Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Domain Administrator / Sugarcane Internet Nigeria Limited
Claim Number: FA2203001987942
Complainant is Chevron Intellectual Property LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Fred W. Hathaway of DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Domain Administrator / Sugarcane Internet Nigeria Limited (“Respondent”), Nigeria.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <chevronfcu.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.
James Bridgeman SC as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on March 11, 2022; the Forum received payment on March 11, 2022.
On March 14, 2022, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <chevronfcu.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 March 18, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 7, 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@chevronfcu.com. Also on March 18, 2022, 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 P arties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On April 13, 2022 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed James Bridgeman SC 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 claims rights in the CHEVRON mark established by its portfolio of trademark and service mark registrations described below and submits that together with its parent company, Chevron Corporation, Complainant forms an integrated group of energy companies with a global workforce of over 50,000 company employees and 3,500 service station employees.
Complainant states that it and its predecessors in title have used the CHEVRON mark continuously since 1935 and submits that the CHEVRON mark appears prominently on its website and in advertising and promotional materials, including but not limited to newspapers, magazines, television, and online, placed at a cost of tens of millions of US dollars per year. Complainant asserts that through its “Nigerian principal subsidiary” Chevron Nigeria Limited which is in a joint venture with the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation, it has an active presence in Nigeria which is the location of Respondent according to the Whois record.
Complainant submits that in 1935, Complainant’s predecessors in interest founded a not-for-profit financial institution that operates today under the name Chevron Federal Credit Union (“Chevron FCU”). Chevron FCU is a licensee of Complainant providing a wide variety of financial and banking related services under the CHEVRON mark and hallmark logo, including but not limited to banking checking and savings accounts, home loans, auto loans, personal loans and providing credit.
Complainant states that said Chevron FCU, which presently has over 100,000 members is dedicated to providing its members with foundational financial products and services and has its primary online location at <www.chevronfcu.org> (the “Chevron FCU website”).
Complainant submits that the disputed domain name <chevronfcu.com> is confusingly similar to the CHEVRON mark in which Complainant has rights as it fully incorporates Complainant’s CHEVRON mark in its entirety, merely adding the generic acronym “fcu”
Complainant submits that incorporates “fcu” in its own domain name <chevronfcu.org> and explains that this acronym is a commonly known and used short form reference to “federal credit union”.
Complainant submits that given the fame of the CHEVRON mark and its dominance in the disputed domain name when viewed as a whole, the addition of a generic acronym in the disputed domain name is not sufficient to distinguish it from the CHEVRON mark. See Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Zhichao Yang, FA1899809 (Forum July 14, 2020) (finding the <chevrontaxacogiftcard.com> and similar domain names confusingly similar to Complainant’s CHEVRON and TEXACO marks because the domain names merely “incorporate both marks in their entirety, including common misspellings, the term “giftcard” and the “.com” gTLD”).
Complainant submits that Respondent’s inclusion of “fcu” in the disputed domain name in combination with the CHEVRON mark falsely communicates to Internet users that the disputed domain name is an online location authorized by Complainant and in particular the business of its licensee, Chevron FCU. See Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Ancelet Dept / Ancelet, FA1582869 (Forum Nov. 14, 2014) (Panel found “that the addition of terms related to the CHEVRON mark, such as “gas” or “fuel” amplify confusing similarity…”).
Complainant further submits that the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) extension <.com> is irrelevant when analyzing of confusing similarity for the purposes of the Policy as has been consistently held by panels e.g., Reese v. Morgan, FA0917029 (Forum Apr. 5, 2007) (finding that the mere addition of the generic top-level domain “.com” is insufficient to differentiate a disputed domain name from a mark); Guess? IP Holder L.P., FA1769716 (Forum Mar. 8, 2018) (noting that every domain name requires a top-level domain).
Complainant next alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Upon information and belief, Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name or any names containing the CHEVRON marks and the Whois record in connection with the disputed domain name makes no mention of the Complainant or the CHEVRON mark.
Complainant argues that the disputed domain name was initially registered by Complainant on May 12, 2000 however subsequently, advertently, the disputed domain name was not renewed some years later and was purchased by a third party when it became available.
Complainant asserts that its rights in the CHEVRON mark long predate Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name and as a result of extensive use and advertising since 1935, CHEVRON is a “famous mark” under U.S. and international trademark law. See Chevron Texaco Corp. v. Domains a/k/a Best Domains, FA0137035 (Forum Jan. 20, 2003) (finding rights established in the CHEVRON mark through registration with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, other governmental organizations worldwide, and widespread, continuous use of the mark in commerce). Complainant adds that it licenses its CHEVRON mark to Chevron Corporation and its related companies.
Complainant alleges that upon information and belief, Respondent acquired the disputed domain name only recently, well after Complainant established strong enforceable rights in the CHEVRON mark.
According to the Whois records, the registrant information was recently updated to the current registrant, namely “Sugarcane Internet Nigeria Limited”. As recently as August 2, 2021, however, the registrant was listed as “Registration Private” by the organization DomainsByProxy.com in Arizona. Before that, at least as recent as April 12, 2021, the registrant was listed as “China Capital Domain Fund Limited” in Hong Kong.
Complainant refers to a screen capture of the website to which the disputed domain name currently resolves, the content of which is a series of pay-per-click links to third party commercial offerings unrelated to Complainant from which Respondent presumably reaps financial reward from these pay-per-click links.
The exhibited webpage contains links that pertain to credit union account management software, credit union refinance home loan, credit union new home loans, credit union personal loans.
Complainant argues that when considered together and presented in the context of Complainant’s CHEVRON mark, the services of credit union services offered by Complainant’s licensee, and Complainant’s previous ownership of the disputed domain name, Respondent’s website creates the false impression that these links are related to, endorsed by, or otherwise associated with Complainant, which Complainant asserts they are not.
Complainant adds that on October 4, 2021, while under the ownership of the Respondent, the disputed domain name redirected Internet users to a website at the <click-view-credit.report.xyz> domain name address, as illustrated in a screencapture annexed to the Complaint.
Complainant submits that the website to which the disputed domain name resolved on that occasion displayed the CHEVRON mark and Chevron FCU name in the corner of the website along with a notice that there was a security breach of the user’s “personal information”. Complainant asks this Panel to note that the notice encourages the users to log in to the link provided at the bottom of the page to receive a free “credit score” report. The notice specifically states “although [the user’s] credit score is free, a credit card will be required to validate [the user’s] identity.”
Complainant further alleges that thus, upon information and belief, Respondent is, or was, using the disputed domain name in furtherance of a phishing scheme and to lend an air of legitimacy to that scheme, Respondent co-opted Complainant’s CHEVRON mark and Chevron FCU name in order to mislead and entice users into believing they are accessing a legitimate and secure Chevron FCU portal.
Thus, Respondent is utilizing the disputed domain name in a calculated effort to either impersonate and pass himself off as Complainant online, obtain confidential and sensitive financial information of Complainant’s actual Chevron FCU customers, or to squat on the disputed domain name until Complainant offers to purchase the disputed domain name from Respondent for use again by Complainant’s Chevron FCU licensee.
Complainant asserts that 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 any “Chevron” business, offer CHEVRON-branded services, including credit-union or financial related services, or to hold itself out as being related to Complainant in any way.
Complainant adds that Respondent also is not authorized to conduct any business on Complainant’s behalf, nor is it authorized by Complainant to carry out any business under any domain name incorporating CHEVRON mark or Chevron’s name or Chevron FCU name.
Complainant submits that such unlicensed and unauthorized use of a domain that incorporates Complainant’s trademark is strong evidence that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in a domain name.
Complainant additionally alleges that Respondent has offered the disputed domain name to the public for sale for $2,997.00 which is a price in excess of any reasonable out of pocket expenses for the disputed domain name incurred by Respondent and argues that Respondent’s attempt to sell the confusingly similar disputed domain name for a sum, even if merely a general offer, constitutes further evidence that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See 3M Company v. Kabir S Rawat, FA1725052 (Forum May 9, 2017) (“a general offer for sale… provides additional evidence that [r]espondent lacks rights and legitimate interests” in a disputed domain name).
Complainant next alleges that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith arguing that Respondent is undoubtedly familiar with and attempting to trade-off of the goodwill established by Complainant in the CHEVRON mark.
This is evidenced by: the extensive use, media coverage and fame of the CHEVRON mark; Complainant’s worldwide trademark filings; Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name that entirely incorporates the CHEVRON mark and used to be owned by Complainant’s licensee; Respondent’s addition of the same generic term “fcu” used by Complainant in its own domain name and website address that is associated with Complainant’s business directly after the CHEVRON mark; Respondent’s use of the CHEVRON mark and name on the website resolving from the disputed domain name on October 4, 2021; and Respondent’s use of pay per-click links that feature commercial offerings that compete with Complainant’s business.
Furthermore, Complainant argues that Respondent’s website to which the disputed domain name resolves displays pay-per-click links and advertisements are clearly intended to generate “click-through” revenue for Respondent’s financial gain by misleading and diverting Internet users who are otherwise seeking to engage with Complainant online. Complainant contends that panels have held that the use of a disputed domain name in connection with a parked webpage, for the purpose of promoting hyperlink advertisements to Complainant’s goods or services or potentially its competitor’s goods and services, does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Home Depot Product Authority, LLC v. Karan Bhardwaj/ABS Tech Services, FA1799609 (Forum Aug. 30, 2018) (finding no bona fide offering of goods or services and bad faith where disputed domain name resolves to a website that offers services related to complainant as well as links to third party competitors of complainant).
Complainant further submits that as alleged above, the evidence shows that Respondent also used the disputed domain name in a fraudulent scheme calculated to induce Internet users to send personal or sensitive financial information to Respondent under false pretenses that there was a security breach with the website. Complainant alleges that therefore Respondent is misusing Complainant’s famous CHEVRON mark and name, and specifically the same logo used by Chevron FCU, to add recognition and credibility to Respondent’s fraudulent schemes by creating a false connection with Complainant.
Complainant adds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to divert Internet users seeking Complainant’s website, products and services also is disruptive to Complainant’s business and is further evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Ecolab Inc. v. Tabibi, FA1181839 (Forum June 16, 2008) (finding respondent’s use of the disputed domain names to resolve to parked GoDaddy webpages promoting links to competing businesses was capable of disrupting Complainant’s business and evidenced bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)).
Moreover, Complainant adds that Respondent is using the disputed domain name as part of a larger pattern of bad faith registration and use of domain names by Respondent as shown by the decisions in Transamerica Corporation v. Yabani Eze / Sugarcane Internet Nigeria Limited, FA1899570 (Forum July 3, 2020) (ordering the transfer of the <transamericalifeinsurances.com> domain name to the complainant and owner of the TRANSAMERICA trademark) and MedImpact Healthcare Systems, Inc. v. Yabani Eze / Sugarcane Internet Nigeria Limited, FA1942248 (Forum May 19, 2021) (finding Respondent used “the domain name to propagate malware, presumably for Respondent’s commercial gain” and that Respondent has a history of bad faith domain name registrations and adverse determinations under the Forum’s policy).
Complainant finally argues that a search of the decisions of panels published by the Forum and WIPO, reveals that Respondent has been the unsuccessful respondent in at least 20 domain name disputes. Complainant provides a list of these decisions in an annex to the Complaint.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant provides goods and services in the global energy industry,engaged in many fields of activity 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 in which it uses the CHEVRON mark.
Complainant has a large international portfolio of trademark registrations for the CHEVRON Mark, the oldest of which is United States registered trademark, registration number 364,683 registered on February 14, 1939 for goods now in international class 4.
In 1935, Complainant’s predecessors in interest founded a not-for-profit financial institution that operates today under the name Chevron Federal Credit Union (“Chevron FCU”) and maintains a website at <https:www.chevronfcu.org>.
The disputed domain name was registered on May 12, 2000 and resolves to a website that provides links to third party websites.
There is no information available about Respondent except for that provided in the Complaint, the Registrar’s WhoIs and the information provided by the Registrar in response to the enquiry by the Forum for verification of the details of the registration of the disputed domain name in the course of this proceeding.
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 has provided convincing evidence that it has rights in the CHEVRON mark, established by its ownership of its portfolio of trademark registrations described above.
The disputed domain name <chevronfcu.org> consists of Complainant’s mark in its entirety, in combination with the acronym “fcu” and the generic Top-Level Domain “(gTLD”) extension <.org>.
Complainant’s CHEVRON mark is the dominant and only distinctive element in the disputed domain name. The addition of the acronym “fcu” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity as in context it is an acronym for “Federal Credit Union” which refers to the services provided by Complainant’s licensee CHEVRON FCU.
Neither does the gTLD extension <.org> add any distinguishing character. It would be considered by Internet users as a necessary technical requirement for a domain name.
This Panel finds therefore that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the CHEVRON mark in which Complainant has rights and Complainant has therefore succeeded in the first element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant has made out a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights legitimate interests in the disputed domain name arguing that
· the disputed domain name which was initially registered by Complainant on May 12, 2000 however subsequently, advertently, the disputed domain name was not renewed some years later and was purchased by a third party when it became available;
· Complainant’s rights in the CHEVRON mark long predate Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name as the CHEVRON mark has been used continuously by Complainant and its predecessors in title since about 1935, with its earliest trademark registration dating back to 1937;
· upon information and belief, Respondent acquired the disputed domain name only recently, well after Complainant established strong enforceable rights in the CHEVRON mark;
· according to the Whois records, the registrant information was recently updated to the current registrant, namely “Sugarcane Internet Nigeria Limited” because as recently as August 2, 2021, the registrant was listed as “Registration Private” by the organization DomainsByProxy.com in Arizona, and before that as recently as April 12, 2021, the registrant was listed as “China Capital Domain Fund Limited” in Hong Kong;
· the screen capture annexed to the Complaint shows that the disputed domain name currently resolves to an active website that contains a series of pay-per-click links to third party commercial offerings unrelated to Complainant from which Respondent presumably reaps financial reward;
· the displayed links shown in the screen capture pertain to credit union account management software, credit union refinance home loan, credit union new home loans, credit union personal loans and when considered together and presented in the context of Complainant’s CHEVRON mark, in particular with the services of Complainant’s licensee, and Complainant’s previous ownership of the disputed domain name, Respondent’s website creates the false impression that these links are related to, endorsed by, or otherwise associated with Complainant, which Complainant asserts they are not;
· another screen capture annexed to the Complaint shows that on October 4, 2021, while under the ownership of Respondent, the disputed domain name redirected Internet users to the <click-view-credit.report.xyz> domain name and website; that website displayed the CHEVRON mark and Chevron FCU name in the corner of the website together with a notice that there was a security breach of the user’s “personal information” and a notice encourages the users to log in to the link provided at the bottom of the page to receive a free “credit score” report, specifically stating “although [the user’s] credit score is free, a credit card will be required to validate [the user’s] identity”; and therefore upon information and belief, Respondent is, or was, using the disputed domain name in furtherance of a phishing scheme and to lend an air of legitimacy to that scheme, Respondent co-opted Complainant’s CHEVRON mark and Chevron FCU name in order to mislead and entice users into believing they are accessing a legitimate and secure Chevron FCU portal;
· Respondent’s misdirection of is further exacerbated by Chevron FCU’s previous ownership of the disputed domain name and its current ownership of a nearly identical domain name, namely, <chevronfcu.org>;
· Respondent is utilizing the disputed domain name in a calculated effort to either impersonate and pass itself off as Complainant online, obtain confidential and sensitive financial information of Complainant’s actual Chevron FCU customers, or to squat on the disputed domain name until Complainant offers to purchase the disputed domain name from Respondent for use again by Complainant’s Chevron FCU licensee;
· Respondent is not employed by or affiliated with Complainant or its related companies;
· Respondent authorized by Complainant or its related companies to carry out any “Chevron” business, offer CHEVRON-branded services, including credit-union or financial related services, or to hold itself out as being related to Complainant in any way;
· Respondent also is not authorized to conduct any business on Complainant’s behalf, nor to carry out any business under any domain name incorporating CHEVRON mark or Chevron’s name or CHEVRON FCU name;
· on information and belief, Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name or any names containing the CHEVRON mark;
· the Whois record in connection with the disputed domain name makes no mention of the Complainant or the CHEVRON mark.
· such unlicensed and unauthorized use of the disputed domain name that incorporates Complainant’s trademark is strong evidence that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name;
· Respondent has offered the disputed domain name to the public for sale at a price in excess of any reasonable out of pocket expenses for the disputed domain name incurred by Respondent and argues that Respondent’s attempt to sell the confusingly similar disputed domain name for a sum, specifically the registrant information contained within the WhoIs record states that the disputed domain name is for sale in the amount of $2,997.00;
It is well established that once a complainant makes out a prima facie case that a complainant has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to prove its rights or legitimate interests. Respondent has failed to discharge that burden and therefore this Panel must find that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Complainant has therefore succeeded in the second element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
It would appear that Complainant was the original registrant of the disputed domain name, (Complaint paragraph 10), but elsewhere it is stated that the disputed domain name was owned by Complainant’s licensee Chevron FCU.
Also Complainant states that it owns domain name <chevronfcu.org> but also states that <chevronfcu.org> is used by Chevron FCU.
The exact relationship between Complainant and Chevron FCU is unclear. It can be inferred that because Chevron FCU is a not-for-profit organization it is presumably independent of Complainant, but the Complaint appears to treat both entities as a singularity or members of the same group.
Complainant however asserts that Chevron FCU uses the CHEVRON mark under license from Complainant and it is clear from the submissions that there is a close relationship between Complainant and the not-for-profit eponymous credit union.
The disputed domain name was inadvertently not renewed and the evidence shows that it was subsequently transferred. It was held by different registrants in a chain of transactions and is now held by Respondent.
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CHEVRON mark. It is identical to the name of Complainant’s licensee Chevron FCU, and it is identical to the <chevronfcu.org> domain name which is used by Chevron FCU.
Given the fame of Complainant’s mark and the fact that Chevron FCU is established online on the website <chevronfcu.org>, it is improbable that Respondent was unaware of Complainant and it its licensee when the disputed domain name was acquired by Respondent.
Respondent has no business established with any connection with the mark CHEVRON or the names CHEVRON or Chevron FCU and in fact the evidence shows that it has offered the disputed domain name for sale to the general public.
This Panel is satisfied that Respondent acquired the disputed domain name because it references the name and goodwill of Complainant’s licensee. Such acquisition was on the balance of probabilities made in bad faith with the intention of taking predatory advantage of Complainant’s mark, the goodwill in the name Chevron FCU and to misdirect Internet users to Respondent’s website in order to benefit from pay-per-click revenue.
While it is unclear as to whether the original registration of the disputed domain name was owned by Complainant or its licensee, it is clear that the disputed domain name was originally registered in good faith.
The question arises as to whether the more recent acquisition of the disputed domain name by Respondent constitutes a “registration” for the purposes of the Policy.
In deciding this issue, and regretting that the Complaint failed to assist the Panel on this point, this Panel is guided by the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0”) which provides:
“3.9 Can the respondent’s renewal of its domain name registration support a finding of (registration in) bad faith?
Where the respondent provides satisfactory evidence of an unbroken chain of possession, panels typically would not treat merely “formal” changes or updates to registrant contact information as a new registration.
Also, irrespective of registrant representations undertaken further to UDRP paragraph 2, panels have found that the mere renewal of a domain name registration by the same registrant is insufficient to support a finding of registration in bad faith.
On the other hand, the transfer of a domain name registration from a third party to the respondent is not a renewal and the date on which the current registrant acquired the domain name is the date a panel will consider in assessing bad faith. This holds true for single domain name acquisitions as well as for portfolio acquisitions.
In cases where the domain name registration is masked by a privacy or proxy service and the complainant credibly alleges that a relevant change in registration has occurred, it would be incumbent on the respondent to provide satisfactory evidence of an unbroken chain of registration; respondent failure to do so has led panels to infer an attempt to conceal the true underlying registrant following a change in the relevant registration. Such an attempt may in certain cases form part of a broader scenario whereby application of UDRP paragraph 4(b)(iv), read in light of paragraph 4(a)(ii), can support an inference of bad faith registration for the respondent to rebut….
Facts or circumstances supporting an inference that a change in registrant has occurred may typically include a change in the content of the website to which a domain name directs to take advantage of the complainant’s mark or unsolicited attempts to sell the domain name to the complainant only following such asserted change in registrant.”
This Panel accepts that in the circumstances of this case where the disputed domain name appears to have been traded on a number of occasions, resting with Respondent, where Respondent, which has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name is benefitting from pay-per-click revenue and has not denied the allegations that the disputed domain name may have been used as part of a phishing scheme, the acquisition of the disputed domain name satisfies the test of having been “registered in bad faith” for the purposes of the Policy.
The specific links on Respondent’s website which have been adduced in evidence relate to financial services, however they may have been generated as a result of the specific device which was used to access the website and it is possible that a different device might generate different links. So that part of Complainant’s case is relatively weak, however, the evidence also shows that Respondent has been the unsuccessful respondent in a number of proceedings under the Policy and on the balance of probabilities is engaged in a pattern of acquiring and using domain names that incorporate third party trademarks in bad faith.
In these circumstances, this Panel also finds that on the balance of probabilities the disputed domain name is being used in bad faith
As this Panel has found that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith, Complainant has succeeded in the third element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <chevronfcu.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
James Bridgeman SC
Panelist
Dated: April 14, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page