Weatherford/Lamb, Inc. v. WGroup
Claim Number: FA1201001426468
Complainant is Weatherford/Lamb, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Carla B. Oakley of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, California, USA. Respondent is WGroup (“Respondent”), Great Britain.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <weatherford-group.com>, registered with Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a Publicdomainregistry.com.
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 A. Carmody, Esq., as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on January 25, 2012; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on January 25, 2012.
On January 26, 2012, Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a Publicdomainregistry.com confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <weatherford-group.com> domain name is registered with Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a Publicdomainregistry.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a Publicdomainregistry.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a Publicdomainregistry.com 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 January 31, 2012, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 21, 2012 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@weatherford-group.com. Also on January 31, 2012, 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 National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On February 23, 2012, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed James A. Carmody, Esq., as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration 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 National Arbitration 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 makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <weatherford-group.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s WEATHERFORD mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <weatherford-group.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <weatherford-group.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Weatherford/Lamb, Inc., is an oil field services company that provides products and services for drilling, evaluation, completion, production, research, and intervention of oil and natural gas wells. Complainant offers its services under its WEATHERFORD mark and has done so since 1941. Complainant holds multiple trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for its WEATHERFORD mark (e.g., Reg. No. 764,455 registered February 4, 1964).
Respondent, WGroup, registered the <weatherford-group.com> domain name on September 16, 2011. The disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website. However, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to host its e-mail communications in which Respondent attempts to phish for personal information by pretending to offer Internet users jobs with Complainant.
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 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(e), 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 and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); see also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.”).
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.
The Panel determines that Complainant sufficiently demonstrated its ownership of its USPTO trademark registrations for its WEATHERFORD mark (e.g., Reg. No. 764,455 registered February 4, 1964). Therefore, the Panel concludes that Complainant holds rights in the WEATHERFORD mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), regardless of the fact that Respondent does not reside or operate in the United States. See Expedia, Inc. v. Tan, FA 991075 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 29, 2007) (“As the [complainant’s] mark is registered with the USPTO, [the] complainant has met the requirements of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); see also Intel Corp. v. Macare, FA 660685 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 26, 2006) (finding that the complainant had established rights in the PENTIUM, CENTRINO and INTEL INSIDE marks by registering the marks with the USPTO); see also Williams-Sonoma, Inc. v. Fees, FA 937704 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 25, 2007) (finding that it is irrelevant whether the complainant has registered its trademark in the country of the respondent’s residence).
The Panel finds that Respondent’s <weatherford-group.com> domain name only differs from Complainant’s WEATHERFORD mark by the additions of a hyphen, the generic term “group,” and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.” The Panel determines that these additions fail to adequately distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant’s mark. See Teradyne, Inc. v. 4Tel Tech., D2000-0026 (WIPO May 9, 2000) (finding that the “addition of a hyphen to the registered mark is an insubstantial change. Both the mark and the domain name would be pronounced in the identical fashion, by eliminating the hyphen"); see also Am. Express Co. v. MustNeed.com, FA 257901 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 7, 2004) (finding the respondent’s <amextravel.com> domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s AMEX mark because the “mere addition of a generic or descriptive word to a registered mark does not negate” a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also Jerry Damson, Inc. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 916991 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 10, 2007) (“The mere addition of a generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com” does not serve to adequately distinguish the Domain Name from the mark.”). Thus, the Panel holds that Respondent’s <weatherford-group.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s WEATHERFORD mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) is satisfied.
Complainant alleges that Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <weatherford-group.com> domain name. The burden shifts to Respondent to prove it does have rights or legitimate interests when Complainant makes a prima facie case in support of its allegations under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). The Panel finds Complainant made a sufficient prima facie case. Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complaint allows the Panel to infer that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <weatherford-group.com> domain name. However, the Panel will examine the record to determine whether Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c). See Intel Corp. v. Macare, FA 660685 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 26, 2006) (finding the “complainant must first make a prima facie case that [the] respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to [the] respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests.”); see also Desotec N.V. v. Jacobi Carbons AB, D2000-1398 (WIPO Dec. 21, 2000) (finding that failing to respond allows a presumption that the complainant’s allegations are true unless clearly contradicted by the evidence).
The Panel notes that the WHOIS information identifies “Wgroup” as the registrant of the <weatherford-group.com> domain name. The Panel finds that Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and that Complainant did not authorize Respondent to use Complainant’s WEATHERFORD mark. As Respondent did not respond to this case and the Panel finds no evidence in the record indicating that Respondent is commonly known by the domain name, the Panel concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the <weatherford-group.com> domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Braun Corp. v. Loney, FA 699652 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 7, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain names where the WHOIS information, as well as all other information in the record, gave no indication that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain names, and the complainant had not authorized the respondent to register a domain name containing its registered mark); see also Reese v. Morgan, FA 917029 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 5, 2007) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <lilpunk.com> domain name as there was no evidence in the record showing that the respondent was commonly known by that domain name, including the WHOIS information as well as the complainant’s assertion that it did not authorize or license the respondent’s use of its mark in a domain name).
The Panel determines that Respondent does not make an active use of the <weatherford-group.com> domain name. The Panel finds that Respondent’s failure to make an active use is neither a Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) bona fide offering of goods or services nor a Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the <weatherford-group.com> domain name. See Pirelli & C. S.p.A. v. Tabriz, FA 921798 (Apr. 12, 2007) (finding that the respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests in a confusingly similar domain name that it had not made demonstrable preparations to use since its registration seven months prior to the complaint); see also VICORP Rests., Inc. v. Paradigm Techs. Inc., FA 702527 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 21, 2006) (finding that the respondent’s failure to use the disputed domain name for several years was not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)).
Moreover, the Panel finds that Respondent uses the disputed domain name for its intprojectdirector@weatherford-group.com and headrecruitment@weatherford-group.com e-mail addresses. The Panel determines that Respondent uses these e-mail addresses to contact Internet users interested in working for Complainant and tell them that they have been hired by Complainant. The Panel notes that Respondent then asks these Internet users for their personal information, such as addresses, date of birth, medical history, marital status, etc. The Panel concludes that Respondent’s use of the <weatherford-group.com> domain name constitutes phishing and an attempt to pass itself off as Complainant, which the Panel holds is evidence that Respondent does not own rights or legitimate interests in the <weatherford-group.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Juno Online Servs., Inc. v. Nelson, FA 241972 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 29, 2004) (finding that using a domain name in a fraudulent scheme to deceive Internet users into providing their credit card and personal information is not a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use); see also Am. Int’l Group, Inc. v. Busby, FA 156251 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 30, 2003) (finding that the respondent attempts to pass itself off as the complainant online, which is blatant unauthorized use of the complainant’s mark and is evidence that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name).
The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) is satisfied.
The Panel notes that the examples of bad faith registration and use prescribed in Policy ¶ 4(b) are intended to be illustrative and not exhaustive. See Digi Int’l Inc. v. DDI Sys., FA 124506 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 24, 2002) (determining that Policy ¶ 4(b) sets forth certain circumstances, without limitation, that shall be evidence of registration and use of a domain name in bad faith) Thus, the Panel may find bad faith beyond the parameters of Policy ¶ 4(b). See CBS Broad., Inc. v. LA-Twilight-Zone, D2000-0397 (WIPO June 19, 2000) (“[T]he Policy expressly recognizes that other circumstances can be evidence that a domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith”).
The Panel finds Respondent’s failure to make an active use of the <weatherford-group.com> domain name demonstrates Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Telstra Corp. v. Nuclear Marshmallows, D2000-0003 (WIPO Feb. 18, 2000) (“[I]t is possible, in certain circumstances, for inactivity by the Respondent to amount to the domain name being used in bad faith.”); see also Disney Enters. Inc. v. Meyers, FA 697818 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 26, 2006) (holding that the non-use of a disputed domain name for several years constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)).
The Panel further determines that Respondent registered and uses the <weatherford-group.com> domain name for the purpose of gaining personal information from Internet users interested in working for Complainant. The Panel finds that Respondent perpetrates its phishing scheme by using the disputed domain name in its e-mail address. As the Panel concludes that Respondent is guilty of phishing and attempting to pass itself off as Complainant, the Panel holds that Respondent registered and uses the <weatherford-group.com> domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Hess Corp. v. GR, FA 770909 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 19, 2006) (determining 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 Monsanto Co. v. Decepticons, FA 101536 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 18, 2001) (finding that the respondent's use of <monsantos.com> to misrepresent itself as the complainant and to provide misleading information to the public supported a finding of bad faith).
The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) is satisfied.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <weatherford-group.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
James A. Carmody, Esq., Panelist
Dated: February 24, 2012
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page