Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. gentility base
Claim Number: FA2204001994534
Complainant is Chevron Intellectual Property LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Fred W. Hathaway of DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is gentility base (“Respondent”), Nebraska, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <chevrron.org>, registered with OwnRegistrar, Inc..
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 April 30, 2022; the Forum received payment on April 30, 2022.
On May 5, 2022, OwnRegistrar, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <chevrron.org> domain name is registered with OwnRegistrar, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. OwnRegistrar, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the OwnRegistrar, Inc. 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 May 11, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 31, 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@chevrron.org. Also on May 11, 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 parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On June 6, 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 domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant states that it is an oil/natural gas and energy company. Together with its parent company, it is one of the world's leading integrated energy companies 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 US 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 efficiency solutions; and development of future energy resources, including research for advanced biofuels. Complainant has rights in the CHEVRON mark through its registrations with numerous trademark agencies throughout the world, including in the United States in 1939. The mark is famous.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its CHEVRON mark as it consists of a misspelling of the mark (an extra “r” is added), with the addition of the “.org” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
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 CHEVRON mark in any way. Respondent did not use the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods and services, nor any legitimate noncommercial or fair use, but instead passed off as Complainant on the disputed domain name’s resolving website in furtherance of a phishing scheme. Specifically, the resolving website closely resembled Complainant’s legitimate website, displaying Complainant’s mark and distinctive logo, and offering prompts for users to input sensitive information under the guise of contacting Complainant.
Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith by disrupting Complainant’s business for commercial gain through passing off as Complainant on the disputed domain name’s resolving website in furtherance of a phishing scheme. Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the CHEVRON mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant owns the mark CHEVRON and uses it to market oil/natural gas and energy products.
Complainant’s rights in its mark date back to 1939.
The disputed domain name was registered in 2022.
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its marks.
Respondent used the disputed domain name to pass off as Complainant to conduct a phishing scheme: the resolving website mimicked Complainant’s website featuring Complainant’s mark and distinctive logo.
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 consists of a misspelling of Complainant’s CHEVRON mark (an extra letter “r” is added), along with the addition of the “.org” gTLD. Adding a letter and the “.org” gTLD is generally insufficient in differentiating a disputed domain name from the mark it incorporates under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Twitch Interactive, Inc. v. Antonio Teggi, FA 1626528 (Forum Aug. 3, 2015) (finding the <twitcch.tv> domain name confusingly similar to the TWITCH TV trademark because the domain name consisted of a common misspelling of the mark by merely adding the letter “c”); see also Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. NAMES REDACTED, FA1907869 (Forum Sept. 16, 2020) (where the only difference in the disputed domain names <cchevron.com>,<chveron.com>, and <chevrcn.com> was the addition of one or two letters resulting in a slight misspelling of Complainant’s mark, thus “each of the disputed domain names is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s CHEVRON 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 CHEVRON mark in any way. 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 “gentility base” Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
The resolving website closely resembled Complainant’s legitimate website, displaying Complainant’s mark and distinctive logo, and offering prompts for users to input sensitive information under the guise of contacting Complainant. Under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii), passing off as a Complainant on a disputed domain name’s resolving website to phish for user information is generally not considered a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See iFinex Inc. v. Yuri Hefetz / Genie-Solution, FA 1789385 (Forum July 9, 2018) (holding that the respondent’s mimicking the complainant’s website in order to cause existing or potential customers to falsely believe they are setting up a new account with the complainant is prima facie evidence of the respondent’s lack of rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name). Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offerings of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (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 used 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); see also Capital One Financial Corporation and Capital One Bank v. Austin Howel, FA 289304 (Forum Aug. 11, 2004) (finding bad faith where respondent used complainant’s mark to fraudulently induce transfer of credit and personal identification information). Therefore the Panel finds bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Further, by merely adding an extra letter “r” in Complainant’s mark, Respondent engages in typosquatting. A finding of typosquatting can evince bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Webster Financial Corporation and Webster Bank, National Association v. Zhichao Yang, FA2110001970133 (Forum Nov. 24, 2021) (“Typosquatting is a practice whereby a domain name registrant deliberately introduces typographical errors or misspellings into a domain name hoping that internet users will inadvertently type the malformed string when searching for products or services associated with the target trademark, or will otherwise confuse the misspelled trademark laden domain name with its target trademark, a web address, an email address, or some other reference to the mark holder.”); see also Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Hu, FA 157321 (Forum June 23, 2003) (finding that the respondent engaged in typosquatting, which is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)); see also Sports Auth. Mich., Inc. v. Skander, FA 135598 (Forum Jan. 7, 2002) (stating that “[b]y registering the ‘typosquatted’ domain name in [Complainant’s] affiliate program, Respondent profits on the goodwill of [Complainant’s] protected marks and primary Internet domain names,” which is evidence of bad faith registration and use). As such, the Panel finds bad faith typosquatting under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Finally, Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark: the resolving website mimicked Complainant’s website featuring Complainant’s marks and distinctive logo. 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 Am. Online, Inc. v. Miles, FA 105890 (Forum May 31, 2002) (“Respondent is using the domain name at issue to resolve to a website at which Complainant’s trademarks and logos are prominently displayed. Respondent has done this with full knowledge of Complainant’s business and trademarks. The Panel finds that this conduct is that which is prohibited by Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.”). 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).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <chevrron.org> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: June 6, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page