Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Domain Administrator / Fundacion Private Whois
Claim Number: FA1407001572230
Complainant is Chevron Intellectual Property LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Jenny T. Slocum of Dickinson Wright PLLC, Washington D.C., USA. Respondent is Domain Administrator / Fundacion Private Whois (“Respondent”), Panama.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <chevon.com> (“the Domain Name”) , registered with Internet.bs Corp.
The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Dawn Osborne as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on July 29, 2014; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on July 30, 2014.
On August 6, 2014, Internet.bs Corp. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <chevon.com> domain name is registered with Internet.bs Corp. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Internet.bs Corp. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Internet.bs Corp. 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 August 6, 2014, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 26, 2014 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@chevon.com. Also on August 6, 2014, 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.
A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on August 26, 2014.
On 28, August, 2014, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Dawn Osborne 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" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
The Complainant's submissions can be summarised as follows:
The Complainant is a major energy company and owns US and International trade mark registrations for CHEVRON for petroleum products dating back first in time to 1939, first use of the CHEVRON mark being 1935. It was adopted as part of the corporate name of the Complainant in the 1970s. The Complainant also offers credit card services. It owns many domain names incorporating the CHEVRON mark including chevron.com. CHEVRON is a famous mark.
The Domain Name incorporates a purposeful misspelling of and is confusingly similar to the CHEVRON mark with only the 'r' omitted, giving the same aural and visual impression.
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. It is not commonly known by it. It is not using it in relation to a bona fide offering of goods and services or any non-commercial or fair use.
The Domain Name was registered on March 31, 2000. It has been used to point to a portal page with pictures of vehicles at the top and pointing to links to web sites for oil job opportunities and ‘gas credit cards’ and link to services provided by the Complainant's competitors. Such links are designed to generate click through fees and evidence the intention to typosquat and mislead consumers seeking the Complainant to alternative third party web sites for commercial gain.
B. Respondent
The Respondent's contentions can be summarised here:
“Chevon” is an English dictionary word for goat meat. Searching on the term chevon shows over a million results pertaining to goat meat and not the Complainant's mark.
The Complainant is only interested in acquiring a premium .com domain name without making a fair market offer to compensate the owner for considerable out of pocket costs.
Respondent purchased the Domain Name at a premium as an investment in a generic name. Pay per click links are acceptable for generic names.
The Complainant is a major energy company and owns US and International trade mark registrations for CHEVRON for petroleum products dating back first in time to 1939, first use of the CHEVRON mark being 1935. The CHEVRON name was adopted as part of the Complainant’s corporate name in the 1970s. The Complainant also offers credit card services. It owns many domain names incorporating the CHEVRON mark including chevron.com. CHEVRON is a famous mark.
The Domain Name was registered on March 31, 2000. It has been used to point to a portal page with pictures of vehicles at top and pointing to links to web sites for oil job opportunities and ‘gas credit cards’ and link to services provided by the Complainant's competitors.
Chevon is a term meaning goat meat.
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.
The Complainant has US and international trade mark registrations consisting of or containing CHEVRON, including a registration for petroleum products registered in 1939 (recording first use in commerce as 1935 in the United States). The Domain Name consists of CHEVON which is a word that means goat meat, however it is also similar to the Complainant’s CHEVRON mark omitting only the 'r'. The Panelist agrees with the Complainant that the Domain Name retains an aural and visual similarity to the Complainant's trade mark and, accordingly, agrees they are confusingly similar under the Policy. See Reuters Ltd v. Global Net 2000 Inc. , D2000-0441 (WIPO July 13, 2000) (finding that a domain name which differs by only one letter from a trade mark has a greater tendency to be confusingly similar to the trade mark where the trade mark is highly distinctive); see also Jerry Damson Inc v. Tex Int'l Prop Assoc., FA 916991 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr 10, 2007)("The mere addition of a generic top level domain ("gTLD") ".com" does not serve to adequately distinguish the Domain Name from the mark.") As such the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights for the purposes of the Policy.
The Panel finds that the domain name is a mere typosquat of the CHEVRON mark, and that its use of the domain name for hyperlink advertisement does not fall within the parameters of Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Kaspersky Lab Zao v. uPort Inc., FA 1328687 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 12, 2010) (finding no rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) when the typosquatted <akspersky.com>, <kaseprsky.com> and <aspersky.com> domain names were used for purposes of generic hyperlink lists).
Paragraph 4 (b) of the Rules sets out non-exclusive criteria which shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith including circumstances where, by using the domain name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its web site or other on‑line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its web site or location or of a product or service on its web site or location.
Links to third party web sites in the energy business directly competing with the Complainant have appeared on a page attached to the Domain Name for commercial gain. It is established in many decisions under the Policy that a Respondent is legally responsible for material attached to a domain name. See St. Farm Mutual Auto. Insr. Co. v. Pompilio, FA 1092410 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 20, 2007) (“As a rule, the owner of a parked domain name does not control the content appearing at the parking site. Nevertheless, it is ultimately [the] respondent who is responsible for how its domain name is used.”); Gold Medal Travel Grp. plc v. Kruzicevic, D2007-1902 (WIPO Mar. 12, 2008) (where the disputed domain name had been parked, the panel found the “the Registrant is responsible for the content of the material appearing on the webpage associated with the domain name in dispute.”); Vance Int’l, Inc. v. Abend, FA 970871 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 8, 2007) (“Although the websites accessed via the Disputed Domains may be operated by domain parking service providers, that activity is legally and practically attributable back to respondent. [The] respondent has given those service providers permission to use the Disputed Domains . . . . [The] respondent has expressly authorized the activities being carried on by the domain parking service providers, either specifically or by carte blanche. It must be presumed that [the] respondent is aware of the general nature of the services provided by those organizations and the business model that they employ . . . . The key fact here is that [the] respondent, in collaboration with the domain parking service providers, is exploiting [the] complainant's goodwill.”) The content of the links shows that the Respondent is aware of the Complainant, its CHEVRON trade mark and its activities.
Further, there is clearly bad faith here when a typosquatted domain name such as this one is being used to proliferate hyperlink advertisements. See, e.g., Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Richard Jones, FA 1330673 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 23, 2010) (finding that the <libertymutuel.com> domain name was registered in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) because it was typosquatted off the LIBERTY MUTUAL mark, and was used in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because it was used for a simple website dedicated to the listing of hyperlink advertisements).
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name has been registered and used in bad faith. By using the Domain Name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its web site or other on‑line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its web site or location or of a product or service on its web site or location.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <chevon.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Dawn Osborne, Panelist
Dated: September 11, 2014
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page