Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. kushee supplies
Claim Number: FA2103001936466
Complainant is Chevron Intellectual Property LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Fred W. Hathaway of DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is kushee supplies (“Respondent”), Nigeria.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <chevron-supply.com>, registered with NameCheap, Inc..
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.
Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on March 12, 2021; the Forum received payment on March 12, 2021.
On March 14, 2021, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <chevron-supply.com> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, Inc. 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 March 19, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 8, 2021 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@chevron-supply.com. Also on March 19, 2021, 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 April 13, 2021, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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 contends as follows:
Complainant, together with its parent company, Chevron Corporation, is one of the world's leading integrated energy companies with a global workforce of over 50,000 company employees and 3,500 service station employees.
Complainant has rights in the CHEVRON mark through Complainant’s registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) and otherwise.
Respondent’s <chevron-supply.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CHEVRON mark as it incorporates the entire mark and merely adds the generic term “supply” with a hyphen and the top-level domain “.com.”
Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <chevron-supply.com> domain name. Respondent is not employed by or affiliated with Complainant or its related companies, nor is Respondent authorized by Complainant or its related companies to carry out business under any name containing “Chevron” or to hold itself out as being related to Complainant or Complainant’s related companies in any way. Respondent has not used the at-issue domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services as Respondent uses the domain name to send emails passing off as Complainant’s employees.
Respondent registered and uses the <chevron-supply.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent registered a confusingly similar domain name to pass itself off as Complainant. Furthermore, Respondent registered the at-issue domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights to the CHEVRON mark evidenced by Respondent’s attempts to pass off as an employee of Complainant and the famous nature of Complainant’s mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has trademark rights in CHEVRON.
Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and is not authorized to use the CHEVRON mark in any capacity.
The at‑issue domain name was registered after Complainant acquired trademark rights in CHEVRON.
Respondent uses the domain name to send emails pretending to be from Complainant to coerce third-parties in furtherance of fraud.
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”).
Complainant demonstrates rights in the CHEVRON mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its registration of such mark with the USPTO as well as through any of its multiple registrations with numerous other national trademark registries worldwide. See DIRECTV, LLC v. The Pearline Group, FA 1818749 (Forum Dec. 30, 2018) (“Complainant’s ownership of a USPTO registration for DIRECTV demonstrate its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).
Respondent’s <chevron-supply.com> domain name contains Complainant’s CHEVRON trademark followed by a hyphen and the generic term “supply” with all followed by a domain name-necessary generic top-level, here “.com”. The differences between Complainant’s trademark and the at-issue domain name does nothing to distinguish the domain name from Complainant’s trademark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel concludes that the <chevron-supply.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CHEVRON trademark. See MTD Products Inc. v. J Randall Shank, FA 1783050 (Forum June 27, 2018) (“The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as it wholly incorporates the CUB CADET mark before appending the generic terms ‘genuine’ and ‘parts’ as well as the ‘.com’ gTLD.”); see also Mrs. World Pageants, Inc. v. Crown Promotions, FA 94321 (Forum Apr. 24, 2000) (finding that punctuation is not significant in determining the similarity of a domain name and mark).
Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond, Complainant’s prima facie showing acts conclusively.
Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of the at‑issue domain name.
The WHOIS information for the at-issue domain name identifies the domain name’s registrant as “kushee supplies” and the record before the Panel contains no evidence otherwise showing that Respondent is commonly known by the <chevron-supply.com> domain name. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the <chevron-supply.com> domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA1408001574905 (Forum Sept. 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark.); see also Kohler Co. v. Privacy Service, FA1505001621573 (Forum July 2, 2015) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) where “Privacy Service” was listed as the registrant of the disputed domain name).
Although the at-issue domain name fails to address any web content, the domain name is used to host email addresses in support of a phishing scheme. In such scheme Respondent poses as Complainant’s employees (and thus Complainant) via emails from the <chevron-supply.com> domain name. These emails pretend to be from a CHEVRON “Procurement Manager,” include Complainant’s logo, include documents such as a fake Letter of Undertaking and fake Chevron CA Purchase Order, and request that the third-party recipients of these emails and documents –some who may be customers of Complainant‑ provide confidential financial account information as well as make payments for significant sums of money to what turns out to be Respondent’s account. Respondent’s criminal use of the at-issue domain name in this manner supports neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a non-commercial or fair use of the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).; See Emerson Electric Co. v. Adilcon Rocha, FA 1735949 (Forum July 11, 2017) (finding that respondent’s attempt to pass off as complainant through emails does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services and, as such, respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name); see also, Morgan Stanley v. Francis Mccarthy / Baltec Marine Llc, FA 1785347 (Forum June 8, 2018) (“both Domain Names resolve to a web site that shows the words, ‘Not Found, The requested URL / was not found on this server.’ Inactive holding of a domain name does not qualify as a bona fide offering of goods or services within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”).
Given the forgoing, Complainant satisfies its initial burden and conclusively demonstrates Respondent’s lack of rights and lack of interests in respect of the at-issue domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Respondent’s <chevron-supply.com> domain name was registered and used in bad faith. As discussed in the paragraphs below without limitation, circumstances are present which compel the Panel to conclude that the domain name’s registrant acted in bad faith regarding the at-issue domain name pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
First and as discussed elsewhere regarding rights and legitimate interests, Respondent registered and used its <chevron-supply.com> domain name to perpetrate an email phishing scheme designed to bilk third parties of substantial sums of money and compromise their private financial information. Respondent’s use of it confusingly similar domain name disrupts Complainant’s business and Respondent overtly initiated the phishing scheme for financial gain. As such, Respondent’s use of its <chevron-supply.com> domain name demonstrates bad faith registration and use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). See Abbvie, Inc. v. James Bulow, FA 1701075 (Forum Nov. 30, 2016) (“Respondent uses the <abbuie.com> domain name to impersonate Complainant’s CEO. Such use is undeniably disruptive to Complainant’s business and demonstrates bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii), and/or Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)”).
Next, Respondent’s use of <chevron-supply.com> in connection with a phishing scheme, in itself, shows Respondent’s bad faith per the Policy. See Morgan Stanley v. Bruce Pu, FA 1764120 (Forum Feb. 2, 2018) (“[T]he screenshot of the resolving webpage allows users to input their name and email address, which Complainant claims Respondent uses that to fraudulently phish for information. Thus, the Panel agrees that Respondent phishes for information and finds that Respondent does so in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”).
Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the CHEVRON mark when it registered <chevron-supply.com> as a domain name. Respondent’s actual knowledge is evident from the widespread and long notoriety of Complainant’s CHEVRON trademark and from Respondent’s subterfuge in furtherance of fraud where it poses as Complainant via email originating from the at-issue domain name as discussed further elsewhere herein. See, AutoZone Parts, Inc. v. Ken Belden, FA 1815011 (Forum Dec. 24, 2018) (“Complainant contends that Respondent’s knowledge can be presumed in light of the substantial fame and notoriety of the AUTOZONE mark, as well as the fact that Complainant is the largest retailer in the field. The Panel here finds that Respondent did have actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark, demonstrating bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”); see also, Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering 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 <chevron-supply.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: April 14, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page