Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Briana Kroll
Claim Number: FA1412001597177
Complainant is Chevron Intellectual Property LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Jenny T. Slocum of Dickinson Wright PLLC, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Briana Kroll (“Respondent”), Minnesota, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <chevroncreditcardlogin.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.
Darryl C. Wilson, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on December 29, 2014; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on December 29, 2014.
On December 29, 2014, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <chevroncreditcardlogin.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 December 31, 2014, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 20, 2015 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@chevroncreditcardlogin.com. Also on December 31, 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.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On January 23, 2015 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Darryl C. Wilson, 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. 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
Complainant has registered CHEVRON with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (e.g., Reg. No. 364,683, registered Feb. 14, 1939). Complainant uses CHEVRON to identify its global energy efforts. Complainant also advertises and offers credit card services in connection with the CHEVRON mark. The <chevroncreditcardlogin.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the CHEVRON mark. The domain name includes the CHEVRON mark in full adding the phrase “credit card login,” which relates to Complainant’s own credit card offerings bearing the CHEVRON brand.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <chevroncreditcardlogin.com> domain name. Respondent has no authorization to use the CHEVRON mark, and is known as “Briana Kroll” per the WHOIS record. In addition, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to resolve to a parking page, which promotes links to credit card services comparable to those offered by Complainant. Respondent presumably generates click-through revenue from the promoted links. Such use cannot be considered a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.
Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to promote credit cards in competition with Complainant illustrates Respondent’s intent to disrupt Complainant’s business. Further, Respondent has engaged in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) as the confusingly similar domain name resolves to feature pay-per-click links to websites related to and competing with Complainant’s own credit card offers and services. Lastly, Respondent’s bad faith is demonstrated by Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name despite knowledge of Complainant and its interests in the CHEVRON mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant is Chevron Intellectual Property LLC of San Ramon, CA, USA. Complainant is the owner of more than 100 domestic and foreign registrations for the mark CHEVRON and variations thereof covering goods and services in more than a dozen international classes including at least five that pertain to credit and credit card services. Complainant’s earliest registrations date back to 1939 for petroleum products and services. Complaint is also the registered owner of numerous domain names including <chevroncreditcard.com>.
Respondent is Briana Kroll of Minneapolis, MN,USA. Respondent’s registrar’s address is listed as Scottsdale, AZ, USA. The disputed domain name was registered on or about May 28, 2014.
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(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.”).
Complainant uses CHEVRON to identify its global energy efforts. Complainant states that it advertises and offers credit card services in connection with the CHEVRON mark. Complainant has registered CHEVRON with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 364,683, registered Feb. 14, 1939). The Panel finds Complainant’s registration of the CHEVRON mark with the USPTO satisfies the requirements of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Bonds, FA 873143 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 16, 2007) (finding that a USPTO trademark registration adequately demonstrates a complainant’s rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).
Complainant argues the <chevroncreditcardlogin.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the CHEVRON mark. Complainant points out that the domain name includes the CHEVRON mark in full plus the phrase “credit card login,” which relates to Complainant’s own credit card offerings bearing the CHEVRON brand. Prior panels have determined that the addition of terms related to the complainant’s enterprise does little to negate confusing similarity and may serve to increase the likelihood of user confusion. To illustrate, the panel in Chanel, Inc. v. Cologne Zone, D2000-1809 (WIPO Feb. 22, 2001), wrote, “CHANEL, the salient feature of the Domain Names, is identical to a mark in which Complainant has shown prior rights. The addition of the generic term, “perfumes” is not a distinguishing feature, and in this case seems to increase the likelihood of confusion because it is an apt term for Complainant’s business.” The Panel here finds that the addition of the gTLD “.com” here, is inconsequential to the confusing similarity analysis as all domain names require some TLD. See 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 here finds that the <chevroncreditcardlogin.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the CHEVRON mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Respondent makes no contentions with regards to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The Complainant has proven this element.
The Panel recognizes that Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 18, 2006) (holding that the complainant must first make a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under UDRP ¶ 4(a)(ii) before the burden shifts to the respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name). The Complainant has met this burden.
Complainant argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <chevroncreditcardlogin.com> domain name. Complainant specifically claims that Respondent has no authorization to use the CHEVRON mark, and is known as “Briana Kroll” per the WHOIS record. As no evidence in the record demonstrates Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name, the Panel finds Complainant has satisfied and withstood its burden with respect to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Braun Corp. v. Loney, FA 699652 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 7, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain names where the WHOIS information, as well as all other information in the record, gave no indication that the respondent was commonly known by the domain names, and the complainant had not authorized the respondent to register a domain name containing its registered mark).
Complainant further contends that Respondent uses the disputed domain name to resolve to a parking page, which promotes links to credit card services comparable to those offered by Complainant. Complainant presumes Respondent generates click-through revenue from the promoted links. Prior panels have determined that the use of confusingly similar domain names to promote links relating to or in competition with the complainant in pursuit of click-through or referral revenue does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See United Servs. Auto. Ass’n v. Savchenko, FA 1105728 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 12, 2007) (“The disputed domain name, <usaa-insurance.net>, currently resolves to a website displaying Complainant’s marks and contains links to Complainant’s competitors. The Panel finds this to be neither a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶4(c)(iii).”). The Panel here notes that Complainant has provided a screen grab of the page at issue, which shows links including, “Business Card” and “Travel Club,” as well as advertisements for “Chevron and Texaco Visa Credit Card.” The Panel finds that the promoted links both relate to and compete with Complainant and Respondent likely profits from user redirection such that no bona fide offering under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) is coming to fruition through the disputed domain name.
Respondent makes no contentions with regards to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
As the Respondent has not provided a response to this action the Respondent has failed to meet its burden regarding proof of any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain.
The Complainant has proven this element.
Complainant argues that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to promote credit cards in competition with Complainant illustrates Respondent’s intent to disrupt Complainant’s business, and therefore warrants a finding of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). The Panel again notes that the disputed domain name resolves to feature advertisements and links relating to fuel card and credit card services, which compete with Complainant’s comparable offerings. The Panel finds that the disputed domain name disrupts Complainant’s own business, and supports a finding of Respondent’s bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Tesco Pers. Fin. Ltd. v. Domain Mgmt. Servs., FA 877982 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 13, 2007) (concluding that the use of a confusingly similar domain name to attract Internet users to a directory website containing commercial links to the websites of a complainant’s competitors represents bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)).
Further, Complainant claims that Respondent has engaged in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) as the confusingly similar domain name resolves to feature pay-per-click links to websites related to and competing with Complainant’s own credit card offers and services. The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to advertise credit card services pertaining to Complainant and others interested in credit and fuel card business demonstrates Respondent’s intent to profit from a likelihood of user confusion. Such use is evidence of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) bad faith use and registration. See Univ. of Houston Sys. v. Salvia Corp., FA 637920 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 21, 2006) (“Respondent is using the disputed domain name to operate a website which features links to competing and non-competing commercial websites from which Respondent presumably receives referral fees. Such use for Respondent’s own commercial gain is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”).
Respondent makes no contentions with regards to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
The Complainant has proven this element.
Because the Complainant has established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that Complainant’s requested relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <chevroncreditcardlogin.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Darryl C. Wilson, Panelist
Dated: February 6, 2015
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page