Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. DANILO ROSSI
Claim Number: FA1704001727836
Complainant is Chevron Intellectual Property LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Melissa Alcantara of Dickinson Wright PLLC, USA. Respondent is DANILO ROSSI (“Respondent”), Italy.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <texaco.cloud>, registered with Tucows Domains Inc.
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 April 19, 2017; the Forum received payment on April 19, 2017.
On April 19, 2017, Tucows Domains Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <texaco.cloud> domain name is registered with Tucows Domains Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Tucows Domains Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Tucows Domains Inc. 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 April 20, 2017, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 10, 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@texaco.cloud. Also on April 20, 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.
Respondent sent three E-Mails to the Forum, see below, but did not submit a formal Response. Having received no formal response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On May 17, 2017, 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 is one of the world's leading integrated energy companies with a global workforce of over 50,000 company employees and over 3,000 service station employees. Complainant is active in all facets of the global energy industry, including research, exploration, production and transportation of crude oil and natural gas; refining, marketing and distribution of transportation fuels and lubricants; manufacturing and sale of petrochemical products; generation of power and production of geothermal energy; and development of future energy resources, including research for advanced biofuels. Complainant owns numerous prior registrations for marks consisting of or containing TEXACO in connection with a wide range of products and services, including gasoline, lubricants, operating service stations, lubrication services, and credit card services. Complainant registered the TEXACO mark in the United States in 1906. The mark is also registered in other countries throughout the world. The mark is famous.
According to Complainant, the disputed domain name is identical to the TEXACO mark because it includes the entire mark with only the “.cloud” top-level domain (“TLD”) suffix added.
Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the dispute domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and Complainant has not licensed or permitted Respondent to use the TEXACO mark in any respect. Respondent has not made any bona fide offering of goods or services or any legitimate noncommercial or fair use because the domain name resolves to a page which merely states “RESERVED” in bold letters. Respondent has also listed the domain for sale online for $500. Both the offer for sale, and the failure to show demonstrable preparations to use a domain name does not evince Respondent’s rights under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).
Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent’s offer for sale indicates Policy ¶ 4(b)(i) bad faith. The disputed domain name resolves to an inactive webpage. Additionally, such a failure to make an active use or show evidence of preparations of use of the disputed domain name suggests bad faith registration pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). Respondent also registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge, given the fame of the TEXACO mark.
B. Respondent
While Respondent failed to submit a formal Response in this proceeding, he did send E-Mails which read, in pertinent part (sic):
“i seem to understand that i broke the rules buying the texaco.cloud domain, I would like to point out that if these rules are being broken by me has been done in good faith and that hosting ARUBA from which i purchased the domain should have brought me to know . However it was not my intention to break these rules so I am ready to resolve the dispute in a peaceful manner.”
“I would like to tell [Complainant] that I did not know I had violated a rule by purchasing the domain TEXACO.CLOUD and that anyway I would be willing to Give up domain without starting a cause.” [Respondent is Italian, so the term “cause” here no doubt refers to “judicial proceedings”, which are called “causa” in Italian.]
“I am ready to resolve the dispute in a peaceful manner, Providing you with the necessary property transfer.”
For the reasons given below, the Panel will not make any findings of fact.
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 the present case, the parties have both asked for the domain name to be transferred to the Complainant. In accordance with a general legal principle governing arbitrations as well as national court proceedings, this Panel holds that it cannot act nec ultra petita nec infra petita, that is, that it cannot issue a decision that would be either less than requested, nor more than requested by the parties. 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 Malev Hungarian Airlines, Ltd. v. Vertical Axis Inc., FA 212653 (Forum Jan. 13, 2004); see also 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 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.”).
For the reasons given above, the Panel will not analyze this element of the Policy.
For the reasons given above, the Panel will not analyze this element of the Policy.
For the reasons given above, the Panel will not analyze this element of the Policy.
Given the common request of the Parties, it is Ordered that the <texaco.cloud> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: May 17, 2017
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page