National Arbitration Forum

 

DECISION

 

Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. GPM Company

Claim Number: FA1007001337780

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Chevron Intellectual Property LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Bryce J. Maynard, of Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC, Virginia, USA.  Respondent is GPM Company (“Respondent”), represented by Scott Foster, Oklahoma, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES

The domain names at issue are <chevronresources.com>, <chevrontechnology.com>, and <chevronexploration.com>, registered with OMNIS NETWORK, 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.

 

Hugues G. Richard as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on July 27, 2010.

 

On July 29, 2010, OMNIS NETWORK, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <chevronresources.com>, <chevrontechnology.com>, and <chevronexploration.com> domain names are registered with OMNIS NETWORK, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names.  OMNIS NETWORK, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the OMNIS NETWORK, LLC registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).

 

On August 2, 2010, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 23, 2010 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@chevronresources.com, postmaster@chevrontechnology.com, and postmaster@chevronexploration.com.  Also on August 2, 2010, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email 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.

 

A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on August 20, 2010.

 

On September 1, 2010, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Hugues G. Richard as Panelist.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

 

Complainant demonstrates rights in the CHEVRON mark through its numerous registrations of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for a wide range of products and services including gasoline, lubricants, operating service stations, financial services, and credit card services (e.g., U.S. Reg. No. 364,683 registered on February 14, 1939 for “lubricating oils, flushing oils,” attached to the Complaint as Exhibit 1). Complainant claims the CHEVRON mark has been used without interruption since 1935.

 

Complainant firstly argues that the Respondent’s domain names are virtually identical to Complainant’s registered CHEVRON trademark. Complainant operates a web site at <www.chevron.com> to promote its goods and services. It alleges that the web address is virtually identical to Respondent’s disputed domain names, and that the purported services associated with Respondent’s domain names are identical to Complainant’s actual services.

 

Complainant is of the opinion that the CHEVRON trademark is arbitrary and famous, and therefore entitled to the broadest protection under the law. Complainant mentions that the CHEVRON trademark is the most important and distinctive element of its brand identification. It further adds that the trademark is used in advertising and promotional materials, and significant resources are spent developing consumer awareness and goodwill by promoting its quality products and services under the CHEVRON marks.

 

Complainant contends that Respondent’s <chevronresources.com>, <chevrontechnology.com>, and <chevronexploration.com> domain names are confusingly similar to its CHEVRON mark.  Complainant asserts that Respondent fully incorporates Complainant’s mark in each of the disputed domain names.  Complainant also argues that the addition of generic terms like “resources,” “technology,” and “exploration” and the affixation of the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com” to Complainant’s mark do not prevent a finding that they are confusingly similar. Moreover, Complainant adds that the addition of terms such as “technology,” “exploration,” or “resources” increases the likelihood of confusion since they refer to, or are related to, Complainant’s business.

 

Secondly, Complainant claims that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain names. It has neither licensed nor authorized Respondent to use its CHEVRON mark in a domain name.  Complainant alleges that the <chevronresources.com>, <chevrontechnology.com>, and <chevronexploration.com> domain names resolve to parked websites and, accordingly, Respondent has failed to make a fair use of the disputed domain names.

 

Thirdly, Complainant argues that Respondent has registered and is using the domain names in bad faith. In support of this assertion, it filed evidence of e-mail correspondence with Respondent. On June 18, 2010, Complainant requested that Respondent voluntarily transfer the disputed domain names to Complainant. Respondent replied with an offer to sell the <chevronresources.com>, <chevrontechnology.com>, and <chevronexploration.com> domain names to Complainant for $1,500.00 each.

 

Complainant further alleges Respondent’s registration of multiple domain names that contain its CHEVRON mark indicates bad faith. Finally, Complainant contends Respondent’s failure to make bona fide use of the disputed domain names constitutes registration and use in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

B. Respondent

 

Respondent replied with a short e-mail mentioning that it agrees to transfer the domain names to Complainant and wishes to avoid any judicial proceedings or costs.  It asks what it needs to do to facilitate the transfer of the domain names.

 

FINDINGS

As Respondent consents to the transfer of the domain names, the Panel finds the domain names <chevronresources.com>, <chevrontechnology.com>, and <chevronexploration.com> should be transferred to Complainant.

 

DISCUSSION

In the present case, where Respondent has not challenged any of Complainant’s assertions and consents to the transfer of the domain names, the Panel finds it unnecessary to go through the traditional UDRP analysis. See Boehringer Ingelheim Int’l GmbH v. Modern Ltd. – Cayman Web Dev., FA 133625 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 9, 2003) (transferring the domain name registration where the respondent stipulated to the transfer); see also Malev Hungarian Airlines, Ltd. v. Vertical Axis Inc., FA 212653 (Nat Arb. Forum Jan. 13, 2004) (“In this case, the parties have both asked for the domain name to be transferred to the Complainant . . . Since the requests of the parties in this case are identical, the Panel has no scope to do anything other than to recognize the common request, and it has no mandate to make findings of fact or of compliance (or not) with the Policy.”); see also Disney Enters., Inc. v. Morales, FA 475191 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 24, 2005) (“[U]nder such circumstances, where Respondent has agreed to comply with Complainant’s request, the Panel felt it to be expedient and judicial to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order the transfer of the domain names.”).

 

DECISION

Having established and determined that Respondent does not contest Complainant’s remedy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <chevronresources.com>, <chevrontechnology.com>, and <chevronexploration.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Hugues G. Richard, Panelist
Dated: September 14, 2010

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

 

Click Here to return to our Home Page

 

National Arbitration Forum