Chevronpacificep.com

The timeline behind chevronpacificep.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.

DECISION Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Phillip Thomas / Chevron Pacific Claim Number: FA1504001615524 PARTIES Complainant is Chevron Intellectual Property LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Jenny T. Slocum of Dickinson Wright PLLC, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Phillip Thomas / Chevron Pacific (“Respondent”), United Kingdom. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <chevronpacificep.com>, registered with 1&1 Internet AG. 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. David E. Sorkin as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on April 21, 2015; the Forum received payment on April 21, 2015. On April 27, 2015, 1&1 Internet AG confirmed by email to the Forum that the <chevronpacificep.com> domain name is registered with 1&1 Internet AG and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. 1&1 Internet AG has verified that Respondent is bound by the 1&1 Internet AG registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”). On April 29, 2015, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 19, 2015 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@chevronpacificep.com. Also on April 29, 2015, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts. Having received no response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On May 28, 2015, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed David E. Sorkin as Panelist. Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the 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" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the 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 Complainant, together with its parent company, Chevron Corporation, and related companies is a large global integrated energy company. Complainant has used the CHEVRON mark since 1935, and claims that it is a famous mark under U.S. and international trademark law. The mark is registered in the United States and many other jurisdictions. Complainant has many related companies and divisions that incorporate both the CHEVRON mark and the term “Pacific.” Complainant contends that the disputed domain name <chevronpacificep.com>, registered on October 23, 2014, is confusingly similar to its CHEVRON mark; that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name; and that the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. In support thereof, Complainant states that “EP” is a recognized abbreviation for “Exploration and Production,” and that its inclusion in the disputed domain name reinforces a connection to Complainant. Complainant states that Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and has not been authorized to use Complainant’s mark. Complainant accuses Respondent of registering the domain name under the false designation of “Chevron Pacific” in order to create a false association with Complainant. Complainant states that the domain name currently is being used to redirect traffic to Complainant’s own website, further suggesting an association with Complainant. Finally, Complainant notes that the whois record for the domain name contains false information, and asserts that this is further evidence of Respondent’s bad faith. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and has been used in bad faith. 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." 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(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.”). Identical and/or Confusingly Similar The disputed domain name is identical to Complainant’s registered trademark, but for the addition of the geographic term “Pacific,” the abbreviation “EP,” and the “.com” top-level domain. These additions do not substantially diminish the similarity with Complainant’s mark. See, e.g., Phillips 66 Co. v. Brian Broaddus / Francis Broaddus, D2014-1336 (WIPO Oct. 1, 2014) (finding <phillips66lng.com> confusingly similar to PHILLIPS 66); Yahoo!, Inc. v. Somsak Sooksripanich, D2000-1461 (WIPO Jan. 29, 2001) (finding <yahoopacific.com> confusingly similar to YAHOO!). The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CHEVRON mark. Rights or Legitimate Interests Under the Policy, the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 18, 2006). The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s famous mark, combined with other terms related to Complainant’s business, and was registered without Complainant’s authorization using false registration data. Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of such rights or interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain names were registered and have been used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered the disputed domain name “primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor.” Under paragraph 4(b)(iv), bad faith may be shown by evidence that “by using the domain name, [Respondent] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent’s] web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [Respondent’s] web site or location or of a product or service on [Respondent’s] web site or location.” A domain name may be so closely connected with a well-known trademark that its very use suggests opportunistic bad faith. See, e.g., Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Joel Moman, FA 1565549 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 23, 2014) (finding opportunistic bad faith in registration of <lockheedaspen.com>); Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Tim Bruce, FA1544867 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 26, 2014) (finding opportunistic bad faith in registration of <texaco-oil-us.com>). In the Panel’s view, Respondent’s registration and use of a domain name incorporating Complainant’s famous mark, in a form seemly calculated to create confusion—and without any plausible alternative explanation—are indicative of bad faith for purposes of paragraphs 4(b)(iii) and 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. Complainant’s use of false registration data and its unexplained redirection of the disputed domain name to Complainant’s own website are further indications of such bad faith. 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 <chevronpacificep.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. David E. Sorkin, Panelist Dated: May 29, 2015 Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page. Click Here to return to our Home Page

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