Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Matthew Janowitz
Claim Number: FA1708001745920
Complainant is Chevron Intellectual Property LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Jenny T. Slocum of Dickinson Wright PLLC, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Matthew Janowitz (“Respondent”), Florida, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <chevronhr.com>, registered with Ascio Technologies, Inc. Danmark – Filial af Ascio technologies, Inc. USA.
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.
Kenneth L. Port 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, Ascio Technologies, Inc. Danmark – Filial af Ascio technologies, Inc. USA confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <chevronhr.com> domain name is registered with Ascio Technologies, Inc. Danmark – Filial af Ascio technologies, Inc. USA and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Ascio Technologies, Inc. Danmark – Filial af Ascio technologies, Inc. USA has verified that Respondent is bound by the Ascio Technologies, Inc. Danmark – Filial af Ascio technologies, Inc. USA 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 25, 2017, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 14, 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@chevronhr.com. Also on August 25, 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 19, 2017, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Kenneth L. Port 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, an international integrated energy company, uses its CHEVRON mark to promote its business. Complainant registered its mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 364,683, registered Feb. 14, 1939). See Compl., at Attached Ex. D. Respondent’s <chevronhr.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark because it appends the letters “h” and “r” and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) to the fully incorporated mark.
Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <chevronhr.com> domain name. Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its CHEVRON mark in any fashion, and Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Respondent is not using the infringing domain name in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent is using the domain name as an email suffix to pass itself off as an affiliate of Complainant to perpetuate a fraudulent hiring scam.
Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent attempts to disrupt the business of Complainant—under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)—by offering competing services. Respondent is also attempting to attract Internet traffic and commercially benefit from the goodwill of the CHEVRON mark by creating confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website by using the marks of Complainant. Due to the fame of the CHEVRON mark, Respondent had actual notice of Complainant’s rights in the mark at the time of registration.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. The disputed domain name, <chevronhr.com>, was registered on August 8, 2016.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark; that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in or to the disputed domain name; and that Respondent has engaged in bad faith use and registration of the disputed domain name.
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.”).
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name, <chevronhr.com>, is confusingly similar to Complainant’s valid and subsisting trademark, CHEVRON. Complainant has adequately pled its rights and interests in and to that trademark. Respondent arrives at the disputed domain name by merely adding the letters “hr” and the g TLD “.com” to the trademark. This is inadequate to distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant’s trademark.
As such, the Panel finds that the dispute domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark.
The Panel further finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in or to the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. The <chevronhr.com> WHOIS information of record lists “Matthew Janowitz” as the registrant. Therefore, available information does not indicate that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. Respondent has not licenses or permission to register the disputed domain name.
Complainant further alleges that Respondent has registered the <chevronhr.com> domain name as part of a fraudulent scheme, most likely to exploit Internet users’ personal information. A respondent’s registration and use of a domain name for the purpose of phishing for Internet users’ personal information is evidence of a lack of rights and legitimate interests in the domain name and a failure to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Morgan Stanley v. Zhange Sheng Xu / Zhang Sheng Xu, FA1501001600534 (Forum Feb. 26, 2015) (“The Panel agrees that the respondent’s apparent phishing attempt provides further indication that the respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).”); see also Virtu Financial Operating, LLC v. Lester Lomax, FA1409001580464 (Forum Nov. 14, 2014) (finding that the respondent had failed to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) where the respondent was using the disputed domain name to phish for Internet users personal information by offering a fake job posting on the resolving website). Here, Complainant provides email evidence that Respondent used the <chevronhr.com> to lure Internet users into providing information under the guise of Complainant’s human resources department. See Compl., at Attached Ex. K. As such, the Panel finds that Respondent was attempting to impersonate an employee of Complainant for the purpose of collecting Internet users’ personal information. The Panel further finds that use of the disputed domain name for a phishing scheme violates Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii).
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in or to the disputed domain name.
The Panel finally finds that Respondent has engaged in bad faith use and registration of the disputed domain name. Complainant alleges that Respondent is using the disputed domain name in bad faith to disrupt Complainant’s business. Complainant asserts that Respondent is using the <chevronhr.com> domain name as a suffix as part of a fraudulent employment scheme. Use of an infringing domain name as an email suffix for the purpose of committing a fraudulent scheme is considered bad faith disruption of a complainant’s business. See SHUAA Capital psc v. Oba Junkie / shuaa capital psc, FA14009001581255 (Forum Oct. 29, 2014) (“The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the domain name’s e-mail suffix for fraudulent purposes illustrates Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith.”). Here, Complainant provided email correspondence between Respondent and a third party whereby Respondent purported to be Complainant’s employee to gain information from the third party. See Compl., at Attached Ex. K. As such, the Panel concludes that Respondent at least attempted to disrupt Complainant’s business and engaged in bad faith registration and use.
Next, Complainant also argues that Respondent is acting in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), because Respondent intentionally solicits Internet users via email. Many panels have agreed that this constitutes bad faith. See Wells Fargo & Co. v. Maniac State, FA 608239 (Forum Jan. 19, 2006) (finding bad faith registration and use where the respondent was using the <wellsbankupdate.com> domain name in order to fraudulently acquire the personal and financial information of the complainant’s customers). Complainant also argues that the inclusion of “hr” imputes an attempt to induce confusion in Internet users who may see a correlation with Complainant’s human resources department, especially as these fraudulent emails contain information related to employment with Complainant. See Compl., at Attached Ex. K. As such, the Panel finds that Respondent is acting in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Complainant also contends that in light of the fame and notoriety of Complainant’s CHEVRON mark, it is inconceivable that Respondent could have registered the <chevronhr.com> domain name without actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the mark. Given the totality of the circumstances, the Panel agrees that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in and to the trademark CHEVRON.
As such, the Panel finds that Respondent engaged in bad faith use and registration of the disputed domain name.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be granted.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <chevronhr.com> domain name transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
Kenneth L. Port, Panelist
Dated: September 20, 2017
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page