Exxon Mobil Corporation v. JInsoo Yoon
Claim Number: FA1905001841488
Complainant is Exxon Mobil Corporation (“Complainant”), represented by Molly Buck Richard of Richard Law Group, Inc., Texas, United States. Respondent is JInsoo Yoon (“Respondent”), South Korea.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain names at issue is <exonn.com>, registered with ReclaimDomains 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.
Kenneth L. Port as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on May 2, 2019; the Forum received payment on May 2, 2019.
On May 2, 2019, ReclaimDomains LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <exonn.com> domain name is registered with ReclaimDomains LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. ReclaimDomains LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the ReclaimDomains 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 May 3, 2019, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 23, 2019 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@exonn.com. Also on May 3, 2019, 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 May 28, 2019, 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 is one of the world’s largest publicly traded international oil and gas companies, providing energy that helps underpin growing economies and improve living standards around the world. Complainant has rights in the EXXON mark through its registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g. Reg. No. 884,420, registered on Jan. 20, 1970). See Compl Ex. D. Respondent’s <exonn.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s EXXON mark as the disputed domain name incorporates a misspelling of the EXXON trademark, removing the additional “X” and adding an additional “N,” while adding the generic top-level domain (gTLD) “.com”.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <exonn.com> domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Respondent also fails to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to a parked webpage that contains hyperlinks to various third party sites. Respondent also attempts to sell the domain name.
Respondent registered and is using the <exonn.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent attempts to sell the disputed domain name for more than out-of-pocket costs. Respondent also is a serial cybersquatter and has been subject to numerous UDRP decision and therefore registered and used the disputed domain in bad faith. Respondent further uses the disputed domain name to commercially benefit from click-through fees from unrelated, third-party hyperlinks. Lastly, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the EXXON mark due to Complainant’s extensive, global use and fame of the mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. Respondent registered the disputed domain name on November 4, 2014.
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 set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (“Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint”).
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name, <exonn.com>, is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark, EXXON. Complainant has adequately plead its rights and interests in and to this trademark. Respondent arrives at the disputed domain name by deleting an “x” and adding an “n” and the g TLD, “.com” to an exact replica of Complainant’s trademark. This is insufficient to distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant’s trademark.
As such, the Panel finds that the disputed 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 dispute domain name. Respondent has no right permission or license to register the disputed domain name. Respondent also is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Respondent also fails to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, the disputed domain name resolves to a parked webpage that contains hyperlinks to various third party sites. Respondent also appears to attempt to sell the domain name.
As such, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in or to the disputed domain name.
The Panel further finds that Respondent has engaged in bad faith use and registration of the disputed domain name. Complainant contends that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith by offering to sell it. Panels have consistently held that attempts to sell a domain name are evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(i). See Towmaster, Inc. v. Hale, FA 973506 (Forum June 4, 2007) (“Respondent is advertising the <bigtow.com> domain name for sale for $5,000. Furthermore, Respondent offered to sell the disputed domain name to Complainant for $4,000. The Panel finds that these offers to sell the disputed domain name constitute bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(i).”). Here, Complainant has provided evidence of Respondent trying to sell the domain name for a minimum price of $4,950.00. See Compl Ex. G.
As such, the Panel finds that Respondent has engaged in bad faith use and registration
Next, Complainant argues that Respondent is a serial cybersquatter and has been the subject of numerous UDRP decisions. Panels have held that evidence of previous UDRP actions is sufficient to establish bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See DIRECTV, LLC v. michal restl c/o Dynadot, FA 1788826 (Forum July 5, 2018) (“The record contains evidence of Respondents previous eleven UDRP actions, all of which resulted in the transfer of the domain names, thus establishing bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).”). Here, Complainant has provided the Panel with previous UDRP decisions that Respondent has been involved in (e.g., FUNimation Entertainment v. Jinsoo Yoon, FA 16872088 (Forum Sept. 26, 2016) (finding this Respondent registered the domain <attackontitan.com> in bad faith). See Compl. pgs. 7-8.
As such, the Panel finds that Respondents actions constitute bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).
Complainant argues that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith by promoting businesses unrelated and those that compete with Complainant. Panels have held in the past that a respondent acts in bad faith where they use a domain name to host a variety of hyperlinks unrelated to complainant. See The Dress Barn, Inc. v. Pham Dinh Nhut, FA1503001611220 (Forum May 15, 2015) (“The Panel agrees that Respondent’s inclusion of various hyperlinks; some of which direct Internet users to competing websites of Complainant, some which direct Internet users to Complainant’s own website, and some of which are unrelated to Complainant’s business; evince bad faith attraction for commercial gain.”). Here, Complainant has provided screenshots of the disputed domain name that show a blank page with links to competing oil companies. See Compl. Ex. F.
As such, the Panel finds that Respondent’s use to offering links to competing third parties is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy 4(b)(iv).
Lastly, the Panel finds that, given the fame of Complainant’s mark and the totality of the circumstances, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights and interests in and to the trademark EXXON.
As such, the Panel finds that Respondent has 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 <exonn.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Kenneth L. Port, Panelist
Dated: May 28, 2019
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page