Bechtel Group, Inc. v. Macy Adams
Claim Number: FA1312001534002
Complainant is Bechtel Group, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Laurie H. van Loben Sels of Duane Morris, LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Macy Adams (“Respondent”), Panama.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <bechtel-dc.com>, registered with ENOM, 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.
David E. Sorkin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on December 10, 2013; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on December 10, 2013.
On December 11, 2013, ENOM, INC. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <bechtel-dc.com> domain name is registered with ENOM, INC. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. ENOM, INC. has verified that Respondent is bound by the ENOM, 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 December 12, 2013, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 2, 2014 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@bechtel-dc.com. Also on December 12, 2013, 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 January 3, 2014, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed David E. Sorkin 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
Complainant is a holding company for a large group of international construction, procurement, and engineering companies. Complainant owns the BECHTEL mark, registered in the United States and elsewhere, and its companies have used the mark for more than eighty years. Complainant contends that the disputed domain name <bechtel‑dc.com> is virtually identical and confusingly similar to its BECHTEL mark.
Complainant further contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and that Respondent’s registration and use of the domain name are in bad faith. In support thereof, Complainant states that Respondent is not an authorized licensee of Complainant’s services or associated marks, and asserts that Respondent has not used or made demonstrable preparations to use the domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services, is not commonly known by the domain name, and is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name. Complainant states that the domain name resolves to a website containing content that Respondent copied from Complainant’s site, including Complainant’s name and logo, without Complainant’s authorization, and asserts that Respondent has not used the domain name in any way other than to impersonate Complainant. Complainant accuses Respondent of using the domain name as part of a fraudulent scheme to collect personal and financial information from persons seeking employment with Complainant.
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 has been 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(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.”).
The disputed domain name combines Complainant’s trademark with “dc” (possibly a reference to Washington, D.C.), separated by a hyphen, and the top-level domain suffix “.com”. These additions do not diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant’s mark. See, e.g., Sint, LLC v. Broadway Interior Furniture Inc., FA 1291286 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 9, 2009) (finding <sleepys‑ny.com> confusingly similar to SLEEPY’S); Bechtel Group, Inc. v. Eversz, FA 1512083 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 28, 2013) (finding <bechtel‑us.com> confusingly similar to BECHTEL). The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark.
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 Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 18, 2006).
The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s mark without authorization, and there is no evidence that the domain name has ever been used other than for fraudulent purposes. 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.
Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and has been used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, 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’s registration and use of the domain name for the purpose of impersonating Complainant, apparently as part of a fraudulent scheme aimed at job seekers, represent a clear instance of bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv). See Bechtel Group, Inc. v. Eversz, supra (finding bad faith based upon use of domain name incorporating BECHTEL mark to obtain personal and financial information from job seekers). The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name was registered and has been used in bad faith.
Having considered the elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <bechtel-dc.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: January 3, 2014
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page