national arbitration forum




Petroleo Brasileiro S.A. - Petrobras v. YangCongLin c/o Nick Yang

Claim Number: FA0812001239917



Complainant is Petroleo Brasileiro S.A. - Petrobras (“Complainant”), represented by Cristina A. Carvalho, of Arent Fox LLP, Washington D.C., USA.  Respondent is YangCongLin c/o Nick Yang (“Respondent”), China.



The domain name at issue is <>, registered with Inc.



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.


Honorable Karl V. Fink (Ret.) as Panelist.



Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on December 23, 2008; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on December 26, 2008.


The National Arbitration Forum attempted to verify that the <> domain name was registered with Inc. and that Respondent was the current registrant of the domain name. Inc., however, did not respond to multiple contact attempts from the National Arbitration Forum.  The National Arbitration Forum then contacted ICANN regarding Inc.’s lack of response to the verification request, and notified ICANN that it would be proceeding without verification.  The National Arbitration Forum commenced the case on February 17, 2009.


On February 17, 2009, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of March 9, 2009 by which Respondent could file a response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts, and to by e-mail.


Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.


On March 13, 2009, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Honorable Karl V. Fink (Ret.) as Panelist.


Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration 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."  Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the National Arbitration 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 makes the following assertions:


1.      Respondent’s <> domain name is identical to Complainant’s PETROBRAS mark.


2.      Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <> domain name.


3.      Respondent registered and used the <> domain name in bad faith.


B.  Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.



Complainant, Petroleo Brasileiro S.A. – Petrobras, has used the PETROBRAS mark in connection with its fuel and related products throughout the world.  Complainant has registered its PETROBRAS mark with numerous jurisdictions around the world, including with the Brazilian trademark authority (i.e. Reg. No. 2,709,007 issued on June 12, 1962).


Respondent registered the <> domain name on March 24, 2008.  The disputed domain name does not resolve to an active 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."


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(e), 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.”).


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.


Identical and/or Confusingly Similar


Complainant has submitted evidence of its trademark registration with the Brazilian Trademark Authority and other governmental trademark authorities for its PETROBRAS mark.  The Panel therefore finds that Complainant has sufficient rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).  See Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Bonds, FA 873143 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 16, 2007) (finding that a trademark registration adequately demonstrates a complainant’s rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also Thermo Electron Corp. v. Xu, FA 713851 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 12, 2006) (finding that the complainants had established rights in marks where the marks were registered with a trademark authority).


Respondent’s <> domain name contains Complainant’s PETROBRAS mark and adds only the generic top-level domain “.asia.”  The Panel finds that, because the addition of a generic top-level domain is irrelevant, the disputed domain name is identical to Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).  See Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (concluding that the affixation of a gTLD to a domain name is irrelevant to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis); see also Isleworth Land Co. v. Lost in Space, SA, FA 117330 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 27, 2002) (“[I]t is a well established principle that generic top-level domains are irrelevant when conducting a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis.”).


The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.


Rights or Legitimate Interests


Complainant has asserted that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.  Complainant must successfully assert a sufficient prima facie case supporting its allegations before Respondent receives the burden of demonstrating its rights or legitimate interests.  The Panel finds that Complainant has met its burden, and therefore Respondent must demonstrate its rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(c).  See G.D. Searle v. Martin Mktg., FA 118277 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 1, 2002) (“Because Complainant’s Submission constitutes a prima facie case under the Policy, the burden effectively shifts to Respondent. Respondent’s failure to respond means that Respondent has not presented any circumstances that would promote its rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).”); see also Clerical Med. Inv. Group Ltd. v., D2000-1228 (WIPO Nov. 28, 2000) (finding that, under certain circumstances, the mere assertion by the complainant that the respondent has no right or legitimate interest is sufficient to shift the burden of proof to the respondent to demonstrate that such a right or legitimate interest does exist).


There is no evidence within the record by which the Panel can find that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name.  Complainant has asserted that Respondent lacks license or authorization to use Complainant’s mark, and Respondent has not countered with any evidence whatsoever due to its lack of a response.  Moreover, the WHOIS information lists Respondent as “YangCongLin c/o Nick Yang.”  The Panel need not expound any further on this subject, and finds that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).  See M. Shanken Commc’ns v. WORLDTRAVELERSONLINE.COM, FA 740335 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 3, 2006) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) based on the WHOIS information and other evidence in the record); see also Am. W. Airlines, Inc. v. Paik, FA 206396 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 22, 2003) (“Respondent has registered the domain name under the name ‘Ilyoup Paik a/k/a David Sanders.’  Given the WHOIS domain name registration information, Respondent is not commonly known by the [<>] domain name.”).


Complainant has submitted a screenshot of an attempt to locate Respondent’s disputed domain name.  However, the evidence sets forth substantial evidence that a resolving website for the disputed domain name does not exist.  This evidence, without any response from Respondent, is tantamount to asserting that Respondent has not made any active use of the disputed domain name since registration.  Indeed, without any assertions from Respondent, the Panel cannot possibly foresee any demonstrable preparations by Respondent for either a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.  Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent has not made a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).  See Thermo Electron Corp. v. Xu, FA 713851 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 12, 2006) (finding that the respondent’s non-use of the disputed domain names demonstrates that the respondent is not using the disputed domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)); see also Nike, Inc. v. Crystal Int’l, D2001-0102 (WIPO Mar. 19, 2001) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where the respondent made no use of the infringing domain names).


The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.


Registration and Use in Bad Faith


The Panel is not limited to the Policy ¶ 4(b) factors when conducting its analysis; rather, the Panel may consider the totality of the circumstances.  See Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. Risser, FA 93761 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 18, 2000) (“The requirement in the ICANN Policy that a complainant prove that domain names are being used in bad faith does not require that it prove in every instance that a respondent is taking positive action. Use in bad faith can be inferred from the totality of the circumstances even when the registrant has done nothing more than register the names.”).


In this case, Respondent has not made any active use of the disputed domain name.  The Panel may, as was done in Telstra Corp. v. Nuclear Marshmallows, D2000-0003 (WIPO Feb. 18, 2000), find that “it is possible, in certain circumstances, for inactivity by the Respondent to amount to the domain name being used in bad faith.”  Indeed, the Panel so holds here, pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).  See DCI S.A. v. Link Commercial Corp., D2000-1232 (WIPO Dec. 7, 2000) (concluding that the respondent’s [failure to make an active use] of the domain name satisfies the requirement of ¶ 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).


The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.



Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.


Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.


Honorable Karl V. Fink (Ret.), Panelist

Dated:  March 27, 2009



Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page


National Arbitration Forum