Chevron Phillips Chemical Company, L.P. v. Lwegatech Limited / Lwegaba Joseph Bernald
Claim Number: FA1811001816886
Complainant is Chevron Phillips Chemical Company, L.P. (“Complainant”), represented by John C. Cain of Fleckman & McGlynn, PLLC, Texas, USA. Respondent is Lwegatech Limited / Lwegaba Joseph Bernald (“Respondent”), Uganda.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <cpcheml.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
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.
Richard Hill as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on November 16, 2018; the Forum received payment on November 16, 2018.
On November 19, 2018, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <cpcheml.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, LLC 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 November 19, 2018, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 10, 2018 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@cpcheml.com. Also on November 19, 2018, 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. Respondent did however send e-mails to the Forum, see below.
On December 13, 2018, 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 is a very well known company in the energy industry. Complainant has rights in the CPCHEM mark based upon registration in the United States in 2005.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its mark as it incorporates the entire CPCHEM mark, merely adding the letter “l” and the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
According to Complainant, Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant’s CPCHEM mark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Additionally, Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent fails to make an active use of the disputed domain name. In addition, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to impersonate Complainant in furtherance of a fraudulent phishing scheme.
Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith because Respondent attempts to disrupt Complainant’s business by impersonating Complainant as part of an e-mail phishing scheme. Finally, Respondent had actual knowledge or constructive notice of Complainant’s CPCHEM mark prior to registering the disputed domain name.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. In its e-mails to the Forum Respondent states, in pertinent part: “[In light of the use of the disputed domain name for a fraudulent phishing scheme] we will … immediately TERMINATE the HOSTING OF CPCHEML.COM and we will wait for any further instructions on transfer of the domain. Please let me know on the domain transfer process.”
For the reasons set forth 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.
The Panel finds that Respondent has indicated agreement to transfer the disputed domain name. Thus, in the present case, the parties have both in effect 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 set forth above, the Panel will not analyze this element of the Policy.
For the reasons set forth above, the Panel will not analyze this element of the Policy.
For the reasons set forth above, the Panel will not analyze this element of the Policy.
Given the common request of the Parties, it is Ordered that the <cpcheml.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: December 13, 2018
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page