Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Jni Mcfs
Claim Number: FA1708001745890
Complainant is Chevron Intellectual Property LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Jenny T. Slocum of Dickinson Wright PLLC, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Jni Mcfs (“Respondent”), Tuvalu.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <chevroncorpoil.com>, registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com.
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.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on August 23, 2017; the Forum received payment on August 23, 2017.
On August 24, 2017, PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <chevroncorpoil.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 August 24, 2017, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 13, 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@chevroncorpoil.com. Also on August 24, 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.
Having received no response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On September 14, 2017, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed the Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) 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 uses the CHEVRON mark in connection with the distribution and sale of petroleum products. Complainant owns multiple registrations of the CHEVRON mark in the U.S. and worldwide. Complainant registered the CHEVRON mark with the United States Patent and Trade Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 364,683, registered Feb. 14, 1939). Complainant’s trademark registrations for CHEVRON demonstrate its rights in the CHEVRON mark. Respondent’s <chevroncorpoil.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CHEVRON mark because it incorporates the mark in its entirety, adding only the terms “oil” and “corp” and the generic top-level domain name (“gTLD”) “.com,” neither of which meaningfully distinguish the domain name from Complainant’s registered mark. Instead, the addition of the words “oil” and “corp” enhances Internet user confusion, because they relate directly to Complainant’s business.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in <chevroncorpoil.com>. Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name, nor has Complainant given Respondent any authorization to register the CHEVRON mark. The domain name currently resolves to a webpage containing subjects for related links such as “oil and gas,” and “the price of oil.” This listing of links pertains to oil industry jobs and associated benefits, and in this situation appears to be directly related to Chevron. Respondent also engages in a fraudulent scheme by using the domain name as an email suffix to solicit Internet users through job-related emails. None of the foregoing uses constitutes a bona fide offering of goods or services or any legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).
Respondent registered and used <chevroncorpoil.com> in bad faith. Respondent’s use of the disputed domain involves using email from the at-issue domain name to pose as Complainant which disrupts Complainant’s business and also allows Respondent to financially profit by exploiting the sensitive user information it obtains through a phishing scheme and through competing/related hyperlinks associated with its parked website. Additionally, the existence of Respondent’s phishing scheme itself is evidence of bad faith use and registration of the disputed domain name. Finally, the fact that the words “oil” and “corp” were added to the domain name at issue indicates that Respondent has actual notice of Complainant’s trademark and its involvement in the oil industry, which further shows Respondent’s bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Chevron Intellectual Property LLC, uses the CHEVRON mark in connection with the distribution and sale of petroleum products. Complainant owns multiple registrations of the CHEVRON mark in the U.S. and worldwide. Complainant has rights in the CHEVRON mark through registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 364,683, registered Feb. 14, 1939). Respondent’s <chevroncorpoil.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CHEVRON mark.
Respondent, Jni Mcfs, registered <chevroncorpoil.com> on February 8, 2017.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in <chevroncorpoil.com>. Respondent uses an email address containing the disputed domain name to pass itself off as Complainant, extending fraudulent job offers in an attempt to obtain sensitive personal information.
Respondent registered and used <chevroncorpoil.com> 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:
(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 (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 has rights in the CHEVRON mark through registration with the USPTO and in other jurisdictions worldwide. Registration of a mark with the USPTO and other entities sufficiently establishes the required rights in the mark for purposes of the Policy, regardless of a respondent’s location. See Viber Media S.à r.l. v. Kristaps Sirmais / SIA "FUN FACTORY", FA 1626671 (Forum Aug. 4, 2015) (“Accordingly, even though Respondent reportedly resides in Latvia, the Panel finds find that Complainant’s USPTO registration is sufficient under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”). Accordingly, even though Respondent reportedly resides in Tuvalu, the Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the CHEVRON mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Respondent’s <chevroncorpoil.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CHEVRON mark because it incorporates the mark in its entirety, adding only the terms “oil” and “corp” and the gTLD “.com,” neither of which meaningfully distinguish the domain name from Complainant’s registered mark.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <chevroncorpoil.com> domain name as required by Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its CHEVRON mark. The WHOIS information for <chevroncorpoil.com> identifies “Jni Mcfs” as the registrant. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Guardair Corporation v. Pablo Palermo, FA1407001571060 (Forum Aug. 28, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <guardair.com> domain name according to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), as the WHOIS information lists “Pablo Palermo” as registrant of the disputed domain name).
The <chevroncorpoil.com> domain name resolves to a webpage containing subjects for related links such as “oil and gas,” and “the price of oil.” This listing of links pertains to oil industry jobs and associated benefits. Inclusion of the competing hyperlinks is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc. v. domain admin / private registrations aktien gesellschaft, FA 1626253 (Forum July 29, 2015) (“Respondent is using the disputed domain name to resolve to a web page containing advertising links to products that compete with those of Complainant. The Panel finds that this does not constitute a bona fide offering or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.”).
Respondent uses the <chevroncorpoil.com> domain name to obtain sensitive user information through phishing tactics. In this scheme, Respondent uses an email address containing the disputed domain name to pass itself off as Complainant, extending fraudulent job offers in an attempt to obtain sensitive personal information. See Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Thomas Webber / Chev Ronoil Recreational Sport Limited, FA 1661076 (Forum Mar. 15, 2016) (the respondent’s use of an email address to pass off as an affiliate of Complainant, soliciting information and money under false pretenses, is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or any legitimate noncommercial or fair use).
Respondent registered and used <chevroncorpoil.com> in bad faith. Respondent’s use of the disputed domain with competing hyperlinks, from which Respondent presumably profits, shows bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv).See Health Republic Insurance Company v. Above.com Legal, FA 1622088 (Forum July 10, 2015) (“The use of a domain name’s resolving website to host links to competitors of a complainant shows intent to disrupt that complainant’s business, thereby showing bad faith in use and registration under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).”); see also Staples, Inc. and Staples the Office Superstores, LLC v. HANNA EL HIN / DTAPLES.COM, FA 1557007 (Forum June 6, 2014) (“Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the <dtaples.com> domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because the Respondent is using the disputed domain name to host third-party links to Complainant’s competitors from which Respondent is presumed to obtain some commercial benefit.”).
Respondent engages in a phishing scheme designed to allow Respondent to obtain Internet user information—presumably for financial gain. Using a confusingly similar domain name to phish for sensitive information is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Emdeon Business Services, LLC v. HR Emdeon Careers, FA 1629459 (Forum Aug. 14, 2015) (finding that the respondent had engaged in an email phishing scheme indicating bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii), where respondent was coordinating the disputed domain name to send emails to Internet users and advising them that they had been selected for a job interview with the complainant and was persuading the users to disclose personal information in the process).
Respondent registered the <chevroncorpoil.com> domain name with actual notice of Complainant’s rights in the CHEVRON mark, which provides clear evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Yahoo! Inc. v. Butler, FA 744444 (Forum Aug. 17, 2006) (finding bad faith where the respondent was "well-aware of the complainant's YAHOO! mark at the time of registration").
Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <chevroncorpoil.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: September 27, 2017
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page