DECISION

 

American Petroleum Institute v. jason bell / api-offshore.com

Claim Number: FA2606002224462

 

PARTIES

Complainant is American Petroleum Institute ("Complainant"), United States, represented by Kelli A. Ovies of Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP, United States. Respondent is jason bell / api-offshore.com ("Respondent"), Australia.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <api-offshore.com>, registered with Squarespace Domains II LLC.

 

PANEL

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.

 

David E. Sorkin as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 1, 2026; Forum received payment on June 1, 2026.

 

On June 1, 2026, Squarespace Domains II LLC confirmed by email to Forum that the <api-offshore.com> domain name is registered with Squarespace Domains II LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Squarespace Domains II LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Squarespace Domains II 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 June 5, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 25, 2026 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@api-offshore.com. Also on June 5, 2026, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email 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, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On June 26, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed David E. Sorkin as Panelist.

 

Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that 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, Forum's Supplemental Rules, and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant is the largest U.S. trade association for the oil and natural gas industry. Complainant promotes its goods and services, including industry standards and training programs using the API mark, which it has used since at least as early as 1924. Complainant owns longstanding trademark registrations for API in standard character form in the United States and Australia, among other jurisdictions. Complainant states that its standards have been widely adopted across the industry both inside and outside the United States, and asserts that its API mark is recognized throughout the industry.

 

The disputed domain name <api-offshore.com> was registered in September 2025. The name is registered to Respondent, although Respondent's identity is redacted from the public domain name registration record. The domain name is being used for a website that promotes or purports to promote consulting services for offshore oil, gas, and renewable energy companies in the Asia-Pacific and international markets. Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name, has no connection or affiliation with Complainant, and is not licensed to use Complainant's mark.

 

Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <api-offshore.com> is confusingly similar to its API mark; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

DISCUSSION

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and 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 Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions, § 4.3 (version 3.1, 2026), available at https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview; UDRP Perspectives on Recent Jurisprudence, §§ 0.2, 0.8 (updated June 2, 2025), available at https://udrpperspectives.org/; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (dismissing complaint where complainant failed to "produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations").

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The disputed domain name <api-offshore.com> incorporates Complainant's registered API trademark, adding a hyphen, the generic term "offshore," and the ".com" top-level domain. These additions do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., American Petroleum Institute v. Sakthivel Panneerselvam / Cache digital, FA 2005698 (Forum Aug. 18, 2022) (finding <apitraininginstitute.com> confusingly similar to API); American Petroleum Institute v. Thomas Verbaet / Thomas Verbaet & Partners, FA 1972040 (Forum Dec. 28, 2021) (finding <api-globaltrade.com> confusingly similar to API); American Petroleum Institute v. Asa Zhang / Zhang, FA 1540536 (Forum Feb. 17, 2014) (finding <apirig.com> confusingly similar to API); The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc & National Westminster Bank plc v. Ho Nim, FA 1306772 (Forum Apr. 6, 2010) (finding <natwest-offshore.com> confusingly similar to NATWEST). The Panel considers the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Under the Policy, the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc. v. Entertainment Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).

 

The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's registered mark without authorization. It is being used for a website that purports to promote consulting services within Complainant's industry, using a name that combines Complainant's mark with a related generic term. Such use is unlikely to give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., American Petroleum Institute v. Sakthivel Panneerselvam / Cache digital, supra (finding lack of rights or interests in similar circumstances); American Petroleum Institute v. Asa Zhang / Zhang, supra (same); cf. American Petroleum Institute v. Thomas Verbaet / Thomas Verbaet & Partners, supra (finding rights or interests where respondent was incorporated under name containing mark and its services were marketed primarily in unrelated industries).

 

Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of such rights or interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered the disputed domain name "primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor." Under paragraph 4(b)(iv), bad faith may be shown by evidence that "by using the domain name, [Respondent] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent's] web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [Respondent's] web site or location or of a product or service on [Respondent's] web site or location."

 

Respondent registered a domain name incorporating Complainant's registered mark. The domain name is being used to promote consulting services within Complainant's industry, in a manner that the Panel infers is intended to suggest an association or other connection with Complainant. Respondent has not come forward to offer an alternative explanation, nor any evidence that Respondent is actually providing the advertised consulting services. Such circumstances are indicative of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See, e.g., American Petroleum Institute v. Sakthivel Panneerselvam / Cache digital, supra (finding bad faith registration and use where domain name was used to suggest relationship with complainant and promote competing or related services); American Petroleum Institute v. Asa Zhang / Zhang, supra (same); Cool Roof Rating Council, Inc. v. CRRC, Inc, FA 1082270 (Forum Nov. 27, 2007) (same). The Panel so finds.

 

DECISION

Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <api-offshore.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

David E. Sorkin, Panelist

Dated: June 26, 2026