Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Caldera Amiel Terrazas / Superbrapido S.L
Claim Number: FA2010001916222
Complainant is Chevron Intellectual Property LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Fred W. Hathaway of DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Caldera Amiel Terrazas / Superbrapido S.L (“Respondent”), Spain.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <chevron.support>, registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com.
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 October 8, 2020; the Forum received payment on October 8, 2020.
On October 9, 2020, PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <chevron.support> 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 October 15, 2020, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 4, 2020 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.support. Also on October 15, 2020, 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 November 6, 2020, 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 <chevron.support> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CHEVRON mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <chevron.support> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and uses the <chevron.support> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent did not file a Response.
Complainant is a global producer and distributor of oil and other energy sources. Complainant holds registrations for the CHEVRON mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g. Reg. 364,683, registered Feb. 14, 1939 and Reg. 416,133, registered Aug. 28, 1945).
Respondent registered the <chevron.support> domain name on Jun. 16, 2020, and uses it to redirect Internet users to Complainant’s Brazilian website.
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 rights in the CHEVRON mark through its registrations with the USPTO. See Haas Automation, Inc. v. Jim Fraser, FA 1627211 (Forum Aug. 4, 2015) (finding that Complainant’s USPTO registrations for the HAAS mark sufficiently demonstrate its rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).
Respondent’s <chevron.support> domain name consists of Complainant’s CHEVRON mark and the “.support” gTLD. Adding a gTLD is generally insufficient to disitnguish a disputed domain name from a mark it incorporates under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Tupelo Honey Hospitality Corporation v. King, Reggie, FA 1732247 (Forum July 19, 2017) (“Addition of a gTLD is irrelevant where a mark has been fully incorporated into a domain name and the gTLD is the sole difference.”). The Panel finds that Respondent’s <chevron.support> domain name is virtually identical 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 argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <chevron.support> domain name, as Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name. Complainant has not authorized or licensed Respondent to use its CHEVRON mark. The WHOIS of record identifies Respondent as “Caldera Amiel Terrazas.” 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 Indeed, Inc. v. Ankit Bhardwaj / Recruiter, FA 1739470 (Forum Aug. 3, 2017) (”Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of the at-issue domain name.”).
Complainant argues that Respondent does not use the <chevron.support> domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, but instead redirects the disputed domain name’s resolving website to Complainant’s <brazil.chevron.com> domain name, and sends emails from the disputed domain name. Redirecting a disputed domain name’s resolving website to a Complainant’s website is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Direct Line Ins. plc v. Low-cost-domain, FA 1337658 (Forum Sept. 8, 2010) (“The Panel finds that using Complainant’s mark in a domain name over which Complainant has no control, even if the domain name redirects to Complainant’s actual site, is not consistent with the requirements of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or ¶ 4(c)(iii) . . .”). Complainant provides a screenshot showing that the disputed domain name resolves to Complainant’s <brazil.chevron.com> domain name. The Panel finds that this use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services, and thus Respondent has no rights under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant argues that Respondent registered the <chevron.support> domain name in bad faith, as it had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the CHEVRON mark at the time of registration. The disputed domain name redirects to Complainant’s official website in Brazil. The Panel finds that this, along with the fame of the CHEVRON mark, demonstrates Respondent’s knowledge of Complainant’s rights and constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Google Inc. v. Ahmed Humood, FA1411001591796 (Forum Jan. 7, 2015) (“This Panel makes that inference; Respondent has actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark at the time of domain name registration based on the fame of Complainant’s GOOGLE mark and Respondent’s use of one of the disputed domain names to detail Internet domain name registration and maintenance services related to and in competition with Complainant.”).
Complainant contends that Respondent registered and uses the <chevron.support> domain name in bad faith by disrupting Complainant’s business. The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent uses the disputed domain name to cause confusion among Internet users seeking Complainant, and thereby disrupts Complainant’s business, in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).
Complainant argues that Respondent’s bad faith is further demonstrated by its use of false WHOIS information to obscure its identity. Providing false WHOIS information can demonstrate bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Farouk Systems, Inc. v. Jack King / SLB, FA1505001618704 (Forum June 19, 2015) (finding bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) where the respondent had provided false contact information when registering the disputed domain name). Complainant provides evidence that none of the contact information provided in the WHOIS resolves to any active webpages or emails, nor does it match any available information online. Complainant also shows that Respondent’s physical address is that of three different businesses not listed in the WHOIS information, and there is an incorrect postal code for the address provided. Thus, the Panel finds additional bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
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 <chevron.support> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist
Dated: November 9, 2020
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page