Chevronae.com

The timeline behind chevronae.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. Chev Pet Claim Number: FA1610001697405 PARTIES Complainant is Chevron Intellectual Property LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Jenny T. Slocum of Dickinson Wright PLLC, Washington D.C., United States. Respondent is Chev Pet ("Respondent"), United Arab Emirates. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <chevronae.com>, registered with OnlineNIC, Inc. 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 October 10, 2016; the Forum received payment on October 10, 2016. On October 10, 2016, OnlineNIC, Inc. confirmed by email to the Forum that the <chevronae.com> domain name is registered with OnlineNIC, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. OnlineNIC, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the OnlineNIC, Inc. 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 October 11, 2016, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 31, 2016 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@chevronae.com. Also on October 11, 2016, 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 November 4, 2016, 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, the United Arab Emirates, and many other jurisdictions. Complainant contends that the disputed domain name <chevronae.com>, registered on August 6, 2016, 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 "AE" is an abbreviation for Arab Emirates, and that its inclusion in the disputed domain name suggests a connection to Complainant because Complainant and its parent company maintain an active presence in the United Arab Emirates. Complainant states that Respondent is holding itself out as Complainant, and that prior to a recent takedown action, Respondent was using the disputed domain name for a website closely mimicking Complainant's own websites for purposes of promoting fraudulent services. Respondent's website contains contact information for an entity identified as Chevron United Arab Emirates and Nasar Salah, HR Director. Complainant states that this contact information on the website is false and that Nasar Salah is not employed by Complainant or its parent corporation, and accuses Nasar Salah of masquerading as a representative of Complainant in order to disrupt its business. 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(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 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 "AE" and the ".com" top-level domain. These additions do not substantially diminish the similarity with Complainant's mark. See, e.g., SHUAA Capital psc v. Shuua AE, FA 1587223 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 4, 2014) (finding <shuaaae.com> confusingly similar to SHUAA); Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. None, None, FA 1504045 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 7, 2013) (finding <chevroniraq.com> confusingly similar to CHEVRON). 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 a geographic term related to Complainant's business, and was registered without Complainant's authorization and used to impersonate Complainant. 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 name was registered and has 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." Under the circumstances presented here, and in particular considering Respondent's use of the disputed domain name, the Panel views it likely that Respondent registered and is using the domain name to impersonate Complainant as part of an attempted phishing scheme or other fraudulent enterprise. The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. DECISION Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <chevronae.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. David E. Sorkin, Panelist Dated: November 4, 2016 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.