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,
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
On
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
A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on
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
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
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