Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Thomas Webber / Chev Ronoil Recreational Sport Limited
Claim Number: FA1602001661076
Complainant is Chevron Intellectual Property LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Jenny T. Slocum of Dickinson Wright PLLC, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Thomas Webber / Chev Ronoil Recreational Sport Limited (“Respondent”), Florida, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <chevronoilcareer.com>, registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com.
The undersigned certifies that he or 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.
Richard Hill as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on February 16, 2016; the Forum received payment on February 16, 2016.
On February 17, 2016, PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <chevronoilcareer.com> domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com 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 February 17, 2016, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 8, 2016 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@chevronoilcareer.com. Also on February 17, 2016, 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 March 14, 2016, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Richard Hill as Panelist.
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 states that it uses the CHEVRON mark in connection with its business in the global energy industry, as well as prominently in advertising for the company. Complainant is one of the world's leading integrated energy companies, with activities and subsidiaries around the world. Complainant has registered the CHEVRON mark in the United States and elsewhere around the world, with rights dating back to 1939. The mark is famous.
According to Complainant, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the CHEVRON mark as it incorporates the mark in its entirety while adding the generic term “oil career” as well as the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.”
Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor is Respondent a licensee of Complainant. Further, Respondent is making neither a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. Rather, the domain name is used in conjunction with an email address which solicits information and money on false pretenses through an email that is confusingly similar to the Chevron employment account.
According to Complainant, Respondent has been intentionally and fraudulently impersonating itself as Chevron Corporation affiliate through the use of the disputed domain name and email address. Respondent, masquerading as a representative of Complainant, which it is not, has sent emails to potential job candidates and applicants requesting information for an interview at “Chevron Oil, United Kingdom”. As part of the fraudulent scheme, Respondent, acting as “Armaghan Haque”, a “Human Resource Manager” at “Chevron Oil, United Kingdom,” emails third parties and attaches to the email documents bearing the CHEVRON marks for purposes of requesting that the person contact a particular travel agency to arrange for travel to Chevron’s offices for a job interview. For further apparent authenticity to help perpetuate the fraud, an Aberdeen mailing address that Respondent repeatedly uses for itself in these communications accurately corresponds to Complainant’s Aberdeen corporate offices. The fraudulent scheme also includes a request that the potential applicant pay for his/her own travel arrangements through a designated travel agent, with the promise that the applicant will be refunded by Chevron UK, upon arrival. The email also contains an attachment with a “Letter of Invitation” for the job interview. The documents that Respondent has forwarded to these third parties also include elaborate job specifications and details for applying for the position. Respondent is not employed by or affiliated with Complainant or its affiliated companies. Nor is Respondent authorized by Complainant or its related companies to carry out business under any name containing “Chevron” or to hold himself out as an employee or management of Complainant. Respondent is also not authorized to conduct any hiring on Complainant’s behalf
Further, says Complainant, Respondent is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent’s use of the website serves as a disruption of Complainant’s legitimate business purposes. Respondent has also attempted to attract employees for commercial gain by creating confusion as to the source and affiliation of the email. Further, Respondent had actual and constructive notice of the CHEVRON mark and Complainant’s rights therein because of the mark’s fame, notoriety, and multiple trademark registrations.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant owns the mark CHEVRON and uses it in connection with its business in the global energy industry. Its mark is famous.
Complainant’s registration of its mark dates back to 1939.
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.
The disputed domain name is used in conjunction with an email address which solicits information and money on false pretenses.
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(f), 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.”).
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the CHEVRON mark as it incorporates the mark in its entirety while adding the generic term “oil career” as well as the gTLD “.com”.” Panels have found that such alterations to a mark are insufficient in overcoming a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶4(a)(i). See Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Buchi Anderson / Guiness, FA1570792 (Nat. Arb. Forum, August 26, 2014) (panel found that domain name for chevronoilandgas.com was confusingly similar to complainant’s CHEVRON mark); see also Oki Data Ams., Inc. v. ASD, Inc., D2001-0903 (WIPO Nov. 6, 2001) (“The fact that a domain name wholly incorporates a Complainant’s registered mark is sufficient to establish identify [sic] or confusing similarity for purposes of the Policy despite the addition of other words to such marks”). Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the CHEVRON mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. The WHOIS information lists Respondent as “Thomas Webber” from “Chev Ronoil Recreational Sport Limited” where “Chev Ronoil” appears to be a configuration of the words in “Chevron Oil.” Complainant confirms that this entity is neither affiliated with Complainant, nor authorized to act on Complainant’s behalf. In light of the available evidence this Panel holds that there is no basis to find Respondent commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Coopertown Drive-Thry Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).
Respondent is using an email address to pass themselves off as an affiliate of Complainant. Complainant presents evidence showing that the email address that Respondent has created is used to solicit information and money on false pretenses. The disputed domain name is being used to cause the recipients of these emails to mistakenly believe Respondent has a connection with Complainant and is one of the Complainant’s affiliates. Panels have found that using a domain name to pass oneself off as the Complainant has not amounted to a bona fide argument of goods or services or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use. See Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v . Richard Bailey / Jacobs, FA1588430 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 9, 2014) (finding no bona fide offering of goods or services where the respondent’s use of the disputed domain name was in furtherance of fraudulent activity under the misleading guise of the domain name and associated email addresses); 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).”); see also Capital One Fin. Corp. v. Howel, FA 289304 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 11, 2004) (concluding that using a domain name to redirect Internet users to a website that imitated the complainant’s credit application website and attempted to fraudulently acquire personal information from the complainant’s clients was not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use). While these panel findings have been directed at the use of the disputed domain name in a website rather than an E-mail address, they apply equally to the present case.
Furthermore, where a party has registered and used a domain name in bad faith (see the discussion below), that party cannot be found to have made a bona fide offering of goods or services. See The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. and PNC Bank, N.A. v. Azra Khan, WIPO Case No. D2002-0701; see also AltaVista Company v. Saeid Yomtobian, WIPO Case No. D2000 0937.
Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant’s contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for his use of Complainant’s mark. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent’s failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain names.
Respondent has created an email address for purposes of emailing potential job applicants attempting to solicit information as Complainant’s subsidiary. This constitutes bad faith use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Coldwell Banker Real Estate LLC v. piperleffler piperleffler, FA 1529565 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 27, 2013) (finding that use of an email address that used the contested domain name as the extension was found to be in bad faith because respondent used the fraudulent emails to pose as complainant in a fraudulent scheme to defraud); see also National Oilwell Varco, L.P. v. Craig Wood/NOV, FA 1575951 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 22, 2014) (finding bad faith where respondent fraudulently attempted to induce wire transfers by sending e-mails purporting to be from complainant’s President and CEO); see also Capital One Financial Corporation and Capital One Bank v. Austin Howel, FA 289304 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 11, 2004) (finding bad faith where respondent used complainant’s mark to fraudulently induce transfer of credit and personal identification information).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <chevronoilcareer.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: March 15, 2016
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page