Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Ahmet Peker / Antalya Web Tasarım
Claim Number: FA2112001977044
Complainant is Chevron Intellectual Property LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Fred W. Hathaway of DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Ahmet Peker / Antalya Web Tasarım (“Respondent”), Turkey.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <chevroncreditcard.net>, 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 December 14, 2021; the Forum received payment on December 14, 2021.
On December 15, 2021, PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <chevroncreditcard.net> 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 December 20, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 10, 2022 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@chevroncreditcard.net. Also on December 20, 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 January 17, 2022, 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 disputed domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant states that it is an integrated energy company with a global workforce of over 50,000 company employees and 3,500 service station employees. Complainant maintains a significant presence in North America, with its world headquarters in California. Complainant also has major corporate offices in Texas, Pennsylvania, and Louisiana; and it operates refineries in California, Utah and Mississippi. Complainant’s exploration and production facilities are in several more U.S. states. Complainant is active in all facets of the global energy industry, including research, exploration, production and transportation of crude oil and natural gas; refining, marketing and distribution of transportation fuels (gasoline and diesel) and lubricants; manufacturing and sale of petrochemical products; generation of power and production of geothermal energy; providing energy efficient solutions; and development of future energy resources, including research for advanced biofuels. Complainant has rights in the CHEVRON mark from its multiple registrations with various trademark agencies throughout the world, including in the United States in 1939.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its CHEVRON mark as it incorporates the mark in its entirety, and merely adds the descriptive term “credit card” and the “.net” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”). Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
According to Complainant, Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use its CHEVRON mark in any way. Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor any legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the resolving website displays Complainant’s mark and logo, passes off as Complainant (even displaying photographs of Complainant’s businesses), attempts to phish for users’ personal information, and hosts pay-per-click links to unrelated websites. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent has engaged in a pattern of bad faith registration. Respondent disrupts Complainant’s business for bad faith attraction for commercial gain by passing off as Complainant, phishing for users’ personal information, and hosting pay-per-click links on the resolving website. Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the CHEVRON marks. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant owns the mark CHEVRON and uses it promote its activities in the global energy industry.
Complainant’s rights in its mark date back to 1939.
The disputed domain name was registered in 2019.
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its marks.
The resolving website displays Complainant’s mark and logo, passes off as Complainant (even displaying photographs of Complainant’s businesses), attempts to phish for users’ personal information, and hosts pay-per-click links to unrelated websites. Respondent has engaged in a pattern of bad faith registration and use.
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 disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s CHEVRON mark in its entirety, and merely adds the descriptive term “credit card” and the “.net” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”). Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), adding generic or descriptive words along with the “.net” gTLD is generally insufficient in differentiating a disputed domain name from the mark it incorporates. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) (“Where a relevant trademark is recognisable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element.”); see also Katadyn N. Am. v. Black Mountain Stores, FA 520677 (Forum Sept. 7, 2005) (“[T]he addition of the generic top-level domain (gTLD) “.net” is irrelevant for purposes of determining whether a domain name is identical to a mark.”). Therefore the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: where a response is lacking, relevant WHOIS information may demonstrate that a respondent is not commonly known by a disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Fred Wallace, FA1506001626022 (Forum July 27, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <chevron-europe.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), as the WHOIS information named “Fred Wallace” as registrant of the disputed domain name). Here, the WHOIS of record identifies the registrant as “Ahmet Peker/Antalya Web Tasarim”. Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Respondent uses the disputed domain name to pass off as Complainant, phish for users’ personal information, and host pay-per-click links on its resolving website. Using a disputed domain name’s resolving website to host pay-per-click links unrelated to Complainant’s business, while passing off as a Complainant is generally not considered a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Ferring B.V. v. Shanshan Huang / Melissa Domain Name Services, FA1505001620342 (Forum July 1, 2015) (“Placing unrelated third party links for the benefit of a respondent indicates a lack of a bona fide offering of goods or services, and a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii), respectively.”); see also Ripple Labs Inc. v. Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund, FA 1790949 (Forum July 9, 2018) (finding the respondent did not use the domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services per Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) where the website resolving from the disputed domain name featured the complainant’s mark and various photographs related to the complainant’s business). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). And the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant’s contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant’s mark. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent’s failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain name.
Indeed, as already noted, Respondent is using the disputed domain name for bad faith disruption for commercial gain. Under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv), using a disputed domain name to divert users seeking a Complainant’s services to the disputed domain name’s resolving website, where Respondent passes off as Complainant and hosts pay-per-click links is generally considered bad faith disruption for commercial gain. See Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum Dec. 27, 2017) (finding bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where “Respondent registered and uses the <lbittrex.com> domain name in bad faith by directing Internet users to a website that mimics Complainant’s own website in order to confuse users into believing that Respondent is Complainant, or is otherwise affiliated or associated with Complainant.”). Bad faith has been found even where a respondent has commercially benefited through links unrelated to a complainant’s mark. See Bank of Am. Fork v. Shen, FA 699645 (Forum June 11, 2006) (holding that the respondent’s previous use of the <bankofamericanfork.com> domain name to maintain a web directory was evidence of bad faith because the respondent presumably commercially benefited by receiving click-through fees for diverting Internet users to unrelated third-party websites); see also PopSockets LLC v. san mao, FA 1740903 (Forum Aug. 27, 2017) (finding disruption of a complainant’s business which was not directly commercial competitive behavior was nonetheless sufficient to establish bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)); see also Dovetail Ventures, LLC v. Klayton Thorpe, FA1506001625786 (Forum Aug. 2, 2015) (holding that the respondent had acted in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), where it used the disputed domain name to host a variety of hyperlinks, unrelated to the complainant’s business, through which the respondent presumably commercially gained). Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is used in bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv).
Further, also as already noted, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to phish for Internet users’ personal information. This is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Wells Fargo & Co. v. Maniac State, FA 608239 (Forum Jan. 19, 2006) (finding bad faith registration and use where the respondent was using the <wellsbankupdate.com> domain name in order to fraudulently acquire the personal and financial information of the complainant’s customers); see also Hess Corp. v. GR, FA 770909 (Forum Sept. 19, 2006) (finding that the respondent demonstrated bad faith registration and use because it was attempting to acquire the personal and financial information of Internet users through a confusingly similar domain name). Thus the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
In addition, Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark: the resolving website displays Complainant’s mark and logo, and photographs of Complainant’s business. While constructive notice is insufficient to demonstrate bad faith, actual knowledge of a complainant’s rights in a mark prior to registration may be evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Custom Modular Direct LLC v. Custom Modular Homes Inc., FA 1140580 (Forum Apr. 8, 2008) (“There is no place for constructive notice under the Policy.”); see also Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014) (“The Panel notes that although the UDRP does not recognize ‘constructive notice’ as sufficient grounds for finding Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith, the Panel here finds actual knowledge through the name used for the domain and the use made of it.”); see also Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name). The Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the mark prior to Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name and that this constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Finally, Respondent has engaged in a pattern of bad faith registration, as evidenced by past UDRP cases. Where a Respondent has had multiple disputed domain names transferred in past UDRP proceedings, past panels have found a pattern of bad faith registration under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See Fandango, LLC v. 21562719 Ont Ltd, FA1209001464081 (Forum Nov. 2, 2012) (“Respondent’s past conduct and UDRP history establishes a pattern of registered domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).”). Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of bad faith registration under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <chevroncreditcard.net> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: January 17, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page