Sunmarks, LLC and Sunoco Overseas, Inc. v. Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico
Claim Number: FA2111001974419
Complainant is Sunmarks, LLC and Sunoco Overseas, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Philip J. Foret of Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young LLP, Pennsylvania, USA. Respondent is Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico ("Respondent"), Panama.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <sunocouniversalfleetline.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.
David E. Sorkin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on November 23, 2021; the Forum received payment on November 23, 2021.
On November 23, 2021, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by email to the Forum that the <sunocouniversalfleetline.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 November 30, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 20, 2021 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@sunocouniversalfleetline.com. Also on November 30, 2021, 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, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On December 26, 2021, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed David E. Sorkin 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 is Sunmarks, LLC and Sunoco Overseas, Inc., subsidiaries of Sunoco LP that own and license use of the SUNOCO mark in the United States and in other countries, respectively. Complainant owns longstanding trademark registrations for SUNOCO in standard character form and otherwise in the United States and other jurisdictions. The mark has been used for many years for fuel and oil products and related goods and services throughout the world. Complainant's affiliate Sunoco offers the SUNOCO Universal Fleet Card, a payment card for its commercial customers, using the <sunocouniversalfleetonline.com> domain name.
Respondent registered the disputed domain name <sunocouniversalfleetline.com> via a privacy registration service in October 2021. The domain name is being used to link or redirect to a rotating series of websites, some of which offer services that compete with those offered by Complainant. Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, is not affiliated with Complainant, and has not been authorized to use Complainant's mark.
Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <sunocouniversalfleetline.com> is confusingly similar to its SUNOCO 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.
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.
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 Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, § 4.3 (3d ed. 2017), available at http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/; 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").
The disputed domain name <sunocouniversalfleetline.com> incorporates Complainant's registered SUNOCO trademark, adding the generic terms "universal," "fleet," and "line" 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., Sunmarks, LLC & Sunoco Overseas, Inc. v. Domain Administrator / Fundacion Privacy Services LTD, FA 1933075 (Forum Mar. 29, 2021) (finding <sunocouniversalonline.com> confusingly similar to SUNOCO). The Panel considers the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights.
For essentially the same reasons as those stated in Sunmarks, LLC & Sunoco Overseas, Inc. v. Domain Administrator / Fundacion Privacy Services LTD, FA 1933075, supra, a case involving the same parties, a similar domain name, and substantially identical facts, the Panel finds that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
For essentially the same reasons as those stated in Sunmarks, LLC & Sunoco Overseas, Inc. v. Domain Administrator / Fundacion Privacy Services LTD, FA 1933075, supra, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <sunocouniversalfleetline.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: December 29, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page