Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Slade Armstrong / No Blah No Hangover
Claim Number: FA2104001943668
Complainant is Chevron Intellectual Property LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Fred W. Hathaway of DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Slade Armstrong / No Blah No Hangover (“Respondent”), Alabama, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <chevroncovid19.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
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.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on April 30, 2021; the Forum received payment on April 30, 2021.
On May 3, 2021, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <chevroncovid19.com> 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 May 7, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 27, 2021 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@chevroncovid19.com. Also on May 7, 2021, 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 June 2, 2021, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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
Complainant contends as follows:
Complainant, Chevron Intellectual Property LLC, together with its parent company, Chevron Corporation, is a global energy company.
Complainant has rights in the CHEVRON mark based on registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).
Respondent’s <chevroncovid19.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark since it incorporates Complainant’s CHEVRON mark entirely, adding only the generic term “covid 19” and the generic top level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.”
Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <chevroncovid19.com> domain name as it is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name and Complainant has not licensed or authorized Respondent to use the CHEVRON mark. Additionally, Respondent does not use the at-issue domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor for any legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent uses the domain name pass off as Complainant and direct internet users to Respondent’s webpage which contains third-party links. Furthermore, Respondent attempts to sell the disputed domain name for $3,000.
Respondent registered and uses the <chevroncovid19.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent offers the domain name for sale at an excessive price. Additionally, Respondent trades off the good will associated with the CHEVRON mark to disrupt Complainant’s business and attract users to Respondent’s website which contains third-party hyperlinks. Lastly, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the CHEVRON mark based on the fame of the mark, as well as the manner by which Respondent incorporated the mark fully.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has trademark rights in CHEVRON.
Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and is not authorized to use the CHEVRON mark in any capacity.
The at‑issue domain name was registered after Complainant acquired trademark rights in CHEVRON.
Respondent uses the domain name to pass itself off as Complainant and direct internet users to Respondent’s webpage which contains third-party links to Complainant’s competition. Further, Respondent offers the domain name for sale.
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”).
Complainant demonstrates rights in the CHEVRON mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its registration of such mark with the USPTO as well as through any of its multiple registrations with numerous other national trademark registries worldwide. See DIRECTV, LLC v. The Pearline Group, FA 1818749 (Forum Dec. 30, 2018) (“Complainant’s ownership of a USPTO registration for DIRECTV demonstrate its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).
Respondent’s <chevroncovid19.com> domain name contains Complainant’s CHEVRON trademark followed by the generic term “covid19” with all followed by “.com,” a domain name-necessary top-level. The differences between Complainant’s trademark and the at-issue domain name does nothing to distinguish the domain name from Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent’s <chevroncovid19.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CHEVRON trademark. See MTD Products Inc. v. J Randall Shank, FA 1783050 (Forum June 27, 2018) (“The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as it wholly incorporates the CUB CADET mark before appending the generic terms ‘genuine’ and ‘parts’ as well as the ‘.com’ gTLD.”).
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. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond, Complainant’s prima facie showing acts conclusively.
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. See Navistar International Corporation v. N Rahmany, FA1505001620789 (Forum June 8, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name where the complainant had never authorized the respondent to incorporate its NAVISTAR mark in any domain name registration).
The WHOIS information for the at-issue domain name identifies the domain name’s registrant as “Slade Armstrong” and the record before the Panel contains no evidence otherwise showing that Respondent is commonly known by the <chevroncovid19.com> domain name. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the <chevroncovid19.com> domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Fred Wallace, FA1506001626022 (Forum July 27, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <chevron-europe.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), as the WHOIS information named “Fred Wallace” as registrant of the disputed domain name).
Respondent’s <chevroncovid19.com> domain name is used to address a webpage displaying links to services that compete with those services offered by Complainant under its CHEVRON trademarks. Respondent’s use of the at-issue domain name in this manner indicates neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a non-commercial or fair use of the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Ripple Labs Inc. v. NGYEN NGOC PHUONG THAO, FA 1741737 (Forum Aug. 21, 2017) (“Respondent uses the [disputed] domain name to divert Internet users to Respondent’s website… confusing them into believing that some sort of affiliation exists between it and Complainant… [which] is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”); see also CheapCaribbean.com, Inc. v. Moniker Privacy Services, FA1411001589962 (Forum Jan. 1, 2015) (“The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the <cheepcaribbean.com> name to promote links in competition with Complainant’s travel agency services does not fall within Policy ¶ 4(c)(i)’s bona fide offering of goods or services, nor does it amount to a legitimate noncommercial or fair use described in Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”).
Given the forgoing, Complainant satisfies its initial burden and conclusively demonstrates Respondent’s lack of rights and lack of interests in respect of the at-issue domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Respondent’s <chevroncovid19.com> domain name was registered and used in bad faith. As discussed in the paragraphs below without limitation, circumstances are present which compel the Panel to conclude that the domain name’s registrant acted in bad faith regarding the at-issue domain name pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
As discussed elsewhere regarding rights and legitimate interests, Respondent registered and used its <chevroncovid19.com> domain name to address a webpage featuring links to Complainant’s competitors. Respondent’s use of its confusingly similar domain name to improperly trade off the goodwill associated with Complainant’s trademark so as to attract internet users to Respondent’s website disrupts Complainant’s business and demonstrates Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). See Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Bonds, FA 873143 (Forum Feb. 16, 2007) (“The Panel finds such use to constitute bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), because [r]espondent is taking advantage of the confusing similarity between the <metropolitanlife.us> domain name and Complainant’s METLIFE mark in order to profit from the goodwill associated with the mark.”); see also Nestlé Waters North America, Inc. v. Domain Administrator / Fundacion Privacy Services LTD, FA 1792308 (Forum July 22, 2018) (Finding Respondent uses the domain names to point to a site which offers links relating to Complainant’s business. “Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to its website by creating likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trade marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the web site likely to disrupt the business of the Complainant.”).
Next, Complainant evidences emails between Complainant and GoDaddy Domain Broker Service (representing Respondent), in which Respondent offers to sell the at-issue domain name for $3,000. Respondent’s offer to sell the <chevroncovid19.com> domain name for an amount exceeding its out-of-pocket cost for such domain name shows Respondent’s bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(i). See loanDepot.com, LLC v. Expired domain caught by auction winner.***Maybe for sale on Dynadot Marketplace*** c/o Dynadot, FA 1786281 (Forum June 8, 2018) (“Complainant shows that Respondent offers the disputed domain name for sale for $950, no doubt above its out-of-pocket costs. The Panel finds that this constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i).”).
Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the CHEVRON mark when it registered <chevroncovid19.com> as a domain name. Respondent’s actual knowledge is evident from the widespread and long notoriety of Complainant’s CHEVRON trademark. See, AutoZone Parts, Inc. v. Ken Belden, FA 1815011 (Forum Dec. 24, 2018) (“Complainant contends that Respondent’s knowledge can be presumed in light of the substantial fame and notoriety of the AUTOZONE mark, as well as the fact that Complainant is the largest retailer in the field. The Panel here finds that Respondent did have actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark, demonstrating bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”); see also, Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name);
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <chevroncovid19.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: June 3, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page