Bechtel Group, Inc. v. George Peters / None-None
Claim Number: FA1704001729077
Complainant: Bechtel Group, Inc. of San Francisco, California, United States of America.
Complainant Representative:
Complainant Representative: CSC Digital Brand Services of Wilmington, Delaware, United States of America.
Respondent: George Peters / None-None of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, United States.
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: NeuStar
Registrars: NameCheap, Inc.
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially, and, to the best of his knowledge, has no conflict of interests in serving as Examiner in this proceeding.
Terry F. Peppard, as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: April 27, 2017
Commencement: April 28, 2017
Default Date: May 16, 2017
Having reviewed the pertinent communications records, the Examiner finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under usRS Procedure Paragraphs 3 and 4 and Rule 4 of the Rules for the .usTLD Rapid Suspension System (the "Rules") to give to Respondent notice of the commencement of this proceeding and an opportunity to answer and defend against the Complaint filed herein.
Complainant requests that the domain name be suspended for the life of the registration.
Clear and convincing evidence.
Notwithstanding that Respondent has defaulted, usRS Procedure 1.2.6, requires Complainant to make out a prima facie case, proven by clear and convincing evidence, for each of the following three elements of the Policy in order to obtain a determination that a domain name should be suspended:
i. that the registered domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a word mark for which the Complainant holds a valid national or regional registration and that is in current use;
ii. that the registrant (Respondent) has no legitimate right to or interest in the domain name; and
iii. that the domain name was registered or is being used by the registrant (Respondent) in bad faith.
In its Complaint, Complainant shows that it holds a valid registration for the service mark BECHTEL, on file with the United States Patent and Trademark Office as Registry No. 1,047,369, first registered on August 31, 1976, in International Class 037 [construction, repair and modernization of installations and apparatus for utility, industrial and commercial companies, governments and others, and supervisory services in connection with the same], as well as in International Class 042 [management counseling, engineering and design services to utility, industrial and commercial companies, governments and others], and that the same mark is in current use. Respondent does not dispute any of this.
Complainant also shows that Respondent registered the domain name <bechtel-ny.us> on July 28, 2016, and, again, Respondent does not deny this assertion.
IDENTITY OR CONFUSING SIMILARITY
There is no dispute the challenged domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BECHTEL mark, or that Complainant holds a valid registration for the mark and that it is in current use. Accordingly, we so find.
REGISTRANT’S RIGHTS OR INTERESTS
Complainant secured trademark protection for its BECHTEL service mark in 1976, while Respondent obtained registration for its <bechtel-ny.us> domain name much later, in 2016. As a consequence, Complainant’s rights in its mark are senior in time to any claim Respondent might have made for rights to or interests in the contested domain name.
Moreover, Complainant asserts that Respondent is not sponsored by or affiliated with Complainant, that Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use the BECHTEL mark in any manner, and that Respondent has not been commonly known by the <bechtel-ny.us> domain name. To this the Complaint adds that the only use to which the domain name has been put by Respondent is that it redirects Internet users to Complainant’s own official website at <bechtel.com>, which tends to cause confusion among such users. In light of these contentions, none of which is objected to by Respondent, we conclude that Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
BAD FAITH REGISTRATION OR USE
Under the Policy, essentially the same considerations, described above, that make it clear that Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the <bechtel-ny.us> domain name are also pertinent to an analysis of the question whether the domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith. We may, however, also take into account that it is evident from the facts before us that Respondent knew of Complainant and its rights in the BECHTEL mark when Respondent registered the domain name. We may, in addition, take account of the fact that there is nothing in the record to suggest that Respondent is making a bona fide offering of goods or services by means of the domain name or that its use of the domain name is a legitimate non-commercial or fair use. Accordingly, we determine that Respondent’s employment of the domain name is disruptive of Complainant’s business and that Respondent both registered and now uses the domain name in bad faith.
We find from a review of the record that the Complaint was not brought in an abuse of this proceeding and that it does not contain any material falsehoods.
Upon review of Complainant’s submissions, we determine that Complainant has adequately demonstrated all three elements of the usRS to a standard of clear and convincing evidence. It is, therefore, Ordered that the domain name <bechtel-ny.us> be SUSPENDED for the duration of its registration.
Terry F. Peppard, Examiner
Dated: May 18, 2017
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page