DECISION

 

American Petroleum Institute v. Robbie Wyness

Claim Number: FA2607002236261

 

PARTIES

Complainant is American Petroleum Institute ("Complainant"), represented by Kelli A. Ovies of Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP, North Carolina, USA. Respondent is Robbie Wyness ("Respondent"), Canada.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <apiprep.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.

 

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

 

Richard Hill as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on July 30, 2026; Forum received payment on July 30, 2026.

 

On August 3, 2026, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <apiprep.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 August 5, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 25, 2026 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@apiprep.com. Also on August 5, 2026, 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 formal response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. Respondent did however sent emails to Forum, see below.

 

On August 26, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Richard Hill 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 states that it is the largest U.S. trade association for the oil and natural gas industry. Complainant's mission is to promote safety across the industry globally and to influence public policy in support of a strong, viable U.S. oil and natural gas industry. Its chief functions include advocacy, research, standards setting, and certification. Additionally, Complainant publishes industry standards, markets training courses on these standards and other industry topics, and offers Individual Certification Programs ("ICP") based on the industry-developed standards. Complainant offers self-paced and instructor-led training courses, and also maintains a list of service providers that provide training related to its standards throughout the world. The courses provided by the global service providers can be searched via a course catalog accessible via Complainant's website at <api.org>. Complainant has used API as a mark to promote its good and services since at least as early as 1924. Complainant asserts rights in the mark API through its registration in the United States in 1959.

 

Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its API mark as it incorporates the entire mark and merely adds the generic/descriptive term "prep" (which stands for "preparation"), together with the ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD"). Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.

 

According to Complainant, Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant authorized or licensed Respondent to use its mark in any way. Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the disputed domain name is being used to direct visitors to a website purporting to offer "on-demand API Exam prep". The resolving website features the wording "API PREP" at the top of its home page, advertises study guides and practice exams with names that correspond to certain of API's ICP certifications, and includes the claim that "Studying for API Exams Just Got Easier". The very bottom of the website at the disputed domain name features a disclaimer in font noticeably smaller than that used elsewhere on the site stating: "The API Prep study materials and their content are neither endorsed by nor affiliated with the American Petroleum Institute". Just above the disclaimer is an acknowledgment, in equally small font, that "API® is a Registered Trademark of the American Petroleum Institute". This disclaimer does not preclude finding that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.

 

Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith as Respondent's use of Complainant's API mark is likely to confuse consumers about the source of the materials offered on Respondent's website given Complainant's use and ownership of the API mark for educational and training services, including training that oil and natural gas industry professionals may register for via Complainant's website at <api.org>. Respondent is using the disputed domain name to attract Internet users for commercial gain, given that the resolving site states that users will "Gain Full Access to [Respondent's] Extensive Resources" in exchange for payments of "just $35 per Month". Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the API mark. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a formal Response in this proceeding. In its emails to Forum, Respondent states, in pertinent part: "Without admitting liability or wrongdoing, we are willing to discontinue our use of the APIprep.com domain, rebrand the website and related materials under InspectorsPrep.com, and voluntarily transfer APIprep.com to the American Petroleum Institute in order to resolve this matter efficiently". 

 

FINDINGS

For the reasons set forth below, the Panel will not make any findings of fact.

 

DISCUSSION

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 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.").

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

For the reasons set forth above, the Panel will not analyze this element of the Policy.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

For the reasons set forth above, the Panel will not analyze this element of the Policy.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

For the reasons set forth above, the Panel will not analyze this element of the Policy.

 

DECISION

Given the common request of the Parties, it is Ordered that the <apiprep.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Richard Hill, Panelist

Dated: August 26, 2026