Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Jane Jones
Claim Number: FA1509001639890
Complainant is Chevron Intellectual Property LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Jenny T. Slocum of Dickinson Wright PLLC, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Jane Jones (“Respondent”), Great Britain.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <sacchevron-uk.com>, registered with NameSilo, LLC.
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially, and, to the best of his knowledge, has no conflict of interests in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Terry F. Peppard as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on September 29, 2015; the Forum received payment on September 29, 2015.
On September 29, 2015, NameSilo, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <sacchevron-uk.com> domain name is registered with NameSilo, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameSilo, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameSilo, 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 September 29, 2015, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 19, 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@sacchevron-uk.com. Also on September 29, 2015, 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 Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On October 26, 2015, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Terry F. Peppard as sole Panelist in this proceeding.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the 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 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 uses the CHEVRON mark in the marketing of its business as an integrated energy company.
Complainant holds registrations for the CHEVRON trademark and service mark, which are on file with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (including Registry No. 4,297,878, registered March 5, 2013).
Respondent registered the domain name <sacchevron-uk.com> on June 5, 2015.
The domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CHEVRON mark.
Respondent has not been commonly known by the domain name.
Respondent has not received authorization from Complainant to use the CHEVRON mark.
Respondent uses the domain name to create email addresses which it employs to pose as a recruiter for Complainant, thus deceptively to solicit personal information from Internet users.
Respondent’s use of the domain name is an effort to secure commercial gain.
This use is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name.
Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name.
Respondent’s use of the domain name disrupts Complainant’s business.
Respondent’s use of the domain name creates confusion among Internet users as to the possibility of Complainant’s association with the domain name.
Respondent knew of Complainant and its rights in the CHEVRON mark when it registered the domain name.
Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
(1) the domain name registered by Respondent is confusingly similar to a service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(2) Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) the same domain name was registered and is being used by Respondent in bad faith.
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:
i. the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
ii. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
iii. 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 will, pursuant to paragraphs 5(e), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules, decide this proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations and, pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, draw such inferences it considers appropriate. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations and inferences set out 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) (finding that a respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of a UDRP 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 has rights in the CHEVRON service mark for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) by virtue of its registration of the mark with a national trademark authority, the USPTO. See, for example, Towmaster, Inc. v. Hale, FA 973506 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 4, 2007):
Complainant’s timely registration with the USPTO and subsequent use of the … mark establishes rights in the mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
This is true without regard to whether Complainant’s rights in its mark arise from its registration in a jurisdiction (here the United States) other than that in which Respondent resides or does business (here Great Britain). See Renaissance Hotel Holdings, Inc. v. Renaissance Cochin, FA 932344 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 23, 2007) (finding, under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), that it does not matter whether a UDRP complainant has registered its mark in the country in which a respondent resides, only that it can establish rights in the mark in some jurisdiction).
Turning to the central question posed by Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), we conclude from a review of the record that Respondent’s <sacchevron-uk.com> domain name is confusingly similar to complainant’s CHEVRON service mark. The domain name contains the mark in its entirety, merely adding the geographic abbreviation “uk,” the letters “SAC,” a hyphen, and the generic top-level domain “.com.” The letters “SAC” at the front of the domain name appear to refer to Complainant’s business conducted in Saudi Arabia and to relate to its legitimate website located at <sachevron.com>. These alterations of the CHEVRON mark, made in forming the domain name, do not save the domain name from the realm of confusing similarity under the standards of the Policy. See Skype Ltd. v. Sacramento, FA 747948 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 30, 2006):
The addition of the geographic term [“Brasil”] [to the mark of another in creating a domain name] does not avoid confusing similarity pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
See also Innomed Techs., Inc. v. DRP Servs., FA 221171 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 18, 2004) (finding that the inclusion of hyphens and a top-level domain in a domain name is irrelevant for purposes ¶ 4(a)(i) of the Policy).
Rights or Legitimate Interests
Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must make a prima facie showing that Respondent lacks rights to and legitimate interests in a disputed domain name, whereupon the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have such rights or interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 18, 2006) (finding that a UDRP complainant must make a prima facie case that a respondent lacks rights to and legitimate interests in a disputed domain name under UDRP ¶ 4(a)(ii) before the burden shifts to that respondent to show that it does have such rights or interests); see also AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 25, 2006):
Complainant must … make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, … the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names.
Complainant has made out a sufficient prima facie showing under this head of the Policy. Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complaint therefore permits us to infer that Respondent does not have rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See Desotec N.V. v. Jacobi Carbons AB, D2000-1398 (WIPO Dec. 21, 2000) (finding that a respondent’s failure to respond to a UDRP complaint allows a presumption that a complainant’s allegations are true unless clearly contradicted by the evidence). Nonetheless, we will examine the record before us, in light of the considerations set out in Policy ¶ 4(c), to determine whether there is any basis for concluding that Respondent has rights to or legitimate interests in the contested domain name which are cognizable under the Policy.
We begin by noting that Complainant asserts, and Respondent does not deny,
that Respondent has not been commonly known by the <sacchevron-uk.com> domain name, and that Respondent has not received authorization from Complainant to use the CHEVRON mark. Moreover, the pertinent WHOIS information identifies the registrant of the domain name only as “Jane Jones,” which does not resemble the domain name. On this record, we conclude that Respondent has not been commonly known by the contested domain name so as to have acquired rights to or legitimate interests in it within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Braun Corp. v. Loney, FA 699652 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 7, 2006) (concluding that a respondent was not commonly known by disputed domain names, and so failed to show that it had rights to or legitimate interests in them as provided in Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), where the relevant WHOIS information, as well other evidence in the record, gave no indication that that respondent was commonly known by the domain names, and where a UDRP complainant had not authorized that respondent to register a domain name containing its mark).
We next observe that Complainant asserts, without objection from Respondent, that Respondent’s use of the <sacchevron-uk.com> domain name does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, in that Respondent use email addresses tracing to the domain name to solicit personal information from Internet users who mistakenly believe that Respondent is a recruiter for Complainant. This employment of the domain name, commonly called “phishing,” is neither a bona fide offering of goods and services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Juno Online Servs., Inc. v. Nelson, FA 241972 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 29, 2004):
‘Phishing’ involves the use of e-mails, pop-ups or other methods to trick Internet users into revealing credit cards, passwords, social security numbers and other personal information to the ‘phishers’ who intend to use such information for fraudulent purposes.
See also Blackstone TM L.L.C. v. Mita Irelant Ltd., FA 1314998 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 30, 2010):
The Panel finds that Respondent’s attempt to “phish” for users’ personal information is neither a bona fide offering of goods and services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).
The Panel therefore finds that Complainant has satisfied the requirements of Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
We are persuaded by the evidence that Respondent’s use of the contested <sacchevron-uk.com> domain name to profit by committing fraud upon unsuspecting Internet users, as alleged in the Complaint, demonstrates bad faith in the registration and use of the domain name. See Qatalyst Partners LP v. Devimore, FA 1393436 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 13, 2011) (finding that a UDRP respondent’s use of a disputed domain name to create an e-mail address which it employed to pass itself off as a complainant in a phishing scheme was evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)).
We are also convinced by the evidence that Respondent knew of Complainant and its rights in the CHEVRON mark when it registered the <sacchevron-uk.com> domain name. This too is proof of Respondent’s bad faith in registering the domain name. See Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting a respondent's contention that it did not register a disputed domain name in bad faith where a panel found that that respondent had knowledge of a UDRP complainant's rights in its mark when registering a confusingly similar domain name).
The Panel thus finds that Complainant has met its obligations of proof under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Complainant having established all three elements required to be proven under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that the relief requested must be, and it is hereby, GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <sacchevron-uk.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED forthwith from Respondent to Complainant.
Terry F. Peppard, Panelist
Dated: October 28, 2015
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page