Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Eileen Boob
Claim Number: FA1909001861000
Complainant is Chevron Intellectual Property LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Fred W. Hathaway of DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Eileen Boob (“Respondent”), Oklahoma, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <chevronchemical.com>, registered with NameCheap, Inc..
The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on September 6, 2019; the Forum received payment on September 6, 2019.
On September 6, 2019, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <chevronchemical.com> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, 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 September 11, 2019, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 1, 2019 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@chevronchemical.com. Also on September 11, 2019, 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 October 3, 2019, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin 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.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
1. Respondent’s <chevronchemical.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CHEVRON mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <chevronchemical.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and uses the <chevronchemical.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to file a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant operates in all facets of the global energy industry. Complainant holds a registration for the CHEVRON mark with multiple trademark agencies, including the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g. Reg. No. 364,683, registered Feb. 14, 1939).
Respondent registered the <chevronchemical.com> domain name on April 2, 2019, and uses it to conduct a phishing scheme.
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 set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 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”).
The Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in the CHEVRON mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) mark through its registration of the mark with multiple trademark agencies, including the USPTO. See Liberty Global Logistics, LLC v. damilola emmanuel / tovary services limited, FA 1738536 (Forum Aug. 4, 2017) (“Registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently establishes the required rights in the mark for purposes of the Policy.”).
Respondent’s <chevronchemical.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as it incorporates the mark in its entirety and adds the descriptive word “chemical” and a gTLD. These changes do not distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant’s CHEVRON mark. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Sunny Bhadauria, FA 1786429 (Forum June 7, 2018) (finding the <bloombergquint.org> domain name to be confusingly similar to the complainant’s BLOOMBERG mark, as the name consists of the mark, the added term “quint” (which refers to the complainant’s Indian business partner “Quintillian Media”) and the gTLD “.org”). The Panel thus finds that Respondent’s <chevronchemical.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CHEVRON mark.
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Once Complainant makes a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) (“Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests”).
Complainant contends that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <chevronchemical.com> domain name, as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use of the CHEVRON mark. The WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as “Eileen Boob.” Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and thus has no rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. LY Ta, FA 1789106 (Forum June 21, 2018) (concluding a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name where the complainant asserted it did not authorize the respondent to use the mark, and the relevant WHOIS information indicated the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name); see also Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) (“lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant’s mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)”).
Complainant argues that Respondent also fails to use the <chevronchemical.com> domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Respondent uses the disputed domain name in furtherance of an email phishing scheme. Passing off as an employee of a complainant in furtherance of fraud is not a bona fide offering of goods or service or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Abbvie, Inc. v. James Bulow, FA 1701075 (Forum Nov. 30, 2016) (“Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to pose as Complainant’s CEO by means of email addresses at the confusingly similar domain name in an attempt to determine Complainant’s ability to process a transfer. Using the domain name in this manner 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)”). Complainant provides screenshots of emails send from an address associated with the disputed domain name in which the sender solicits payment from third parties. The Panel therefore finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or service or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, and thus has no rights under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant contends that Respondent registered and uses the <chevronchemical.com> domain name in bad faith because Respondent uses the disputed domain name to impersonate Complainant via email and target third parties in furtherance of fraud. Passing off as an employee of a complainant in furtherance of phishing or fraud can demonstrate bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) or (iv). See Abbvie, Inc. v. James Bulow, FA 1701075 (Forum Nov. 30, 2016) (“Respondent uses the <abbuie.com> domain name to impersonate Complainant’s CEO. Such use is undeniably disruptive to Complainant’s business and demonstrates bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii), and/or Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)”). The Panel thus finds Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv).
Complainant also argues that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark when registering the disputed domain name. Complainant shows that Respondent uses the disputed domain name to pass off as Complainant. The Panel finds that this is evidence that Respondent knew of Complainant’s rights in the CHEVRON mark when it registered the disputed domain name, and constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See also Spectrum Brands, Inc. v. Guo Li Bo, FA 1760233 (Forum Jan. 5, 2018) (“[T]he fact Respondent registered a domain name that looked identical to the SPECTRUM BRANDS mark and used that as an email address to pass itself off as Complainant shows that Respondent knew of Complainant and its trademark rights at the time of registration.”).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <chevronchemical.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist
Dated: October 4, 2019
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page