Eastman Chemical Company v. [REDACTED]
Claim Number: FA2010001918287
Complainant is Eastman Chemical Company (“Complainant”), represented by Margaret Esquenet of Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garret & Dunner, L.L.P., District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is NAME REDACTED (“Respondent”), LOCATION REDACTED.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <eastman-careers.com>, registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com.
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 October 26, 2020; the Forum received payment on October 26, 2020.
On October 27, 2020, PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <eastman-careers.com> domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com 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 October 27, 2020, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 16, 2020 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@eastman-careers.com. Also on October 27, 2020, 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.
A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on November 3, 2020. In addition, Respondent set emails to the Forum, see below.
On November 4, 2020, 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.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PRELIMINARY ISSUE: IDENTITY THEFT
Respondent contends that it has been the victim of identity theft, see below. Complainant cites recent UDRP cases involving its mark in which the disputed domain names had been used in fraudulent schemes. The respondents in those cases are not the same as the Respondent in the instant case.
The Panel has taken the following rules and precedent into account in making a determination to redact Respondent’s identity.
According to Policy ¶ 4(j), “[a]ll decisions under this Policy will be published in full over the Internet, except when an Administrative Panel determines in an exceptional case to redact portions of its decision.” In Wells Fargo & Co. v. John Doe as Holder of Domain Name <wellzfargo.com>, FA 362108 (Forum Dec. 30, 2004) and Wells Fargo & Co. v. John Doe as Holder of Domain Name <wellsfargossl>, FA 453727 (Forum May 19, 2005), the panels omitted the respondents’ personal information from the decisions, pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(j), in an attempt to protect the respondents who claimed to be victims of identity theft from becoming aligned with acts the actual registrants appeared to have sought to impute to the respondents.).
According to Forum Supplemental Rule 15(b), “All requests pursuant to Policy paragraph 4(j) and Rule 16(b) to have a portion of the decision redacted, must be made in the Complaint, the Response, or an Additional Submission that is submitted before the Panel’s decision is published.” (emphasis added). Rule 1 defines “respondent” as “the holder of a domain-name registration against which a complaint is initiated;” and Forum Supplemental Rule 1(d) further defines “the holder of a domain-name registration” as “the single person or entity listed in the WHOIS registration information at the time of commencement.” The Panel notes precedent which holds the registrar-confirmed registrant of a disputed domain (per the WHOIS at commencement of the proceeding) the proper respondent, notwithstanding the possibility that said respondent’s identity was stolen. See, e.g., Banco Bradesco S/A v. Gisele Moura Leite, D2014-0414 (WIPO Apr. 30, 2014).
In the instant case, Respondent has requested, in their Response, that their name be deleted from the proceedings. Since there is no evidence that the Respondent was related to any of the previous cases cited by the Complainant, the Panel finds that it is warranted to redact Respondent’s name and location from the Panel’s decision,
A. Complainant
Complainant states that is an American Fortune 500 company, engaged in the global manufacture and sale of chemicals, fibers, and plastics. Complainant’s major markets include transportation, building and construction, consumables, tobacco, industrials and chemicals processing, food, feed and agriculture, and health and wellness. Complainant was founded in 1920 when George Eastman sought an independent supply of chemicals for his photographic processes. In 1921, Complainant’s annual sales were $35,000. In less than a decade, its annual sales had reached $1,950,000. By 1932, its outside sales began to exceed its sales to Kodak (George Eastman’s photographic business). In 1950, Complainant’s annual sales had grown to $130,000,000. In 1960, Complainant’s annual sales had grown to $244,100,000. By the late 1960s, Complainant was manufacturing scores of products that were becoming familiar features of everyday life, including polyester fibers for apparel and home furnishings, plastics for the automobile industry, and industrial chemicals. Complainant’s physical presence around the globe grew as well with the emergence of sales offices and manufacturing facilities in strategic locations. In 1970, Complainant’s annual sales had grown to over half a billion dollars. By 1980, its sales had grown to over two billion dollars. In 1990, Complainant’s annual sales were over three and a half billion dollars. In 1994, Complainant was the tenth largest chemical company in the United States and the thirty-fourth largest in the world. Today, Complainant is a $9.3 billion business with approximately 14,500 global employees, more than 50 manufacturing locations, and several sales offices around the globe serving customers in approximately 100 countries. Complainant has rights in the EASTMAN mark through its registration of the mark in the United States in 1953.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its mark, as it incorporates the mark in its entirety and merely adds a hyphen, the generic term “careers,” and the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”). Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
According to Complainant, Respondents has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name nor has Respondent been licensed, authorized, or otherwise permitted by Complainant to use Complainant’s mark. Furthermore, Respondent’s use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, as Respondent is impersonating Complainant to advance a phishing scheme aimed at defrauding Complainant’s customers. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Specifically, whoever the true domain registrant may be, it has used similar tactics to disrupt Complainant’s business in the past and has established a pattern of bad faith actions against Complainant. Additionally, Respondent is impersonating Complainant to acquire personal, business, or financial information from Complainant’s customers. Furthermore, the unrelated webpage of the disputed domain name features competing pay-per-click hyperlinks. Finally, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the EASTMAN mark at the time of registration. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
B. Respondent
In its emails to the Forum, Respondent states, in pertinent part: “I understand [the Complaint] but it is not me!!! I do not have a domain. I have no clue what Eastman chemical company is and all of the email addresses on the form are not mine …”
In its Response, Respondent states that they do not have any domain names that they know of. Respondent did not purchase the disputed domain name and is appalled that their name is attached to this proceeding. Respondent was recently the victim of a fraudulent job scam and is afraid that this is collateral damage from that incident. Respondent requests that their name be deleted from the proceedings. Respondent states: “I would like to think that if my name is on it [the disputed domain name], whether or not I own/bought/created it, I have the authority to have it completely deleted? If that is the case then please just remove any and all domains associated under my name as, once again, they are not legitimately mine!”
For the reasons set forth below, the Panel will not make any findings of fact.
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.
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."
In the present case, the Panel finds that Respondent’s response amounts to a consent to transfer the disputed domain name, thus the parties have both 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 <eastman-careers.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: November 4, 2020
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page