Chevron-europe.com

The timeline behind chevron-europe.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. Fred Wallace Claim Number: FA1506001626022 PARTIES Complainant is Chevron Intellectual Property LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Jenny T. Slocum of Dickinson Wright PLLC, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Fred Wallace (“Respondent”), New York, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <chevron-europe.com>, registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com. 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. Hon. Karl V. Fink (Ret.) as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on June 25, 2015; the Forum received payment on June 25, 2015. On June 26, 2015, PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <chevron-europe.com> domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com 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 June 29, 2015, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 20, 2015 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@chevron-europe.com. Also on June 29, 2015, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail 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 July 27, 2015, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Hon. Karl V. Fink (Ret.) 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 Complainant Complainant has established rights in the CHEVRON mark through longstanding registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 364,683, registered February 14, 1939). Respondent’s disputed <chevron-europe.com> only adds the geographic term “Europe,” a hyphen, and the generic top-level domain “.com.” These additions do not differentiate the disputed domain name from Complainant’s mark. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Respondent been authorized to use the CHEVRON mark by Complainant. Further, Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to mimic Complainant’s legitimate websites in an attempt to pass itself of as Complainant. Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name is in bad faith. Respondent’s use of the <chevron-europe.com> domain name shows that Respondent intends to compete and disrupt Complainant’s business and attract and confuse internet users for commercial profit. In addition, from Respondent’s use of the domain and the disputed domain name itself, one can strongly infer that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the CHEVRON mark at the time of registration and thus registered the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS For the reasons set forth below, the Panel finds Complainant is entitled to the requested relief of transfer of the <chevron-europe.com> domain name. 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 Complainant claims that it has established longstanding rights in the CHEVRON mark through registration of the mark with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 364,683, registered February 14, 1939). Panels have consistently held that registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to demonstrate a Complainant’s rights in a mark. See Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Glu, FA 874496 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 13, 2007) (finding that the complainant had rights in the METLIFE mark as a result of its registration of the mark with the United States federal trademark authority). The Panel finds Complainant has rights in the CHEVRON mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Complainant contends that Respondent’s disputed <chevron-europe.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CHEVRON mark. Respondent’s disputed domain differs from the CHEVRON mark through the addition of the geographic term “Europe,” a hyphen, and the generic top-level domain “.com.” Panels have held that domains are confusingly similar where geographic terms are added to a well-known mark. See Net2phone Inc. v. Netcall SAGL, D2000-0666 (WIPO Sept. 26, 2000) (finding that the respondent’s domain name <net2phone-europe.com> is confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark because “the combination of a geographic term with the mark does not prevent a domain name from being found confusingly similar"). The presence of a hyphen or other punctuation has been found to not be relevant to a confusing similarity analysis. See Chernow Commc’ns, Inc. v. Kimball, D2000-0119 (WIPO May 18, 2000) (holding “that the use or absence of punctuation marks, such as hyphens, does not alter the fact that a name is identical to a mark"). Adding a gTLD to a complainant’s mark has also been held to not differentiate a disputed domain name from a mark. See Bank of Am. Corp. v. McCall, FA 135012 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 31, 2002) (holding that attaching a gTLD is “unable to create a distinction capable of overcoming a finding of confusing similarity”). The Panel finds that the <chevron-europe.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the CHEVRON mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Complainant has proved this element. Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 18, 2006) (holding that the complainant must first make a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under UDRP ¶ 4(a)(ii) before the burden shifts to the respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name); see also AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 25, 2006) (“Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names.”). Complainant claims that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Respondent been authorized to use the CHEVRON mark by Complainant. The WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists “Fred Wallace” as registrant of record. There is no evidence indicating that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. Panels have found, based on WHOIS information and a lack of evidence indicating otherwise, that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name according to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Instron Corp. v. Kaner, FA 768859 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 21, 2006) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain names because the WHOIS information listed “Andrew Kaner c/o Electromatic a/k/a Electromatic Equip't” as the registrant and there was no other evidence in the record to suggest that the respondent was commonly known by the domain names in dispute). The Panel finds Respondent is not commonly known by the <chevron-europe.com> under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Complainant claims that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Respondent is using the disputed domain name to mimic Complainant’s legitimate websites in an attempt to pass itself of as Complainant. Past panels have found that resolving a disputed domain name to a website that imitates a complainant’s website is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Kmart of Mich., Inc. v. Cone, FA 655014 (Nat. Arb. Forum April 25, 2006) (The panel found the respondent’s attempt to pass itself of as the complainant was not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) when the respondent used the disputed domain name to present users with a website that was nearly identical to the complainant’s website). The Panel therefore finds that Respondent’s apparent passing off behavior is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and 4(c)(iii). Complainant has proved this element. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant contends that Respondent’s use of the <chevron-europe.com> domain name to resolve to a website mimicking Complainant’s website shows that Respondent intends to compete and disrupt Complainant’s business. Past panels have held that registration and use of a domain name was in bad faith where the respondent operated a website nearly identical to a respondent’s. See Artistic Pursuit LLC v. calcuttawebdevelopers.com, FA 894477 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 8, 2007) (finding that the respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name, which displayed a website virtually identical to the complainant’s website, constituted bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)). The Panel therefore finds that Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). Complainant contends that Respondent’s use of the <chevron-europe.com> domain name attracts and confuses internet users, potentially for profit. Panels have found that a Respondent’s use of a confusingly similar domain name to attract internet users is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See AOL LLC v. iTech Ent, LLC, FA 726227 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 21, 2006) (finding that the respondent took advantage of the confusing similarity between the <theotheraol.com> and <theotheraol.net> domain names and the complainant’s AOL mark, which indicates bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent’s registration and use of the confusingly similar domain name is evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). Complainant argues that, based on Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the CHEVRON mark at the time of registration and thus registered the disputed domain name in bad faith. Although panels have not generally regarded constructive notice to be sufficient for a finding of bad faith, the Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark and rights and therefore determines that Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Nat'l Patent Servs. Inc. v. Bean, FA 1071869 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 1, 2007) ("[C]onstructive notice does not support a finding of bad faith registration."); see also Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent "actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name"). Complainant has proved this element. DECISION Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the <chevron-europe.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. __________________________________________________________________ Hon. Karl V. Fink (Ret.), Panelist Dated: July 27, 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.