Phillips 66 Company v. John Dix
Claim Number: FA1703001723291
Complainant is Phillips 66 Company ("Complainant), represented by Craig Stone of Phillips 66 Company, Texas, USA. Respondent is John Dix ("Respondent), Kansas, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <phililips66.com>, registered with 1&1 Internet SE.
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.
Petter Rindforth as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on March 23, 2017; the Forum received payment on March 23, 2017.
On March 29, 2017, 1&1 Internet SE confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <phililips66.com> domain name is registered with 1&1 Internet SE and that Respondent is the current registrant of the domain name. 1&1 Internet SE has verified that Respondent is bound by the 1&1 Internet SE 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 March 30, 2017, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 19, 2017 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@phililips66.com. Also on March 30, 2017, 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 April 18, 2017. See further notes under "DISCUSSION" below.
On April 25, 2017, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Petter Rindforth 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.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant has rights in the PHILLIPS 66 trademark through registration of the trademark with multiple trademark agencies including the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (e.g., Reg. No. 255,501, registered Apr. 23, 1929). Respondent’s <phililips66.com> is confusingly similar to the PHILLIPS 66 trademark because it incorporates the full trademmark, less the space, with one “i" inserted between the two “L”s in the trademark, along with the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com” appended.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in <phililips66.com>. Respondent is not commonly known by <phililips66.com>, and Complainant has not licensed Respondent to use the PHILLIPS 66 trademark in any respect. Further, <phililips66.com> is utilized by Respondent in connection with fraudulent emails to pose as Complainant’s Chief Executive Officer (Gregory Garland) to request transfer of bank funds from Complainant’s Chief Financial Officer. This fraudulent use does not evince any bona fide offering of goods or services or any legitimate noncommercial or fair use.
Respondent registered and used <phililips66.com> in bad faith. Fraudulent email use to steal bank funds from Complainant is bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). Further, Respondent’s typosquatting evinces bad faith, and when coupled with Respondent’s use of the domain name to contact Complainant, shows that Respondent had actual or constructive knowledge of the PHILLIPS 66 mark and Complainant’s rights in the mark, which demonstrates nonexclusive bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
B. Respondent
The company providing the Response alleges identity theft and consents to the transfer of <phililips66.com>. See further notes under "DISCUSSION" below.
The Panel finds that Complainant has established trademark rights in the PHILLIPS 66 trademark, covering the following registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”):
Reg. No. 255,501 PHILLIPS 66, registered April 23, 1929
Reg. No. 2,904,680 PHILLIPS 66, registered November 23, 2004
Reg. No. 3,129,949 PHILLIPS 66, registered August 15, 2006
Reg. No. 4,227,585 PHILLIPS 66, registered October 16, 2012
Reg. No. 4,296,339 PHILLIPS 66, registered February 26, 2013
Reg. No. 758,459 PHILLIPS 66 (fig), registered October 15, 1963
Reg. No. 1,923,166 PHILLIPS 66 (fig), registered October 3, 1995
Reg. No. 2,958,598 PHILLIPS 66 (fig), registered May 31, 2005
Reg. No. 3,129,945 PHILLIPS 66 (fig), registered August 15, 2006
(Exhibit C of the Complaint).
Complainant also has trademark registrations for PHILLIPS 66 in a number of countries/regions in the world, including Australia, European Union, Germany, United Kingdom, Hong Kong, South Africa and Singapore.
The disputed domain name <phililips66.com>, was registered on February 22, 2017.
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."
As noted above, the Respondent is identified as "John Dix". Although accepted as a timely filed Response, the Panel note that the Response was not submitted by John Dix, but by Global Art Materials, a company with a different address and contact details, claiming that their account has been hacked, with the result of someone changing that company's contact information and then registered several hundred fraudulent domain names on the company's account.
The Panel notes that the said company obviously has received formal information of the Complaint (as it seems, from the Registrar), and in fact replied as Respondent. The Panel has however no reason to question the information given in the Response.
The Panel further notes that Respondent has not contested the transfer of the disputed domain name. The Response clearly states that "we do not want this domain, we have been trying to get rid of it and have it deleted from our account, to no avail". The Panel takes this note as an acceptence of transfer.
Therefore, under these special circumstances, the Panel decides to forego the traditional UDRP analysis, not to make any further findings or discussion, and instead order an immediate transfer of the <phililips66.com> domain name. See Boehringer Ingelheim Int’l GmbH v. Modern Ltd. – Cayman Web Dev., FA 133625 (Forum Jan. 9, 2003) (transferring the domain name registration where the respondent stipulated to the transfer); see also Malev Hungarian Airlines, Ltd. v. Vertical Axis Inc., FA 212653 (Forum Jan. 13, 2004) (“In this case, the parties have both asked for the domain name to be transferred to the Complainant . . . Since the requests of the parties in this case are identical, the Panel has no scope to do anything other than to recognize the common request, and it has no mandate to make findings of fact or of compliance (or not) with the Policy.”); see also Disney Enters., Inc. v. Morales, FA 475191 (Forum June 24, 2005) (“[U]nder such circumstances, where Respondent has agreed to comply with Complainant’s request, the Panel felt it to be expedient and judicial to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order the transfer of the domain names.”).
Giving the special circumstances in this case, the fact that Respondent has consented to the transfer of the disputed domain name, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <phililips66.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Petter Rindforth, Panelist
Dated: May 4, 2017
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page