Api-cpd.org

The timeline behind api-cpd.org

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 American Petroleum Institute v. Keith Angell / Rhino Lawn Pros Claim Number: FA2607002236263 PARTIES Complainant is American Petroleum Institute ("Complainant"), represented by Kelli A. Ovies of Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP, North Carolina, USA. Respondent is Keith Angell / Rhino Lawn Pros ("Respondent"), Texas, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <api-cpd.org>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC. 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. James Bridgeman SC as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on July 30, 2026; Forum received payment on July 30, 2026. On August 3, 2026, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <api-cpd.org> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, LLC 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 August 11, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 31, 2026 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@api-cpd.org. Also on August 11, 2026, 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. On August 12, 2026, Respondent sent an informal email to Forum which is discussed below. Having received no formal response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On September 1, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed James Bridgeman SC as Panelist. Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that 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, 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. PRELIMINARY ISSUE: CONSENT TO TRANSFER On August 12, 2026 Respondent wrote to Forum stating: "I am writing regarding the UDRP proceeding concerning the domain api-cpd.org, Case No. FA2607002236263. It was never my intention to represent myself, my business, or the website as being affiliated with, endorsed by, or associated with the American Petroleum Institute. The website was intended to operate as an independent educational resource. I do not wish to contest the transfer of the domain. I am willing to transfer ownership of api-cpd.org to the American Petroleum Institute forthwith. Please advise me of the appropriate steps necessary to complete the voluntary transfer and resolve this proceeding." There is nothing in the record to show that Respondent contacted Complainant and Complainant has not withdrawn this Complaint. In these circumstances and taking into account the reasons given below, the Panel determines that in the interest of fairness and expedition it should proceed to determine the Complaint. In particular, in deciding to proceed the Panel has further considered that Respondent availed of a privacy service to conceal his identity on the published WhoIs and has not filed a formal Response. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant claims rights in the API trademark and service mark established by its ownership of the portfolio of registered trademarks and service marks described below and extensive use of the mark in its business activities. Complainant submits that it the largest trade association for the oil and natural gas industry in the USA, and its mission is to promote safety across the industry globally and to influence public policy in support of a strong, viable U.S. oil and natural gas industry, since it was established in 1924. Its chief functions include advocacy, research, standards setting, and certification. Additionally, it publishes industry standards, markets training courses on these standards and other industry topics and offers Individual Certification Programs ("ICP") based on the industry-developed standards. Complainant offers self-paced and instructor-led training courses and also maintains a list of service providers that provide training related to its standards throughout the world. The courses provided by the global service providers can be searched via a course catalog accessible on its official website at <www.api.org>. Complainant firstly alleges that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the API mark in which it has rights, arguing that it is well established that confusing similarity may be established when a domain name at issue contains a complainant's mark in its entirety, as in the present case. . See Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG v. Vasiliy Terkin, WIPO Case D2003-0888 (In numerous cases, it has been held that a domain name that wholly incorporates a Complainant's registered mark may be sufficient to establish confusing similarity for purposes of the Policy.). Complainant adds that Respondent's inclusion of "-cpd" after "api" in the second-level domain does not create a domain name that is distinct from Complainant's mark. See Am. Online, Inc. v. Anytime Online Traffic School, FA 146930 (Forum Apr. 11, 2003) (finding that the respondent's domain names, which incorporated the complainant's entire name and merely added descriptive terms, did not add any distinctive features capable of overcoming a claim of confusing similarity). Secondly Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name arguing that: Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant in any way; · Complainant has neither consented to Respondent's use of the Domain Name nor licensed Respondent to use the disputed domain name, the API mark, or any of Complainant's copyrighted materials; · Respondent is using a privacy protection service which establishes that Respondent has no relationship with the disputed domain name. Thirdly Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name was established and is being used in bad faith, arguing that Complainant is using Complainant's API mark to divert customers away from Complainant's site to Respondent's own website purporting to offer training services that directly compete with those offered by Complainant and its associates. Complainant contends that Respondent had both actual and constructive knowledge of Complainant's rights in the API mark. The statement that "[t]his website is an independent educational resource and is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or associated with the American Petroleum Institute (API)" on the website to which the disputed domain name resolves is Respondent's actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the API mark, but Complainant's U.S. trademark registrations for the mark also serve as constructive notice of its rights in the API mark. See Landry's Rests. v. Landrys Rests. Inc., FA 506524 (Forum Aug. 11, 2005) (registration of confusingly similar domain names despite constructive knowledge or actual knowledge is bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)). Because most of Complainant's trademark registrations predate the registration of the disputed domain name, Respondent had constructive in addition to actual knowledge of Complainant's trademarks at the time of registration, and this further supports an inference of bad faith on the part of the Respondent. Walter Lantz Productions, Inc. v. Robert L. Thomsen, WIPO Case D2000-0334 (finding that respondent had constructive notice of Complainant's rights because of trademark registrations in the United States). As shown in the screen capture which is exhibited in an annex to the Complaint, Respondent purports to offer training services relating to Complainant's ICP certifications on the website to which the disputed domain name resolves Complainant argues that Respondent's use of Complainant's API mark is likely to confuse consumers about the source of the materials offered on Respondent's website given Complainant's use and ownership of the API mark for educational and training services, including training that oil and natural gas industry professionals may register for via Complainant's website at <www.api.org>. Respondent's use of the disputed domain name in this manner disrupts Complainant's business, which is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Citadel Investment Group L.L.C., and its related entity, KCG IP Holdings, LLC v. Dale Roberts, FA 1327793 (Forum July 19, 2010) (finding bad faith use and registration where Respondent used Complainant's mark in domain name and on website to offer competing financial services). Furthermore, Complainant alleges that the exhibited screen capture clearly shows that Respondent is using the disputed domain name to attract Internet users to its website for commercial gain. The home page of Respondent's website contains a "Featured Courses" section that lists courses and prices and includes "Enroll Now" buttons. Furthermore, Respondent has posted one of Complainant's copyrighted documents on his site to suggest an association or affiliation with Complainant. Finally, Complainant submits that Respondent's display of a disclaimer at the top of each page of the website is insufficient to avoid a finding of bad faith under facts such as these. As one panel recently observed in ReVanced v. Linh Le, Wii Buu, WIPO Case D2025-0959: " It cannot be overlooked that the presence of the Complainant's . . . mark in the disputed domain name[] makes such a strong representation of affiliation on its own, so that it would be very difficult for this to be corrected by even the clearest and most prominent disclaimer. In any event, where, as here, the overall circumstances of a case point to the respondent's bad faith, the mere existence of a disclaimer cannot cure such bad faith. In such cases, panels may consider the respondent's use of a disclaimer as an admission by the respondent that users may be confused." B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a formal Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant is a trade association for the oil and natural gas industry in the USA, and is the owner of a portfolio of trademark and service mark registrations including · United States registered trademark API, registration number 679,642, registered on the Principal Register on June 2, 1959 for goods in international class 16; · United States registered service mark API, registration number 840, 642, registered on the Principal Register on December 12, 1967 for services in international class 42; · United States registered trademark and service mark API, registration number 7,218,749 registered on the Principal Register on November 14, 2023 for goods and services in international classes 9, 16, 35, 41, 42. Complainant has an established Internet presence and maintains its principal website at <www.api.org>. The disputed domain name was registered on November 17, 2026 and resolves to a website which is being used to direct visitors to a website purporting to offer "Online CPD Hours for API Certified Inspectors," and it includes Complainant's copyrighted document entitled "Recertification Requirements: Continuing Professional Development Hours" on the website's FAQ page. Furthermore the website contains a disclaimer stating "The website at the Domain Name features a disclaimer stating: "This website is an independent educational resource and is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or associated with the American Petroleum Institute (API)." There is no information available about Respondent, who availed of a privacy service to conceal his identity on the published WhoIs, except for that set out in the Complaint as amended, the Registrar's WhoIs and the information provided by the Registrar in response to the request by Forum for details of the registration of the disputed domain name, together with the informal communication from Respondent to Forum on August 12, 2026 which is described and discussed below. DISCUSSION Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and 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 set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.1 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) ("Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint"). Identical and/or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has provided uncontested evidence that it is the owner of a number of United States trademark and service mark registrations for the API mark. The disputed domain name <api-cpd.org> consists of Complainant's registered trademark in its entirety in combination with a hyphen and the element "cpd", together with the generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") extension <.org>. Neither the hyphen nor the element "cpd" prevent a finding of confusing similarity. The latter would in certain jurisdictions be recognized as an acronym for "continuous professional development" a frequently used term for Continuous Professional Education (CPE) and therefore a generic and descriptive term. Additionally, the gTLD extension <.org> in the disputed domain name would be considered by Internet users as a necessary technical requirement for an Internet domain name and therefore does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and Complainant's mark. The Panel finds therefore that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the API mark in which Complainant has rights and Complainant has therefore succeeded in the first element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant has made out a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights legitimate interests in the disputed domain names as set out in Complainant's detailed submissions above. In particular, Complainant has exhibited a screen capture of the website to which the disputed domain name resolves on which Respondent purports to offer services which are directly competing with those offered and certified by Complainant while using Complainant's trademark and service mark within the disputed domain name. Furthermore, there is no evidence that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name and there is no evidence that it has any trademark rights in the term API. WIPO Overview 3.1 at 2.5.3 expressly states that 2.5.3 "a respondent's use of a complainant's mark to redirect users (e.g., to a competing site) would not support a claim to rights or legitimate interests." It is well established that once a complainant makes out a prima facie case that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to prove its rights or legitimate interests. Respondent has failed to discharge that burden and therefore this Panel must find that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Complainant has therefore succeeded in the second element of the test in Policy paragraph 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith The disputed domain name was registered on November 17, 2026, long after Complainant began use of the mark and long after Complainant first registered its trademark June 2, 1959. The website to which the disputed domain name resolves expressly makes reference to Complainant and its commercial activities providing certification for training standards in the oil and natural gas industry. On the balance of probabilities, therefore the registrant of the disputed domain name was aware that Complainant, its API mark and its international reputation established by its website at <www.api.org> when the disputed domain name was chosen and registered. The Panel finds therefore that on the balance of probabilities the disputed domain name was chosen and registered in bad faith to target, and take predatory advantage of the Complainant's goodwill and reputation in the API mark. The uncontested evidence that Respondent is using the disputed domain name to resolve to a website on which it purports to offer training services which directly compete with those offered by Complainant and its associates. Respondent was conscious of the risk of confusion among Internet users and it specifically posted a disclaimer stating that "[t]his website is an independent educational resource and is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or associated with the American Petroleum Institute (API)". This is not a case of nominative fair use of a complainant's mark by a reseller or distributor of services. Respondent has no association with Complainant and is purporting to offer a service directly in competition with Complainant. Whether Respondent is entitled to provide educational services leading to certification by Complainant is not a matter for this forum. This proceeding addresses the use of Complainant's mark within the disputed domain name to intentionally attract and confuse Internet users and intercept Internet traffic intended for Complainant. The Panel finds that on the evidence adduced, Respondent is using Complainant's mark within the disputed domain name, without license or authority, intending to attract and confuse Internet users and cause them to divert their Internet traffic intended for Complainant and misdirect it to Respondent's website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent's website; and constitutes use of the disputed domain name in bad faith. The initial interest confusion created by Respondent's use of Complainant's mark in this manner is also, in itself, use of the disputed domain name in bad faith for the purposes of the Policy. In reaching this decision, the Panel is conscious that Respondent availed of a privacy service to conceal his identity on the published WhoIs and there is no evidence that there is any substance to the educational institution which Respondent purports to own. The banner on the website to which the disputed domain name resolves purports to be hosted by the "Integrity Inspector Academy" which bears no resemblance to the names used by Respondent to register the disputed domain name. As this Panel has found that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, Complainant has therefore succeeded in the third element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). 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 <api-cpd.org> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. _____________________________________________ James Bridgeman SC, Panelist Dated: September 2, 2026 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.