Bechtel Group, Inc. v. James King
Claim Number: FA1705001733763
Complainant: Bechtel Group, Inc. of San Francisco, California, United States of America.
Complainant Representative:
Complainant Representative: CSC Digital Brand Services Group AB of Stockholm, Sweden.
Respondent: James King of Tyldesley, International, UNITED KINGDOM.
Respondent’s Representative: «cFirstName: None» «cMiddle: None» «cLastName: None»
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: NeuStar
Registrars: NameCheap, Inc.
The undersigned certifies that she acted independently and impartially and that to the best of her knowledge, she has no known conflict in serving as Examiner in this proceeding.
Honorable Carolyn Marks Johnson sits as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: May 30, 2017
Commencement: May 31, 2017
Default Date: June 15, 2017
Having reviewed the communications records, the Examiner finds that the Forum discharged its responsibility under usRS Procedure, Paragraphs 3 and 4 and Rule 4 of the Rules for the .usTLD Rapid Suspension System (the "Rules") .
Complainant requests that the domain name be suspended for the life of the registration.
Clear and convincing evidence.
Although Respondent defaulted, usRS Procedure 1.2.6. requires Complainant to make a prima facie case, proven by clear and convincing evidence, for each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be suspended.
IDENTICAL TO OR CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR
Complainant met the standard set out in 1.2.6.1 of the usRS Procedure since Complainant proved its rights to the valid U.S. trademark registration No. 1,047,361, first used in commerce 19250000; registered August 31, 1976; covering goods and services, including “construction, repair and modernization of installations and apparatus for utility, industrial and commercial companies, governments, and others and supervisory services in connection with the foregoing,” and confirmed to be a trademark that is in current use.
Respondent does not challenge Complainant’s trademark rights.
The relevant part of the disputed domain name is BECHTEL and any added top-level domain being a required element of every domain name and the descriptive “corp,” and the geographic “.us” additions, being both irrelevant for assessing whether or not a mark is identical or confusingly similar to a protected mark, the additions in this case do nothing to distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s trademark.
The Examiner finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s protected BECHTEL mark; Complainant satisfied the elements of usRS Procedure 1.2.6.1.
NO RIGHTS TO OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS
Complainant met the standard set out in 1.2.6.2 of the usRS Procedure since Complainant did not authorize Respondent to register a domain name containing its protected trademark and Complainant correctly urges that Respondent is not commonly known by the mark or the disputed domain name.
Complainant further asserts that Respondent acquired no legitimate interests in Complainant’s protected mark by registering and/or purchasing this domain name and using it in a manner to gain commercially by taking pay per click gains and to disrupt Complainant’s access to its customers. See Complaint, Explanatory Text. Respondent knew of Complainant rights in the BECHTEL mark given its nearly one century of operation worldwide, its registration and its listing by the Trademark Clearing House. Respondent shows no plan and no expenditures for development. Further, Respondent filed no Response. Respondent is silent as to any claimed rights to or legitimate interests created by any bona fide use or offering. Respondent is in default. Respondent’s plans are unknown and Examiner presumes none exist. Further, any elusive promise or assurance resulting from a mere purchase of a name do not create legitimate interests in a disputed domain name containing another’s protected mark, especially where the disputed domain name is used to divert customers of Complainant while taking pay per click fees.
Accordingly, the Examiner finds that Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; Complainant satisfied the elements of usRS Procedure 1.2.6.2.
BAD FAITH REGISTRATION AND USE:
Complainant satisfied the requirements of usRS Procedure 1.2.6.3.
As noted above, Respondent does not dispute Complainant’s trademark rights. The record shows that the disputed domain name is used to generate pay per click fees. See Complainant, Explanatory Text.
The Domain Name can only be taken as intending to cause confusion among Internet users as to the source of the Domain Name and thus must be considered as having been registered and used in bad faith with no good faith use possible. Specifically, where the Domain Name incorporates Complainant’s trademark in its entirety while adding the generic term ‘corp” and is then used to redirect to Complainant’s own website, there is no plausible good faith reason for Respondent to have registered the Domain Name and the only explanation is Respondent intended to cause confusion and deception by means of the Domain Name.
(See Complaint, Explanatory Text). The Examiner agrees. Coupled with Respondent’s taking pay per click proceeds, bad faith is established.
The Examiner finds that Respondent purchased and/or registered and used the disputed domain name by capturing pay per click funds and used it opportunistically in a manner that has a tendency to show intent to disrupt Complainant’s operation and/or relationship with its customers. Such conduct supports findings that Respondent acted in bad faith. Complainant satisfied the elements of usRS Procedure 1.2.6.3.
Complaint was NOT brought in an abuse of this type of proceeding and to the Examiner’s best knowledge did NOT contain material falsehoods.
After reviewing the Complainant’s submissions, the Examiner finds that
the Complainant demonstrates all three elements of the usRS by a standard of clear and convincing evidence. Therefore, the Examiner hereby Orders the following domain name be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration.
Honorable Carolyn Marks Johnson (Ret.), Examiner
Dated: June 17, 2017
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page