obvious relationship to Complainant’s business fails to create a distinctiveness required under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) in order to defeat a claim of a disputed domain name being confusingly similar to a mark. See Space Imaging LLC v. Brownell, AF-0298 (eResolution Sept. 22, 2000) (finding confusing similarity where the respondent’s domain name combines the complainant’s mark with a generic term that has an obvious relationship to the complainant’s business); see also Christie’s Inc. v. Tiffany’s Jewelry Auction, Inc., D2001-0075 (WIPO Mar. 6, 2001) (finding that the domain name <christiesauction.com> is confusingly similar to the complainant's mark since it merely adds the word “auction” used in its generic sense). The Panel also finds the addition of the geographic term “uk” is an obvious abbreviation for the United Kingdom and insufficient to distinguish the disputed domain name form Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See InfoSpace, Inc. v. domains Asia Ventures, FA 198909 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 10, 2003) (“Internet users may believe that the website located at the <dogpileuk.com> domain name is run by a United Kingdom branch or affiliate of Complainant. . . . Consequently, the Panel finds that the geographic identifier “uk” does not significantly distinguish Respondent’s domain name from Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).”). Finally, the Panel finds that the addition of the hyphen and a gTLD are irrelevant in distinguishing a disputed domain name from a mark. See Busy Body, Inc. v. Fitness Outlet Inc., D2000-0127 (WIPO Apr. 22, 2000) ("[T]he addition of the generic top-level domain (gTLD) name ‘.com’ is . . . without legal significance since use of a gTLD is required of domain name registrants . . . ."); see also Health Devices Corp. v. Aspen S T C, FA 158254 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 1, 2003) (“[T]he addition of punctuation marks such as hyphens is irrelevant in the determination of confusing similarity pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”). Therefore, pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), Respondent’s disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. Thus, the Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied. Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant contends that Respondent lacks all rights and legitimate interests in the <hessoil-uk.com> domain name. Once Complainant makes a prima facie case in support of its allegations, the burden then shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Because of the Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complaint, the Panel assumes that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. G.D. Searle v. Martin Mktg., FA 118277 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 1, 2002) (holding that, where the complainant has asserted that respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain name, it is incumbent on respondent to come forward with concrete evidence rebutting this assertion because this information is “uniquely within the knowledge and control of the respondent”); see also Clerical Med. Inv. Group Ltd. v. Clericalmedical.com, D2000-1228 (WIPO Nov. 28, 2000) (finding that, under certain circumstances, the mere assertion by the complainant that the respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests is sufficient to shift the burden of proof to the respondent to demonstrate that such a right or legitimate interest does exist). However, the Panel will now examine the record to determine if Respondent has rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c). Complainant contends that Respondent is neither commonly known by the <hessoil-uk.com> domain name, nor licensed to register domain names using the registered HESS mark. Respondent’s WHOIS information fails to provide any affirmative evidence that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. Therefore, pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), the Panel finds that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See Tercent Inc. v. Lee Yi, FA 139720 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 10, 2003) (stating “nothing in Respondent’s WHOIS information implies that Respondent is ‘commonly known by’ the disputed domain name” as one factor in determining that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) does not apply); see also Gallup, Inc. v. Amish Country Store, FA 96209 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 23, 2001) (finding that the respondent does not have rights in a domain name when the respondent is not known by the mark). Respondent fails to make an active use of the disputed domain name; instead, the disputed domain name resolves to a website that states that it is under construction. The Panel finds that this use of the domain name <hessoil-uk.com> is neither a bona fide offering of goods and services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See LFP, Inc. v. B & J Props., FA 109697 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 30, 2002) (A the respondent cannot simply do nothing and effectively “sit on his rights” for an extended period of time when that the respondent might be capable of doing otherwise); see also TMP Int’l, Inc. v. Baker Enters., FA 204112 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 6, 2003) (“[T]he Panel concludes that Respondent's passive holding of the domain name does not establish rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).”). Based on the evidence in the record, the Panel finds that Complainant has made a prima facie case under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) which is not refuted by the evidence in the record. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant contends that Respondent has failed to make an active use of the <hessoil-uk.com> domain name, and it currently leads to a website displaying that site is “under construction.” The Panel finds that this inactive use of the disputed domain name is evidence of registration and use in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See DCI S.A. v. Link Commercial Corp., D2000-1232 (WIPO Dec. 7, 2000) (concluding that the respondent’s inactive use of the domain name satisfies the requirement of ¶ 4(a)(iii) of the Policy); see also Clerical Med. Inv. Group Ltd. v. Clericalmedical.com, D2000-1228 (WIPO Nov. 28, 2000) (finding that merely holding an infringing domain name without active use can constitute use in bad faith); see also Cruzeiro Licenciamentos Ltda. v. Sallen, D2000-0715 (WIPO Sept. 6, 2000) (“Mere inactive use of a domain name can qualify as bad faith if the domain name owner’s conduct creates the impression that the name is for sale.”). The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied. DECISION Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <hessoil-uk.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Bruce E. Meyerson, Panelist Dated: July 16, 2008 Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page. Click Here to return to our Home Page NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM [1] Complainant apparently concedes that the putative registrant of the domain name is not in fact the registrant of the <hessoil-uk.com> domain name and that the actual registrant of the disputed domain name is unknown. Under the circumstances it is appropriate for the Panel to protect the Respondent’s name from being tarnished and to redact Respondent’s personal information. E.g., Wells Fargo & Co. v. John Doe as Holder of Domain Name <wellzfargo.com>, FA 362108 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 30, 2004).

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